Neighbourhood Planning Bill
Monday 10th October 2016
(8 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberNeighbourhood Planning Act 2017 Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Sajid Javid)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I welcome the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) to her new position. I wish her and her team all the very best.
I have been a Member of this House for six-and-a-half years. In the countless contacts I have had with my constituents over that time, one issue has come up more often and more consistently than any other: housing. I am sure other hon. Members would say the same. Whether it is a lack of affordable accommodation, standards not being met, calls for housing to be built on one site or campaigns against it being built on another, the subject dominates inbox, postbag and surgery alike. Meeting that challenge requires action on many fronts, but at the heart of it all is the need for a clear, fair and, above all, effective planning system.
My two Conservative predecessors at the Department for Communities and Local Government did more to reform planning than all their Labour counterparts combined. More than 1,000 pages of policy was reduced to just 50 and the Housing and Planning Act 2016 did much to streamline and speed up the process. It is a record of real action and real change that is already paying off. The year 2015 saw more planning permissions delivered than in any year since records began. Almost 900,000 new homes have been delivered in England alone since the start of 2010.
As I said just last week, however, there is much more to do. The Prime Minister has been absolutely clear that, if we are going to build a Britain that works for everyone, we need a housing market that works for everyone. That means doing still more to tackle the housing shortage by giving communities greater certainty over development and reducing the time it takes to get from planning permission to completion. This Bill will help us to do just that.
Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)
I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way so early. He is quite right about the inbox: this subject dominates so much of the dealings we have with our constituents. There are two areas the Bill does not cover that I think it ought to. I wonder if, over the course of the next few weeks, he and his fellow Ministers could consider whether the Bill should be amended to deal with them.
The first point is that inspectors, on dealing with developers’ appeals, take into account the number of planning permissions given but not the number of housing starts. Planning permissions are in the hands of the district planning authority, but housing starts are in the hands of the developer. If the developer will not make use of the planning permission, it is unfair on the district council and unfair on the affected neighbourhood that does not want to see the planning go ahead.
Secondly—I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will be very, very quick indeed—in relation to matters going up to an inspector, I gather from the Minister for Housing and Planning that they cannot be called in once they have gone to the inspector, but they ought to be if there is to be any even-handed justice and equality of arms.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Just before the Secretary of State responds, my patience with and tolerance of the extremely long intervention by the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not to be taken as a precedent.
Sajid Javid
My right hon. and learned Friend makes some very good points. The first part of his question was whether we might be able to take some of them into account in the Bill. I anticipate that at some point there will very likely be some amendments to the Bill. If that is the case, they will of course be discussed properly at that time. He made some suggestions that I will think about carefully, in particular regarding what some people call “landbanking” by certain developers.. I talked about that very important point last week in my party conference speech. It is something on which we will be taking further action.
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)
Might the Secretary of State also consider amendments that focus on the sustainability of new housing, in particular moving towards carbon-neutral housing, which also has the benefit of reducing cost to occupiers because of lower energy costs?
Sajid Javid
The right hon. Gentleman will know that several initiatives are already in place to make sure that new development is sustainable. A review is looking at what further measures we could take.
Neighbourhood plans are a key part of the Bill. Not all planning takes place at local authority level. Neighbourhood development plans, which were introduced in 2011, have proved to be extremely effective. Far from being a so-called nimby’s charter, some neighbourhood groups with plans in force have planned for housing numbers above the number set by the local authority for that area. Those communities have, on average, planned for 10% more homes. Neighbourhood planning gives residents and businesses greater certainty about developments in their area, ensuring that they have a choice on how best to meet local housing needs.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
The Bill contains some excellent provisions on neighbourhood planning, but neighbourhood plans are predicated on a local plan being in place. I represent two authorities: one has a local plan and the other does not. Will the Secretary of State, either through the Bill or otherwise, take strong action against those authorities that do not have a local plan in place?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend makes a good point about the lack of consistency in approach by neighbourhoods. So far some 2,000 community groups have got together, out of which some 240 neighbourhood plans have been adopted. We would like to see a lot more, and these measures will achieve just that. My hon. Friend will know that giving communities greater influence over the planning process can reduce the number of objections to planning applications so that more homes can be built more quickly.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
The introduction to the Bill says that one of its central aims is strengthening neighbourhood planning and giving local people more certainty over where homes will be built in their area. The Minister for Housing and Planning has said that putting power into the hands of local people to decide where development occurs is a key objective. The Secretary of State will be aware that Birmingham’s Labour council wishes to build 6,000 homes on the Sutton Coldfield green belt and no account has been taken of the virtually unanimous opposition of the royal town’s 100,000 residents, who have been completely disfranchised. Will he agree to take account of the unanimous view of the newly elected Sutton Coldfield town council, who are adamantly opposed to this on behalf of the 100,000 people they represent?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I have already made it clear that the first long intervention was not to be a precedent. This second long intervention is definitely not a precedent. I have been patient because this is the first day back, but perhaps Members who have served several decades in the House have forgotten that interventions have to be short. We have many Members wishing to speak this evening and I will have to impose a time limit, so it is simply wrong for interventions to take so long. Short interventions make good debate!
Sajid Javid
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) has spoken passionately about this issue before. I listened to him then and I have just listened to him again, and I will of course reflect on what he has said. I am sure he will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to talk about a specific planning application, but I will reflect on what he has just shared with the House.
The Housing and Planning Act reforms to speed up and simplify the process came into force just a few days ago, and the Bill will strengthen the process still further. It will make it easier to update a neighbourhood plan as local circumstances change. It will give communities confidence that advanced neighbourhood plans will be given proper consideration in planning decisions, and it will give neighbourhood plans full legal effect at an earlier stage.
Of course, there is no point giving control to communities if they do not know that they have it or lack the skills to use it. So the Bill will also require planning authorities to publish their policies for giving advice or assistance to neighbourhood planning groups. It will also allow the Secretary of State to require planning authorities to keep those policies up to date. These provisions will make the neighbourhood planning process fit for the future. They will make it more accessible for everyone, and they will ensure that neighbourhood plans are fully respected by decision makers.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
Should the Bill become an Act, will there be any circumstances in which a local authority can overrule a neighbourhood development plan that has been duly endorsed by said authority?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman may be aware that for a neighbourhood plan to become effective it needs to be adopted. It will be looked at by the inspector and a local referendum will be held. As I mentioned earlier, some 240 plans have gone through that process and, when that happens, they need to be given due weight in the consideration of planning decisions.
John Mann
I thank the Secretary of State for giving way again. He will know that Bassetlaw has more local plans in process and agreed than anywhere else, so we do know a little bit about them. If he is saying that a local council or the Secretary of State can decide to overrule a local community that has been through a huge, state-funded consultation, had a referendum and decided where the housing will go, what is the point?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman will know that once a neighbourhood plan is adopted, it becomes statutory and is taken into account when planning decisions are made. It is not a question of a local authority overruling a neighbourhood plan; once it is adopted, it is part of the local plan, so they are part of the same package, when it comes to making those decisions. Local authorities do not have the right to overrule a plan once it has been adopted.
Local and neighbourhood plans are vital tools for delivering new planning permissions. If we are to tackle the housing deficit, it is crucial that shovels hit the ground as soon as possible once permission has been granted for a development. There are a number of reasons why that does not always happen. One is because too many planning authorities impose too many pre-commencement conditions that unreasonably hold up the start of construction.
Of course, conditions can play a vital role. They ensure that important issues such as flood mitigation and archaeological investigation are undertaken at the right time. That is not going to change, but pre-commencement conditions should not be allowed to become unreasonable barriers to building. Not only do they delay the delivery of much-needed houses, but they create cash-flow issues for builders—something that is particularly problematic for smaller builders and new entrants to the market. To tackle this, the Bill reflects best practice by stopping pre-commencement conditions being imposed without the written agreement of the applicant. It will also create a power to restrict the use of certain other types of planning conditions that do not meet the well-established policy tests in the national planning policy framework. We are currently seeking views on both measures in a consultation paper published by my Department last month.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for taking a short lawyer’s intervention. When he is consulting on planning obligations, will he also consult on the option that was considered in the Housing and Planning Act 2016: the ability for local authorities to buy their own land with planning obligations, as the local planning authority? That would greatly speed up the redevelopment process in urban areas.
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend speaks with great experience on this subject, and it is something that I will consider.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the changes to pre-commencement regulations will not mean that developers will not be held to their obligations to develop the infrastructure surrounding new housing? It is often a real challenge for local communities if that is not delivered in a timely way.
Sajid Javid
I can assure my hon. Friend that the provisions will not mean that happens. Developers will still have clear obligations, and this process will ensure that they will be held to them.
The system of permitted development rights already offers a rapid means of turning commercial premises into much-needed homes. However, we lack accurate and precise data on how many homes are created in this way, which makes it all the harder to build the right number of homes in the right areas, so the Bill will create a requirement to record on the planning register certain applications made under permitted development rights. Collecting these data will bring more facts to the national conversation on house building, help communities to develop neighbourhood plans, and help planning authorities and inspectors to make informed, appropriate decisions. Such a move is long overdue.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Before my right hon. Friend moves on, may I ask whether he will use this Bill to clarify an issue that is much discussed in Wycombe: the status of green-belt land? Is it sacrosanct, or should local authorities review it with a view to getting their local plans through the inspector, who I am told will not pass local plans unless the green belt has been reviewed?
Sajid Javid
The Bill does not look at green-belt issues, and it does not change in any way the very important protections for the green belt. As my hon. Friend will know, green-belt development can be looked at only in the most exceptional circumstances, and the Bill will not change that.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
Before my right hon. Friend moves on, I was wondering whether he would mention the privatisation of the Land Registry. I understood that that was to have been done under the Bill, but that no decision was taken, and that the issue was, in effect, kicked into the long grass. Has privatisation of the Land Registry gone? Could it be brought back? Where are the Government on the issue?
Sajid Javid
As my hon. Friend has rightly identified, measures on the Land Registry are not part of the Bill, and the decision on privatisation will be for the Government to make in the future; it will not form part of this Bill, nor will it be introduced into the Bill in any shape or form at a later date.
Part 2 concerns compulsory purchase. In an ideal world, such a process would not exist. I would always prefer to see agreement secured through negotiation. However, as a last resort, we all know that it is sometimes necessary, and when that is the case, it is right that the process operates clearly, quickly and, above all, fairly. That does not always happen. Part of the problem is that the process is governed by a complex patchwork of statute and case law that has built up over many years. This slows the process down, increases costs, and bewilders individuals who are caught up in it. Ultimately, it benefits nobody—with the possible exception of lawyers. Clauses 9 to 30 will tackle these issues, making the system more effective, more transparent, cheaper and easier to navigate. Untying the tangle of red tape will speed up the process. Once again, this will mean more homes—and the infrastructure that is required to support them—getting built more quickly.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
On the compulsory purchase clauses, what action have the Government taken adequately to consult with Welsh stakeholders, and to learn the lessons of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, given that the Assembly voted down a legislative consent motion relating to the Act on the grounds of insufficient consultation with Welsh stakeholders?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Lady will know that there has been widespread discussion, and we are still in discussions with the Wales Office and Welsh stakeholders on the issue that she raises.
The first set of provisions will make the process of compulsory purchase clearer. They include consistent rules for temporary possession of land where a permanent compulsory purchase is not required, giving all relevant bodies the same powers. The Bill also establishes a clear and coherent framework for compensation in such cases, filling a long-standing gap in the law and ensuring that all landowners are treated fairly. It sets out exactly what a property owner’s rights and options are when faced with a temporary possession; it is the first time that has been enshrined in primary legislation. The Bill also provides a clearer way to identify market value, making it quicker and easier to agree compensation.
At the moment, the price paid for property subject to compulsory purchase is assessed in the so-called “no scheme world”. This is the market value of land if there were no threat of compulsory purchase, not taking account of any increase or decrease caused by the scheme. The no scheme world is a mixture of obscurely worded statute and over 100 years of sometimes conflicting case law. This Bill brings things up to date; it clarifies and codifies the no scheme world, without altering its core principles, to provide a clearer starting point for all compensation payments.
The new provisions put mayoral development corporations on the same footing as new town and urban development corporations for the purposes of assessing compensation, and extend the definition of “scheme” in those limited circumstances in which regeneration is enabled by a transport project. The Bill repeals redundant legislation that allowed additional compensation to be negotiated after the original settlement. This will further reduce the potential for confusion and uncertainty.
The next set of provisions make the process faster. They create a statutory deadline for bringing confirmed compulsory purchase orders into effect. They also allow Transport for London and the Greater London Authority to make a single, overarching compulsory purchase order for transport and regeneration purposes. At present, they have to artificially divide projects and run parallel processes. This causes unnecessary cost, confusion and delay to much-needed development.
The final clauses will make compulsory purchase fairer. In particular, they ensure that where property is acquired by compulsion, the compensation entitlement is fair to all business tenants occupying the property. They will align the disturbance compensation entitlement of businesses with minor or unprotected tenancies with the more generous entitlement of licensees.
There are already many excellent examples of local authorities working together to meet the housing needs of their areas. Through devolution deals, we have seen combined authorities’ ambitions to bring forward strategic plans that address the needs of real-world communities, rather than of administrative divisions. I want to see more of this. I want more joint planning, more tiers of government working together and, of course, more plans put in place. I want all areas to have one. Failing to put a plan in place creates uncertainty among communities, who are left with no idea of what will be built where, and it creates resentment when developments are eventually imposed through speculative applications.
The House will not be surprised to learn that I agree with the central thrust of the local plans expert group’s recommendations in this area. We need more co-operation and joint planning. The requirement to have a plan should not be in doubt, and the process for putting a plan in place needs to be streamlined. As the expert group set out, most of those changes can and should be made through national policy and guidance, rather than through primary legislation. Should primary legislation be required, I look to use this Bill as the vehicle for it. If we do use the Bill in that way, we will of course ensure that the House has sufficient time to consider the provisions.
In conclusion, we have a nationwide shortage of high-quality, secure, affordable housing. To tackle this, we need new ideas, new policies and new legislation. This Bill provides a solid foundation on which to build. The Bill gives greater responsibility to local communities, letting them decide what sort of development they should have, and where it should take place. It removes more of the red tape that all too often delays construction. It gives us more of the data we need to make informed decisions about planning, and brings the compulsory purchase system firmly into the 21st century, turning it into a well-tuned machine for making development happen. Moreover, the Bill has been welcomed by the British Property Federation, the Royal Town Planning Institute and many others. Above all, the Bill will make it easier to build the homes that our children and grandchildren are crying out for. That is why I am delighted to commend it to the House.
Teresa Pearce (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
I would like to put on record my thanks to the Secretary of State for his warm welcome.
The Neighbourhood Planning Bill does not appear at first glance to be a controversial one. Indeed, it includes many measures that we support. There are, however, elements of the Bill that could be strengthened or amended, so it was good to hear the Secretary of State say that he might be open to amendments in Committee. Labour Members will support appropriate measures that seek to streamline the delivery of much-needed new homes and further engage local people in the shaping of their communities.
We urgently need new homes, so it is a shame that the Bill misses measures to achieve what was announced in the Queen’s Speech in May, namely putting the National Infrastructure Commission on a statutory footing. However, we are pleased that, following pressure from both sides of the House, the unnecessary step to privatise the Land Registry has been dropped. That has been warmly welcomed by almost everybody in the housing sector, but the Bill must be seen in context, and it cannot be detached from the wider housing crisis we currently face.
The Government say that the aim of the Bill is to free up more land for new housing and to expedite the beginning of building once planning permission has been granted. We face the biggest housing crisis in a generation and urgently need more homes, and the Bill does not go far enough to provide them. The Bill could do so much more to encourage development and engage local residents in the process.
The Bill introduces measures in four key areas: neighbourhood planning, planning conditions, the planning register and compulsory purchase orders. The proposals on neighbourhood planning will allow neighbourhood plans to influence the planning process at an earlier stage, and will help to streamline the making and revision of neighbourhood plans. We support measures to streamline neighbourhood planning and to promote the ability of local residents to participate, but the Bill raises a number of questions. First, as the British Property Federation has noted, greater clarity is needed on the level and weight attributed to neighbourhood plans at every stage of their preparation. For example, more clarity is needed on whether a general direction of travel of a neighbourhood plan would be considered in the determination of a planning application.
Secondly, there is huge concern surrounding resources and the impact that the measure will have on our already stretched local planning authorities. Many of them already lack the resources they need to promote quality placemaking. The new measures make significant demands in terms of time and resources, and many planning departments are working on local plans before the deadline next year. How will the Minister ensure that they will be able to resource both adequately? Local authorities have a statutory duty to support neighbourhood planning groups and to provide a local plan. That could present problems for smaller district councils that have limited resources and capacity to respond to multiple pressures.
Teresa Pearce
I would rather not give way because many hon. Members want to speak and we are short of time.
The Bill needs further measures to clarify the true costs of neighbourhood plans. Currently, councils receive £5,000 for each neighbourhood plan area designated, and £20,000 for each neighbourhood plan referendum, but those figures are the same regardless of the number of electors or the complexity or size of the neighbourhood plan. The costs can exceed the moneys that the council receives.
In addition, neighbourhood planning must be open to all, and disadvantaged communities need to be able to participate. Neighbourhood planning comes with complexities and can require professional support. Planning Aid England and the RTPI help to support groups across the country pro bono, but the Government should adequately support local planning authorities and local communities to shape development in their areas.
The Bill allows the Secretary of State to prescribe when councils should review their statement of community involvement, but why are local councils, which understand their communities and can respond directly to local needs, not trusted to decide when to review their statements of community involvement? Why cannot that be decided at local level rather than being imposed from above? A better balance can be achieved, possibly through amendments in Committee.
The British Property Federation has made a number of recommendations on neighbourhood planning that the Government have failed to explore, including ensuring that neighbourhood plans are consistent with and conform to the national planning policy framework, and setting a minimum turnout threshold in referendums on the adoption of neighbourhood plans. I would be interested to hear whether the Minister is receptive to those suggestions.
The greatest concern in the Bill is on pre-commencement planning conditions. Councils approve almost nine of every 10 planning applications and there is little evidence to suggest that development is being delayed by pre-commencement planning conditions. There has been a cautious reception for the Bill from the sector. London Councils has said that there is little robust evidence to suggest that the current planning conditions system has led to an under-supply of housing.
Chris Philp
Before being elected to the House, I ran a business that financed construction projects. I have to tell the hon. Lady that people engaged in such projects frequently complain about the onerous conditions. To give one example, they complain about the requirement to have a bat survey.
Chris Philp
And newt surveys. Such surveys can be done only at certain times of the year. That is a very onerous and often very serious set of conditions.
Teresa Pearce
I am very interested in the hon. Gentleman’s previous employment, but people always complain about restrictions. Our job is to balance the complaints of the developer against what is best for a local community. I am yet to see firm statistical evidence of how much pre-commencement planning conditions restrict building.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Gavin Barwell
If the hon. Lady is not inclined necessarily to listen to the voice of developers, may I refer her to the representations all hon. Members have received from the District Councils Network? It states:
“The DCN has acknowledged that the discharge of planning conditions can be a factor in slow decision making and supports the government in seeking to address conditions.”
Teresa Pearce
I thank the Minister for his intervention but I would like to see real statistical evidence. Are we trying to solve a problem that does not exist? We all have anecdotal evidence, but perhaps in Committee we will see more evidence.
It is my experience that some developers welcome pre-commencement planning conditions because they enable planning permission to be secured without finalising the full details. It can save work duplication. For example, a developer may not wish to spend significant amounts of time deciding between different types of render for the outside of a development when they know it could be agreed at a later date. Indeed, a condition could be established in the consent to match the local area and street scene.
London Councils says that the measure will put considerable strain on the resources of local planning authorities. It proposes that a better solution would be to promote best practice in pre-application discussions between developers and local planning authorities. There are questions on the process. For example, what if late representations are received, and what if a councillor wishes to add a pre-commencement condition on the night of the planning committee?
Behind that lies the fact that pre-commencement planning conditions are not a bad thing. They have an important role in securing sustainable development that is careful and considerate of local communities. Conditions should be imposed only when consent would not be acceptable without them. By allowing room for negotiation, we are changing the nature of how conditions are set and their purpose. We could inadvertently either encourage inappropriate development by lowering our standards of acceptable development or, when disagreement arises between applicant and planning authority, discourage developers from building, which no hon. Member wants. There are questions about whether the measure is necessary. I look forward to seeing the stats behind it to show that it is. There is an existing framework for applicants to appeal specific conditions that they consider do not meet the national policy tests.
If we are to proceed, it is essential to ensure that the Bill does not have unintended negative consequences. Greater clarity is needed on appeal routes when agreement cannot be reached, and on pre-completion and pre-occupation conditions. It is right that there is a public consultation, but even if the Bill becomes law, I do not anticipate it adding any of the extra homes that we urgently need. It is not pre-commencement planning conditions that slow planning consent, but the chronic underfunding of local planning authorities. It is not pre-commencement planning conditions that slow construction, but the drastic skills shortage in the construction sector. It is not pre-commencement planning conditions that slow new schemes coming forward, but the lack of strategic infrastructure involvement.
Teresa Pearce
I am afraid I need to move on because many hon. Members wish to speak and the hour is late. [Interruption.] There are lots of Government Members.
The Bill makes provision for permitted development to be recorded on the planning register. Given the existing pressures and further commitments in the Bill— I have mentioned the wider question of resourcing—I should like the Minister to consider the funding of planning authorities. When local authorities are pressed for resources—they must decide, for example, between child protection and adult social services—planning is often squeezed.
The Bill attempts to streamline compulsory purchase powers, and includes temporary possession of land to enable schemes to store equipment and machinery so that they can be delivered. The temporary possession of land has been used widely in my constituency under the Crossrail Act 2008. The proposed changes to compulsory purchase orders would enable councils to capture the value from increased land prices to invest in the local infrastructure needed to complement and facilitate new housing schemes. While that can accelerate development, CPOs still require approval from the Secretary of State. Nevertheless, it is hoped that those measures will help to encourage development.
Perhaps the most striking thing about the Bill is what is not in it. Along with the Local Government Association and others, we welcome the news that the Government have not included the planned privatisation of the Land Registry. Will the Minister clarify whether the initiative to privatise the Land Registry has bitten the dust? Has it been kicked into the long grass or is in the rubbish bin?
The Bill is quite different from the measure outlined in the Queen’s Speech earlier this year. The Prime Minister said in her conference speech last week,
“something…we need to do: take big, sometimes even controversial, decisions about our country’s infrastructure.”
However, in the Bill, the Government’s proposal to place the National Infrastructure Commission on a statutory footing has been withdrawn. I hope that the Government will think again.
The Bill aims to build houses, but it does nothing to build communities. The failure to provide the commission with statutory powers to enable strategic decision making on infrastructure is a missed opportunity to tackle the housing crisis. The House Builders Association, which represents small and medium-sized builders, said that the Bill was unlikely meaningfully to increase supply.
This is the sixth piece of legislation in the past six years to make provision for planning. Another Bill passes and the Government fail adequately to resource planning departments, which have faced a 46% cut in funding over the past five years. A recent survey by the British Property Federation identified under-resourcing as the primary cause of delays to development. Another Bill passes, and the Government fail to increase the transparency of viability assessments, which many people believe is the key to ensuring that there is sufficient and appropriate affordable housing. Another Bill passes and we are no closer to developing garden cities and new towns, which we need to build to ensure that our children and our children’s children can find a home of their own.
The Bill will not deliver social housing and the genuinely affordable homes that are desperately needed. It will not provide facilities on new housing developments that are required to build communities, and it is unlikely to facilitate opportunities for the struggling SME builder, or tackle the growing skills crisis in the construction sector. The Bill has failed to tackle those issues, but I am interested to hear the Minister say that there is an appetite to look at the Bill and perhaps amend it in Committee. If it is not amended, the missed opportunity will manifest itself in a continued housing crisis until the Government can step up and match their rhetoric with substance.
Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)
I have to admit that I did not expect to be stirred by the statements of the shadow Secretary of State, but her remarks about clause 7 would strike anyone who has been engaged with the planning system over the past many years as quite extraordinary. Pre-commencement conditions imposed by local authorities are a major cause of delay and also distract the officials who she complained were underfunded. One reason why they are over-occupied is that they are too preoccupied issuing absurd pre-commencement conditions that are not properly enforced and lead to massive delays in the process. I warmly welcome clause 7, and hope that the regulations introduced by the Secretary of State will be extremely strong on that issue and will be accompanied by measures to enable us to do in parallel what is currently done in sequence. It takes about two years on average from the time of the first application to the actual completion of homes. Other countries manage that in a year or less, and we could too if processes that are currently done repetitively and in sequence were done in parallel and singly. I hope that we will see those regulations as the Bill proceeds.
Those of us who have been involved with neighbourhood planning since the Conservatives first introduced the proposals—amazingly, nine years ago—are conscious of its huge success. We were told at the beginning that it would be a nimby’s charter, as the Secretary of State rightly mentioned. We were told by others that it would never grip the nation and that there would not really be any neighbourhood plans, but we find that they have been introduced in some 2,000 places. Judging by my constituency, that is the beginning of a tidal wave: more than half the villages of West Dorset intend to engage in neighbourhood planning, and that is increasingly the case for the towns as well. There is no doubt, as the Secretary of State rightly said, that the measure is far from being a nimby’s charter, but as communities engage in neighbourhood planning they wrestle with two conflicting issues: their desire to preserve the look and feel of the places in which they live, which is a reasonable human desire; and the desire that their children and grandchildren should be able to find a home in the locality. I do not know whether the Secretary of State has experienced this, but people have come to my constituency surgery in tears because they could not get a foot on the housing ladder. I cannot remember another subject that has provoked that kind of emotional intensity. For families who have grown up, in some cases over hundreds of years, in small villages where they simply have not been able to build, this is liberation. It has been brought about by neighbourhood planning, because the community feels that it can control the shape and character of what is built so that it is appropriate to the location. That is not something that can be judged from miles away: it is judged on the spot by the locals, and it is a huge success. I therefore warmly welcome clauses 1, 2 and 5, which are the guts of the Bill.
I want to make a few observations about things that I hope can be developed in Committee and on Report. Clause 5 deals with assistance for neighbourhood plans. I had hoped that it would be a little stronger and meatier. It simply requires local authorities to produce an explanation of what they will do to support neighbourhood planning. That is fine—there is nothing wrong with that at all—but I know local authorities, and I suspect that the Department does too, that will write any number of plans and do absolutely nothing. What is needed is the ability for neighbourhoods—in some cases, hard-pressed neighbourhoods that do not have much money; in other cases, neighbourhoods that are small parishes that do not have much money—to get on with the job of neighbourhood planning. I do not think that anyone can expect the public purse to meet those costs, so we need to examine the proposal introduced by the National Association of Local Councils for more of the community infrastructure levy to be devoted to neighbourhood plans, at least when they introduce local development orders, which are extremely effective. We should also look at the possibility of a loan arrangement, in which money from the community infrastructure levy for a neighbourhood plan is used to repay or defray the costs of engaging in the exercise.
It is not a simple exercise. In most neighbourhoods that I have visited up and down the country, and in my own constituency, hundreds of people get involved and it is quite a management exercise. Neighbourhoods can only do it if they employ one or two people who can put the vision up on the board, explain what is proposed, and go through the detailed process—the examination, the referendum and so on—which requires up-front funding. I hope that that can be looked at.
Finally, clauses 1 and 2 are long overdue. In retrospect, we should have introduced them right at the beginning, in the 2010 legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) and I were both involved in that, and it is great to see weight being given to post-examination, as in clause 1, and it is absolutely right that post-referendum neighbourhood plans should go into local development plans even if the local authority does not, for one reason or another, complete the task of introducing them. That is an excellent provision in clause 2. However, my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) made a point that is highly relevant. As the Secretary of State said, there are too many local authorities that have not yet introduced new-style local development plans. Unless the neighbourhood plan is couched in terms of a new-style local development plan with a proper strategic grip it is impossible to formulate the right kind of neighbourhood plan, which must conform to the strategic considerations of the local development plan. In some cases, I fear, local authorities have discovered that they can stymie the ability of neighbourhoods to produce neighbourhood plans simply by being recalcitrant about producing new-style development plans.
Given that, in clause 7, the Secretary of State is rightly taking powers to make regulations relating to pre-commencement conditions, I think he should at least consider the possibility of taking further powers to force local authorities to produce new-style local development plans, or else simply to allow a neighbourhood plan to stand in as the development plan for that neighbourhood, sui generis. Either would do, but I think that something must be done to address the problem raised by my hon. Friend.
Having said that, I will end by saying that the Bill is a progressive piece of legislation which should be welcomed throughout the House and throughout the country, because it may help our children and grandchildren to have the homes that they need.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I must congratulate the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) on a perfect speech. In my opinion, of course, the content does not count; what counts is merely the length, in precise minutes. I was about to say to the House—but the right hon. Gentleman has illustrated my point perfectly—that if everyone who wishes to take part in the debate speaks for between seven and eight minutes, as the right hon. Gentleman has just done, everyone will have the opportunity to speak, and there will be no need for a formal time limit. If Members do not stick to a self-imposed time limit, there will be a formal time limit, which makes for much less easy-flowing debate.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
Before I express my agreement with the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) on one important point, let me congratulate the Secretary of State on his brilliant campaign 18 months ago to stop the development of more than 2,000 houses, which was well advertised in his local newspaper. He is truly the king of the nimbys—or, as some would say, he is backing his constituents and his local communities. That contrasts slightly with the message that I understand him to have conveyed somewhere last week when he was attacking the nimbys, because over the past two or three years, following his successful campaign, he has been the greatest of all the nimbys in the House.
I should like to see precisely what the right hon. Member for West Dorset proposed. If a neighbourhood goes through the pain and democracy of agreeing on where more houses should be built in its community, which is part of the requirement of a neighbourhood development plan, and if that is agreed by referendum and endorsed by the local council, it should not be possible to overrule such a level of democracy; but it is.
For example, at the most recent planning committee meeting in the Sturton ward in Bassetlaw, which I know extremely well, the neighbourhood development plan was overruled because the planning officers pointed to the Government’s five-year housing land supply, as identified by the developer. They said, “You can’t have that; you’ve got to have this.” In other words, they said, “You have a plan. You have specified where the housing should be, and what type of housing it should be. A huge number of members of the community participated in the consultation, there was a massive turnout for the ballot, and the plan was unanimously adopted by the district council, but you cannot do it, because Big Brother”—the king of the nimbys—“says that you have to have this, because you have not got enough housing.” However, they had just agreed that they would have more housing. The people who had agreed to have more housing were overruled, which is a total nonsense. The Government could do something about it today, but if they feel that they do not have the necessary power they could stick it in the Bill and then some of us would be happy, because that would be local democracy.
It is not true that the Government are not responsible for the delays in local development plans. On 1 March 2013, 95% of councils in England had to start their development plans again because of a change in the rules that was announced out of the blue, whereby everyone had to consult every adjoining authority. That is why there has been a delay in my area, which, proportionally, has more neighbourhood development plans either agreed or under way than anywhere else in the country. We have adopted this philosophy. I have argued the case in communities throughout my constituency. However, the whole process has to start again because we have not consulted Sheffield, Mansfield and other places that are nowhere near the 500 square miles of Bassetlaw.
That is a nonsense, and the Government could do something about it instantly. Our plan would be speeded up overnight if that happened. The public would be consulted, and would agree where housing should go. The Government would get their numbers, and we would get our housing everywhere. Even Bromsgrove would get the housing that it needs.
Let me give a couple of examples of the beauty of neighbourhood development plans. The Sturton ward provides one of the prime examples in the country of how a development plan should be written: an environmentally green development plan that specifies the kind of energy that we want in the community, the implication being that priority in new housing will go to developers who use green technologies. That is a community which is looking to the future and encouraging the right kind of housing. Such planning will enhance green technologies in this country, unlike the arbitrary wind farms and so forth which communities, strangely, do not like. Let communities have control through their development plans. The Government could announce that today—and that is my second request to the Minister.
When mayors are coming to city regions like the new Sheffield city region of which Bassetlaw will doubtless become a part, we should let those new mayors have the appeals. Let us localise the process more, so that there is more accountability, which will mean more housing rather than less. Let us take the process away from the Minister and the Minister’s officials. Surely that appeals to Tory Back Benchers and their sense of community.
Another big plan of which we in Bassetlaw are pioneers is the urban neighbourhood development plan. Virtually everywhere in the country has villages and parishes with parish precepts. They have a bit of money, and they have a democratic structure—rightly so—and that includes parts of my area. But how can such plans be created in an urban area where there is no such structure? It is necessary to think imaginatively. We had the great historic priory church and the Chesterfield canal, and we said to the community, “This is why the church is here, and this is how houses have developed. The church, as an institution and as a building, formed the centre of the community.” Neighbourhood planning of that kind would transform urban environments through lateral thinking. As for funding, hopefully the Canal & River Trust might lend us a plan or put in a bit of money, because the development of the canal would obviously be in its interests.
We have recreated the old, traditional church community. Imagine how planning in this country would have developed if the same had been done in the case of great cathedrals such as St Paul’s 30 years ago! Perhaps people who would visit the other place rather than here would be happy about what might have happened at St Paul’s.
The ability to define community by what has historically been there—waterways, forests and churches—is fundamental to the possibility of transforming urban planning through neighbourhood development planning. The key barrier will be money. That little impoverished community in my area around the great priory church, which was once the biggest church in the country—the end of the road through the forest, historically—has no funding itself, and has no structures for funding. We could have 30 or 40 urban neighbourhood development plans in my communities, but that would impose a huge burden on a small district council. The Government need to think about how to provide incentives, and get the models going. In Retford, for instance, the church is keen to be not just “church as building” but “church as the heart of the community”. Retford can lead the way in developing the built community around the church. Not just churches, but the many communities that have been built around those churches historically, need that kind of original thinking. That could be allowed, but the Government need to give a bit of flexibility. The powers that are local must be kept local. The Government must not overrule them.
Mark Pawsey
The hon. Gentleman is speaking with great eloquence about local powers. Would he care to tell us what happened to local powers between 1997 and 2010?
John Mann
The hon. Gentleman ought to know that neighbourhood planning had its origins in the 2003 legislation. That is how Bassetlaw got in first, and I have been around since then promoting it. The concept has been part of the planning arrangements since 2003.
I have endorsed the moves by the Government, except for the absurd one introduced on 1 March 2013 to stop all the development plans and frameworks that were in progress and delay them for three years. That was a chronic error on the part of past Ministers. I hope to hear from the Minister that the Secretary of State and the Government will not overrule neighbourhood development plans on appeal. They must send out the message that if a community takes responsibility for where its new housing and the rest of its developments should be, it will not be overruled by the Government. That could be done today; it would be a huge boost to communities across the country.
Mrs Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Finding a way to build the new homes we need while ensuring that we safeguard our green spaces and protect the character and quality of life in our urban and suburban neighbourhoods is one of the biggest challenges we face in modern Britain. We clearly have to respond to the concerns of the many young people who are finding it difficult to buy or rent the homes they want in the places where they want to live. In my view, however, it is also crucial that we do all we can to protect our open spaces, which play such an important role in the towns and cities of this great country of ours. As an MP representing a constituency that includes substantial areas of green-belt land, I am very much aware of how important it is to maintain full green-belt protection. I welcome the fact that the Bill is entirely consistent with that aim. It is crucial to prevent the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas, to conserve wildlife habitats and to provide crucial opportunities for outdoor health and sporting activities.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend also acknowledge that we need to conserve the ecology of such areas, especially through the use of hedgehog superhighways?
Mrs Villiers
I warmly agree with my hon. Friend’s sentiment and commend his hedgehog campaign.
A number of provisions in the Bill will be helpful in delivering the new homes that we need and to which the Government are committed. We have had some helpful insight into how clauses 1 to 6 will help to strengthen neighbourhood planning and make it more effective. Establishing a register of prior approval applications for permitted development rights under clause 8 will also be welcomed, not least because of the concern felt about such rights. More visibility and transparency will be helpful in that regard. Clauses 9 to 30 look as though they will make the eye-watering complexity of some aspects of the compulsory purchase system somewhat easier to navigate. I hope that that will assist some of the major regeneration schemes.
However, a concern has been raised with me by my constituent Dr Oliver Natelson about the provisions in clause 7 on pre-commencement planning conditions, about which my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) has spoken eloquently. Dr Natelson was worried when media coverage of the announcement of the Bill in the Queen’s Speech indicated that obligations to carry out archaeological and wildlife surveys would be “swept away”. I welcome the Secretary of State’s clarification on that today, and I invite the Minister to expand on it and to confirm that clause 7 will not restrict the power of local councils to impose the planning conditions necessary to make a development acceptable, including those relating to wildlife, habitats, flooding and heritage.
I would also urge the Minister to consider an important point that is not covered by the Bill. It relates to vacant public sector land. An example in my constituency is a site in Wood Street in High Barnet that is owned by the NHS but has not been used for many years and is becoming increasingly derelict. No matter how many times I raise this with the NHS, nothing seems to happen. In my view, it should take a decision either to use it for healthcare purposes or to sell it on so that it can be used for new homes or open space.
I should like to illustrate some of the general issues underlying the Bill and its objectives by considering the situation in my Chipping Barnet constituency. Over the last five years, around 5,300 new homes have been delivered in the borough of Barnet, including more than 2,000 affordable homes. This is the biggest programme of house building in outer London, and Barnet’s Conservative council plans to deliver another 20,000 homes over the next 10 years. In order to do that while conserving our precious green spaces and protecting the character of our suburban environment, the council has embarked on a number of large regeneration projects. These include four of the borough’s largest housing estates, one of which is Dollis Valley in my constituency. These regeneration projects are due to deliver 7,000 new homes—4,000 more than were previously on the estates—with a mix of social rent, affordable and market rate homes to buy. Although this work started over 10 years ago, it has much in common with the council estate regeneration strategy announced by the Government in February. By 2020, it is hoped that the council will have built 500 new council homes. So far, 40 have been built but the pace of delivery is increasing.
A key consideration in relation to planning and house building, whether in national debates in Parliament such as this one or in local discussions on development proposals, is whether the local infrastructure can cope with the new demands being placed on it. Locally in Barnet, work is under way to try to deliver this in relation to the housing schemes I have mentioned. For example, 10 new or replacement schools are planned across the borough at primary and secondary level, as well as new college and university buildings. I also warmly welcomed the recent opening of the Hope Corner community centre as part of the Dollis Valley regeneration scheme in my constituency, and I thank Barnet Council and Barnet Churches Action for enabling that to happen. I am sure that the community centre will be a great asset for the many new homes that are already being delivered as part of the regeneration.
However, issues surrounding infrastructure are sometimes difficult or impossible to resolve. In my constituency, that is particularly true when they relate to local roads and transport. This was one of the many reasons I opposed the redevelopment of Cat Hill on the boundary of my constituency. It is deeply regrettable that my constituents are already suffering the negative consequences of Enfield Council’s decision to grant planning permission for that project. I am also concerned about a proposal to redevelop the North London Business Park in the Brunswick Park area of my constituency. Many residents are strongly opposed to this plan, and understandably so. I try to support new homes where I can, but that application is just not acceptable. Some 1,200 new homes are proposed, including five blocks at least seven storeys high, with other blocks of up to 10 storeys high. As my constituent Gilbert Knight put it in his representations to the planning authority, this would be
“massive in scale and out of keeping with the surrounding low-rise residential areas”.
Another grave concern is the proposal to create an entrance to the site from Ashbourne Avenue. A similar proposal was rejected back in the 1960s because the roads could not cope with it, and I sincerely hope that it will be rejected again for that reason. That is one of the many reasons I am resolutely opposed to this development, alongside ward councillor Lisa Rutter.
I should like to move on to some happier examples in which the planning system looks as though it will deliver new homes in a way that is much more acceptable to local residents and much more in tune with the local environment. New Barnet provides an example of how active community associations can shape the character of their local neighbourhoods, defeat plans they do not like and still deliver significant numbers of new homes. In a four-year battle, the Save New Barnet campaign group defeated attempts by both Asda and Tesco for new supermarkets in the area. Rather than just opposing the plans, residents put forward a credible and workable alternative for new homes. Eventually, both supermarket giants gave up the struggle and decided that it was best to work with rather than against the local community. New homes have been built on the Tesco site, and around 364 are now likely to go ahead on the Asda land. There are still issues to be resolved, not least in ensuring that section 106 money goes to benefit the immediate surrounding area rather than being spent further afield. None the less, this is an illustration of how a system that has a very active role for local communities is not incompatible with delivering new homes, which is why I thought it was appropriate to refer to it in a debate on this Bill.
In conclusion, although the Bill provides some useful improvements to a number of aspects of the planning system, there are still some important issues with which to grapple. I will leave the Minister with a few questions about the Bill and the Government’s approach to delivering more homes. First, I would like his views on the calls by local authorities to be able to recover more clearly the costs of the planning process through the fees that they levy on applications made. Secondly, what further steps can be taken to ensure that landowners build the homes for which they have been given planning permission, rather than land banking them? Thirdly, what further action can be taken to help London residents to buy property in the capital and compete with investment buyers from around the world who are pushing up prices?
Finally, I wish to draw the House’s attention to some picturesque fields in the northern part of my constituency in High Barnet. This is known locally as Whalebones because of the whalebone gateway that frames the entrance to the land. With its field of geese, it is a local landmark that is held in great affection. Sadly, it is now under threat from development.
In my speech this evening, I have sought to emphasise some of the big efforts that are being made to deliver thousands of new homes in my local borough through regeneration and brownfield development. We need new homes, and this Bill will help to deliver more of them. We can build them without sacrificing vital green spaces such as Whalebones. That is why I will be campaigning with determination to protect this much-loved enclave of green space, which matters so much to my constituents in Chipping Barnet.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate on the Neighbourhood Planning Bill, and it is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers).
I am a supporter of neighbourhood planning. Before entering this place, I spent my working life as a town planner seeking to involve and engage communities in planning policymaking. I know the benefits that come from giving communities the ability to shape planning policy and from giving that policy formal weight in the planning process. I therefore welcome the measures in this Bill, which will strengthen neighbourhood plans and neighbourhood planning. I also have concerns about several aspects of this Bill, which reflect my wider concerns about the Government’s approach to planning.
We have in the UK a strong plan-led system, which allows democratically elected local authorities to lay out the basis on which applications for new development will be considered. There is no excuse for not having a plan in place or for poor performance. Last year, the Government made that system less coherent with the introduction of permission in principle, which introduces a blunt form of zoning into our finely balanced plan-led system that is capable of balancing so many different interests and concerns to get to a good decision.
I am concerned that this Bill does nothing to address the serious under-resourcing of planning departments while also giving local authorities new responsibilities to resource neighbourhood planning. Resources for local planning departments have been cut by 46% in the past five years, and the British Property Federation—not councils themselves but the private sector—identifies that this under-resource is the primary cause of problems in the planning system. During debates on the Housing and Planning Bill, I argued that councils should be able to recover the full cost of development management services through fees. I was very disappointed that the Government rejected that proposal at the time, and I hope that the new Minister will reconsider it. It is a common-sense proposal that will make a huge difference to efficient planning decision making.
Councils must also be properly resourced to support neighbourhood planning, Involving and engaging communities is resource intensive, particularly in areas where there are high levels of deprivation, but unless it is done properly we will not have neighbourhood plans that fully represent the views of the local community. Sadly, it remains the case that those in our communities who often stand to gain the most from the things that planning can deliver—for example those in housing need—are often those whose voices are not heard in debates about planning policy, and that must change.
I am concerned that this Bill proposes to water down pre-commencement conditions. Planning conditions are one of the significant levers that local planning authorities have to secure the best possible outcomes for communities. Very often, the things that form the basis for conditions are make or break issues for communities—anything from providing additional sewer capacity to the choice of bricks. Conditions should not be unreasonable, but it should remain the prerogative of the local authority to decide what conditions best protect the interests of local residents. The idea that conditions can be imposed only following the written agreement of the developer greatly underestimates the role that conditions play in ensuring good outcomes. This proposal also sets up an unnecessarily adversarial relationship between applicant and local authority where, in reality, it is best practice for the parties to come together to discuss and agree conditions through the pre-application process. I hope that the Government will reconsider this proposal.
I am concerned that the measures in this Bill relating to permitted development rights do not even begin to address the problems that are being caused by the extension of those rights to allow the conversion of offices to residential without planning consent. In London, the policy is having a detrimental effect on the supply of business space in some areas. We are also seeing new homes being delivered without regard for the physical infrastructure or public services to support an increasing population because they are not subject to section 106 agreements. We are seeing new homes being delivered without regard to minimum space standards or the types of homes that are most needed. Most importantly, we are seeing new homes being delivered with no affordable housing being provided in areas where it is desperately needed.
Instead of tinkering with the policy around permitted development rights, the Government should be radically rethinking it so that all new homes are subject to the full requirements of the planning process and developers are not able to profit from new homes without contributing to the green space, play space, school places and medical facilities that their residents will need in the future.
Fundamentally, this is a tinkering piece of legislation when we need major reform. It is polishing the bannister when the staircase is falling down. The housing crisis is one of the most significant issues facing our country. The planning system is critical to delivering both the new homes that we need and the successful communities that we want to see. This is no less than a debate about the future of our communities for our children and our grandchildren, the kind of places that we want them to be able to live in and the quality of life that we want them to have. Properly resourced planning is a tool for delivery not a barrier—a tool for ensuring fair outcomes and high quality. Instead of this paltry Bill, the Government should be setting out a vision for planning and for involving communities in planning; bringing forward a national infrastructure commission on a statutory footing, because infrastructure is critical to the delivery of new homes; building up our plan-led system as the basis for certainty in decision making; establishing a basis in legislation for new towns and garden cities; setting a context for communities and councils to come together to plan for the future; and resourcing councils to build the genuinely affordable council homes that we so desperately need. As this Bill passes through Parliament, I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to reconsider it and to make it fit for the challenges that we face.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes). I agreed with some of the things that she said, and certainly with the emphasis that she placed on infrastructure and the need to get it right. We have a strange system in which we bring forward development as if it is a bad thing, and put in facilities—she mentioned green spaces, but there are many other things that communities want, such as health facilities and primary schools—afterwards to mitigate the “bad effects” of development. However, recognising that the words “cities” and “civic” are cognate with “civilisation”, we should be bringing forward holistic schemes that create good places in the first instance.
I disagreed with the hon. Lady, though, when she nearly made it sound as though the planning system would be almost as perfect a work of art as any rendered by Leonardo da Vinci were it not for one thing—the way that not enough taxpayers’ money was being hosed over the planning departments of this country. The hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) said something similar. It seems to me that the problems are rather more fundamental.
I welcome the Bill, mainly because it gives people a local voice. I agree with all the views expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin); he is no longer here, so I shall not dwell on this, but I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) is in his place. He is a great tribune of his constituents and is also the vice-chairman of the all-party group on self-build, custom and community house building and place-making, which has a longer name than any other all-party group as it is a better and more important all-party group than any other, with the possible exception of the all-party beer group. It recognises, as does the hon. Gentleman, that the really important thing about getting the voice right is that it should be the voice of the people who are going to live in the dwellings.
The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood said that the local planning system should embrace every single house, and talked about the colour of bricks as if it were a good thing that local councillors were deciding the colour of bricks. I had a conversation recently with a local house builder who had a plan for a very modern house. Naturally, he wanted a render that was appropriate for that. It was bright white. He had a conversation with his local planning officer—I am not making this up—who said, “No, no. It’s too white. It’s too stark. You shouldn’t do that,” so he asked the planning officer to look at the relevant page on the website and choose the colour. She was a little nonplussed by this, but the house builder said, “You don’t want the one that I want, so why don’t you choose one and save a lot of time?” Eventually she chose a colour, which he said he would change in due course if he did not like it. It ought not to be necessary to have such a conversation. I have met house builders who have had seven or eight choices of gutter colour refused.
Helen Hayes
In each of our constituencies, we can think of examples of developments that, because of poor finishing and poor-quality choices of building materials, blight their communities for decades. It is not a trivial point that I am making. Once something is built, it affects that community for many, many years to come. These things are important.
Mr Bacon
I agree that they are important. The best people to choose the quality of the materials, and to make sure that they are of the highest possible standard, are the people who will live in those dwellings, not somebody else working to a profit margin, which is why more self-build and custom house building will result in higher quality.
I said earlier that I agreed with the hon. Lady on the subject of the local voice. I support the Bill because we need more local voice. The fundamental problem we face is that when people oppose development, they do so not because they want to see their family in trouble or not having somewhere to live. I have yet to meet the woman who wants her daughter or granddaughter to live in a ditch, and I do not think I am going to meet that person. They oppose development because they feel that local people have no say—no voice—in what gets built, where it is built, what it looks like or who has the first chance to live there. If we change that, we change the conversation completely.
Another reason why self-build and custom house building driven by customers is so important is that instead of opposition, it is met with local acceptance. I know that the chairs of many parish councils want to see dwellings in their local areas designed by local people for local people, to help local people. Of course, that also has the benefit of helping local house builders—local small and medium-sized enterprises, rather than large combines such as Persimmon, which are interested only in the bonus pool, which will result in 150 top managers getting a £600 million bonus pot, if they do reasonably well; it will be larger than that if they do very well. That business, like the banks, has been propped up by huge amounts—many billions of pounds—of taxpayers’ money through Help to Buy and various other schemes. I would rather see that money going into higher-quality materials, better thermal performance and bigger spaces.
The fundamental question, which we have not been very good at answering so far, is why we have a shortage. People give different answers. We have heard about the lack of planning resource, although we have thousands of unbuilt extant planning permissions, so the reason can hardly be planning by itself. We often hear that there is a lack of land. Only 1.2% of the land area of this country is taken up with houses. The Ministry of Defence alone has 2% of the land area of the UK. There are more golf courses in Surrey than there are houses. The problem is not planning per se; it is a lack of accessible land, a lack of financeable propositions, rather than a lack of finance, and a planning model that is broken.
If we want to correct that, we need to put customers at the heart of that model—people who will live in those dwellings. The way to do that is to separate the business of placemaking—all the things that I am sure the hon. Lady would agree with: creating places that are well served, well designed, well run, well governed and well connected—from the business of building houses on infrastructure that is already in place, with well serviced plots that have all the things that we would expect, including fibre to the premises, water, gas and so on, provided by one of the many hundreds of suppliers. There is a growing market of people out there who are willing to supply the house that people want, rather than what a very small number of large companies are telling people that they want. We need to put the customer at the centre, as in all other successful markets. That is the way that we will solve the housing crisis.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon), who is an authority on housing and planning. It did not take him long to get on to self-build homes.
It is a great pleasure to participate in a debate on planning—an area in which we get only one opportunity in many generations to get it right. Once land is developed, it stays developed for many years—perhaps several hundred years, if it is housing. We need to give more thought to getting that right. Development provides economic activity, the homes that are so badly needed, better conditions and a better environment.
Since the Localism Act 2011, the role of neighbourhood planning has been well entrenched as an integral part of our planning system. I am proud that in my constituency the 100th referendum has taken place in Coton Park. That arose as my constituency is the fastest-growing town in the west midlands. I am pleased that the neighbourhood plan was developed in an urban area. It was interesting that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) seemed to indicate that it was easy for villages to draw up a neighbourhood plan, but more challenging for urban areas. That certainly is the case. One of the first issues for Coton Park was identifying the area that the plan would relate to. I was very proud to add my foreword to its neighbourhood plan, and I would like to learn from its experience.
It is important to understand how the neighbourhood plan came about. This was a new community with housing that was built 10 or 15 years ago. There was no established community in the area. The community came together, interestingly, to oppose a planning application for industrial use close by. It argued its case and succeeded, causing the developer to change his plans for the site. I advised members of the community that, having come together to effect that change in planning, there was a strong reason for them to remain together and produce a neighbourhood plan that would influence future development in the area. They started in 2011 with their application for front-runner status. It took them until October 2014 to submit their neighbourhood plan, which went to a referendum in October 2015 and was finally approved in December last year.
Among the many observations I have about the plan, the first is that it took too long. The process took four years, and I am concerned that the time taken on the only such plan that has been prepared in my constituency will be a disincentive to other communities. It was my hope that, the community having been a front runner and having got its neighbourhood plan in place, I would see other communities in my constituency come forward. However, only four others have done so, which is disappointing. I hope that when he responds, the Minister will talk about ways of speeding up and simplifying the process. I am pleased to see the provisions in the Bill that require local authorities to set out the nature of the support that they are able to provide to communities. That will give those communities the confidence to embark on the project.
In Coton, the community was incredibly lucky to have a number of forum members who were not in full-time employment and were able to put in the work involved in developing the neighbourhood plan. That is pretty extensive. It involves surveying the entire area, talking to residents and getting those surveys back before starting the work of drawing up the document. Perhaps the Minister will speak about the level of detail required in some neighbourhood plans. In some instances, it goes too far, which exaggerates the amount of work and time required to develop the plan.
It is certainly harder for urban areas to bring forward a neighbourhood plan, but in constituencies such as mine, where the majority of development is focused in the urban areas, rural communities often wonder why they should bother with a neighbourhood plan when it is so much easier, cheaper and quicker to develop a parish plan. Parish plans do not carry the same weight within the planning system, of course, but if development is unlikely, there is a question mark over whether a community would want to go through the substantial amount of work involved in drawing up a neighbourhood plan.
However, there are some absolutely wonderful benefits of a community undertaking a neighbourhood plan, and one of them is that it gets new people involved in the democratic process. It strengthens local democracy and brings forward people we might not otherwise see. A great example is a lady called Jill Simpson-Vince, who chaired the Coton Park neighbourhood plan team. She had never considered getting involved in local democracy, but she was persuaded, through her involvement in the community, to become a councillor. She now chairs our local planning committee. Neighbourhood plans are therefore a great way of bringing people forward.
Of course, when people get engaged in that way, they become much more receptive to development, because they can have a hand in influencing exactly what takes place. The Secretary of State spoke about this earlier. Communities that develop their own neighbourhood plan tend to take, on average, 10% to 11% more housing than they otherwise would, because they find themselves in the driving seat. To pick up on the remarks from the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), where people can shape development, they will ensure better development. Sometimes it is hard to get a community to understand what good development is. They often know what bad development is, because they have seen it, but too often they do not recognise good development when they see it. However, if they are involved in a neighbourhood plan, they will go to places to see what good development is, and they will then be able to recognise what is good in their own neighbourhood plan.
I have one negative point to make. One experience from the Coton Park neighbourhood plan is that the community at times felt a little hamstrung by the control that the local planning authority held. For example, the grant that was provided to the community to develop the neighbourhood plan was initially devolved to the local authority, which led to a feeling within the neighbourhood plan team that the local authority had a say in what they were bringing forward. If the Minister can find some way to subvert that, so that the money goes directly to those communities, we will end up with better neighbourhood plans.
I want to thank the Royal Town Planning Institute and its team of Planning Aid officials. For example, a gentleman called Bob Keith provided expertise to Coton Park. I gather that that advice and expertise is being provided from other sources. It is incredibly important that a community that is coming together to draw up a plan has someone who can offer help and assistance but is not part of the local authority.
The success of Coton’s neighbourhood plan is that the team identified serious issues within their community, particularly with access roads and existing roundabouts. The area covered by the neighbourhood plan has been extended and will include Coton Park East, and the developer of the area has adopted within its planning the principles laid down in the Coton Park neighbourhood plan. I am delighted that the community has just been informed that the section 106 moneys that are coming forward from development will improve the roundabouts, which were the biggest single item that emerged from the local survey. That would not have happened without the neighbourhood plan, but it is frustrating that it took as long as it did to rectify a problem that was identified five years ago.
I am delighted that more weight will be given to neighbourhood plans as this process is developed. It means that even if the process does take time, there will be much greater regard for it, and the results will be evidence-based.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you are indicating that I should bring my remarks to a close. There is much in this Bill that is of great advantage. The neighbourhood plans system is working effectively. We just need more encouragement for more communities to take advantage of the opportunities that the Bill will provide them with.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey). Since becoming a Member of Parliament, I have found that, rather like the Secretary of State, concerns about planning are by far the most common issue that constituents raise with me, whether it is increasing pressure on local services and transport infrastructure or frustrations with the local council for failing to listen to and act on their concerns. A recent email I received perfectly captured local feelings in just four words: “Enough housing, infrastructure required”.
Planning failures—everything from the daily commute, to people’s children having access to a good local school, to the place where they live having a sense of community— have the greatest impact on peoples’ lives. When building new houses, the focus has too often been on providing new dwellings for newcomers, with an apparent disregard for existing residents. Road networks designed for a village have to cope with the traffic of a town, plus the additional out-of-town traffic thundering through narrow streets. As the demand for housing increases, we must recognise and respond to the challenges that additional housing brings for existing residents, rather than focusing all our attention on creating new residents.
A glaring example of the failure of planning is the A5225 in my constituency, which ought to be serving the local population. Wigan Borough Council has built most of the route that goes through its borough, but Bolton Council has not followed suit. In fact, in Atherton there is a roundabout junction with massive concrete blocks showing where the A5225 should have been continued, and daily we see the problems that its absence creates. There is now a proposal for 1,700 houses to be built over the proposed route of the A5225, thus preventing its completion. That is a double failure that guarantees that road upgrades will be impossible while delivering massive and unsustainable housing development.
Hundreds of constituents replied to my online survey about congestion in Bolton West, and the vast majority of people from Westhoughton thought that a revived plan for the A5225 would be the right solution to our congestion problems. I am currently running a petition, to be presented to Bolton Council, against the proposed 1,700 houses at the Chequerbent roundabout, and it has been signed by over 1,000 local people. This development, and those proposed for Hulton and south of Atherton, will add many thousands of people and cars to the local area. Local opinion is that the council, rather than seeking to fulfil a house building quota, should be playing catch-up for the decades of missing infrastructure.
My constituency is now part of the commuter belt for Manchester, a work destination for other commuters and a place where people further out in Lancashire use the local railway stations for park and ride. That all adds pressures on the local road and rail network that do not seem to have been addressed when each individual housing project is designed and built. The pace of development for transport is lacking considerably in Bolton West. For example, I receive many complaints about the rail service and how capacity can be increased on the line, which takes people from Blackrod, Horwich and Lostock en route to Bolton and Manchester. Although I welcome the electrification that will add 281 new carriages to the local route, with an increased service of 12% by 2019, in the longer term that will not reduce the pressure on services due to an increased population resulting from the additional housing.
I would be grateful if the Minister informed the House what discussions his Department has had with the Department for Transport on what type of housing developments are best for encouraging the use of public transport, and what conclusions have been drawn from this. The right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who is not in his place at the moment, highlighted carbon neutrality as an important part of any new development. A great problem with suburban developments and rolling suburbia is that it is very difficult to have local transport infrastructure—whether buses or railways—that works. We perhaps need to be more mindful of the need to build up and not necessarily always out.
I am pleased that the Bill includes measures to further strengthen neighbourhood planning and to give even more power to local people, but I hope that, by setting ambitious targets to build 1 million homes by 2020, the Government are not creating an environment in which councils—perhaps under pressure from developers—will disregard infrastructure requirements or the opinions of local residents. After all, the original title of the Bill, as introduced in the Queen’s Speech, was the Neighbourhood Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and we should not make a decision on one without being mindful of the other.
Communities need as much certainty as possible about where and when development will take place. I am encouraged that the Bill seeks to increase transparency on the part of the local council, requiring local planning authorities to publish their policies for giving advice and assistance to people preparing or updating neighbourhood plans. At present people have little faith that their council has the bigger picture in mind when several smaller developments are approved without thought to local amenities, while a development that is as large as the sum of those smaller developments would require accompanying infrastructure support. There is much more to be done to give communities—not councils—more rights in the planning process.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green).
Let me say at the outset that I have no quibbles at all with the provisions of the Bill, which are sensible enhancements to the neighbourhood planning process. I very much support the overall principles of neighbourhood planning: it is absolutely right that local communities have the ability to shape the future size and content of development. I also accept absolutely that neighbourhood plans cannot be out of kilter with the overall strategic housing needs of a town or a wider local authority area. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) correctly made the point that neighbourhood plans have not been a nimbys’ charter, and communities engage enthusiastically with them.
However, I do have some concerns, which I would like to put on the record. I am concerned that the potential for neighbourhood planning is impaired by some of the unintended consequences of wider planning issues, and several Members, particularly the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), alluded to that. Let me illustrate the point further with an example from my constituency.
On the southern edge of Milton Keynes is a charming little village called Bow Brickhill. It has a few hundred residents. It is a place of great civic pride and engagement. If there is a charity event to raise funds for a local facility, the residents are the ones who put together all the events to raise the money. They have engaged enthusiastically with neighbourhood planning, and many of them have devoted considerable time and energy and their own resources to developing the plans. They are far from being nimbys; in their plans, they wish to see some sensible development. They want, naturally, to preserve the semi-rural character of the village, both for its own sake and because it is one of the leisure facilities of the Milton Keynes area, with plenty of open spaces. However, the residents are now becoming confused, exasperated and, indeed, angry that the hard work they have put in may come to nothing. The problem is nothing to do with their neighbourhood plan; it is to do with Milton Keynes’s ability to meet the rigid five-year supply target. Let me just put that in context.
Milton Keynes has made an enormous contribution to the number of new houses in this country. We celebrate our 50th birthday in January, and our population is already well in excess of the quarter of a million the original planners envisaged. We have developed plans, which are now being considered by the local authority, to further expand the population—potentially by as much as 400,000—over the next few decades. The National Infrastructure Commission has been tasked by the Government to look at developing the Oxford-Milton Keynes-Cambridge corridor as an economic and housing growth and a transport development project, with projects such as east-west rail and the Oxford to Cambridge expressway. I am in the top 10 electorates in the country, and at every election I contest there—I have done four now—there are more and more doors through which to deliver leaflets.
In addition, in 2013, Milton Keynes Council passed its core strategy, which will deliver 28,000 houses over the next 10 years, but they are not being developed quickly enough. I do not have time to go into all the reasons why that is the case, but we are not meeting that target. Consequently, unplanned, speculative applications for housing outside the development areas are being granted, and some of those are immediately adjacent to the village of Bow Brickhill. If they are granted, they will, effectively, render redundant its neighbourhood plan. That is why the neighbourhood is considerably concerned.
Compounding this situation is the fact that the neighbouring authority—Aylesbury Vale—had a local plan that did not get through the inspectorate. It is now working on a new plan, but in the absence of that, applications for even larger speculative developments are being put in right on the border between Aylesbury Vale and Milton Keynes. These are massive developments and would change utterly the semi-rural area around Milton Keynes.
Therefore, we have a situation in which, in a part of the country where we have expanded and want to develop; where we have enthusiastic communities that want to take part in shaping their neighbourhoods; and where we are in line with wider Government objectives on transport planning and we are developing the Oxford to Cambridge corridor; all that planned, sustainable development is under threat because we are not meeting the rigid targets I mentioned.
I therefore simply ask the Minister to give us some space and flexibility to develop our plans, either by giving flexibility on the five-year target or by bringing in measures to speed up the delivery of already agreed housing. That would be widely applauded in the local area, and it would reignite the enthusiasm for neighbourhood planning.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
I am grateful to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart). I will be brief, as the hour is late. I have one or two things, as a chartered surveyor and declaring my Member’s interests as a landowner, that I would like to say about the Bill, which I warmly welcome.
Neighbourhood planning is very important. The problem is that, in my constituency, it is not working. It is not working because I represent two local authorities, one of which has a local plan and the other of which—Cotswold—does not have a local plan, for reasons best known to itself. The result, I say to my hon. Friend the Minister, is that, in The Cotswolds, which is 80% in the area of natural beauty, we have one of the most complicated planning systems anywhere in the country. I represent over 100 towns and villages, and we do not have a single neighbourhood plan adopted, because we do not have a local plan in place. That cannot be acceptable, and I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s statement today that he will take powers in the Bill to force local authorities, that have been laggards, like mine, to get a local plan in place.
Mr Bacon
Does my hon. Friend agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), who said that it would be a good idea, where the planning authority does not have a local plan, for the neighbourhood plan to become, sui generis, the local plan for that parish?
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
My hon. Friend has taken the words out of my mouth—I would do exactly that. We need to simplify neighbourhood plans, as we have done in this Bill. We need to give them greater weight, as we have done in the Bill.
However, there are problems even where there is a local plan in place. Stroud District Council has a local plan in place. I have a village in the very south of my constituency, which is huge—65 miles long—that has an advanced-stage, very professional neighbourhood plan, and there is also a local plan in place. However, a developer took the district council to appeal over an area right next to the cricket pitch and the village hall. The village was desperate not to develop it, but the decision was overturned on appeal. I would just say to my hon. Friend the Minister that, where there is a local plan and a neighbourhood plan in place, it should be de rigueur that the Planning Inspectorate does not overturn those plans on appeal, except in wholly exceptional circumstances.
I warmly welcome the powers to look at pre-commencement orders. As a chartered surveyor, I have advised, on an unpaid basis, on a very big development in East Anglia. Although it was designated in the local plan from the beginning, the process took five years because of the over-zealousness of the local authority. Think of all the houses that could have been built by now if the over-zealous pre-commencement conditions were not in place.
Finally, I want quickly to move on to compulsory purchase because nobody has said much about that in this debate. I spent many months sitting on the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill Select Committee, and I have seen how HS2, as a major public acquiring authority, works. Some of the compulsory acquisitions, of which there were a very large number, were in my view over-zealous. We need to be careful about large acquiring authorities being over-zealous.
I am grateful for the provisions in the Bill on temporary acquisitions, but, equally, the requirement for such acquisitions should be tempered by what the acquiring authority needs to do on them. If it needs to demolish somebody’s house, proper compensation should be paid.
I am concerned about the provision to do away with the 10-year disturbance payment. Where there is an uplift in the value of the land, even subsequently, the person whose land has been acquired gets some benefit from that uplift. I heard what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said about the no scheme world. In theory, that is an ideal way of valuing a property—as a chartered surveyor, I know about these things—because it ignores the uplift, or indeed the fall, caused by the scheme itself. The danger is that the acquiring authority will acquire properties too cheaply, because there will be no allowance for any hope value for potential planning permission. Given that a lot of the big schemes are near centres of population, where the land will—if not immediately, at least in due course a few years down the line—get planning permission, it seems to me that the acquiring authority is getting an unnecessary advantage.
However, I warmly welcome the provisions for compulsory purchase whereby interest can be paid and payments in advance can be made. As we saw on the HS2 Bill, all these things are desperately necessary. With those few words, I warmly welcome this Bill.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate because planning has certainly affected my constituency for a good number of years. I was going to touch on the five-year land supply issue, but that has been ably covered by a number of colleagues.
My constituency is part of Leeds. It has enjoyed a great deal of prosperity and growth, but if I look at just one of the wards in my constituency, it has seen more than 1,000 homes built in it during the past few years, with very little infrastructure to support it. There is therefore a growing sense of frustration when people cannot get to work because the roads are congested, when their children cannot get into the school or when they struggle to get a doctor’s appointment. As a consequence, when neighbourhood planning was first introduced, it was seen as an opportunity for communities such as mine.
I must say, however, that in our instance there was concern right from the very outset. In its core strategy, the city council decided to build 70,000 homes during the plan period. That is an ambitious target—it will mean a considerable number of houses have to be built each year—but the problem is that that target, we believe, was based on outdated information. It was based on the 2008 population projections, which said that the number of people across the city would go up to 765,000 by 2011. The census showed us that that was wrong, with a 14,000 difference.
I am raising this matter because the city council obviously has to find sites on which to build these houses. In my constituency, all the mills and factories have gone, and we have done the right thing by building houses to regenerate those sites. However, all we have left now is the green belt. The neighbourhood plans in my areas have to conform to the strategic approach of the city council, which says that we have to build 70,000 houses. My areas have to adhere to that in the neighbourhood plans, and are therefore being forced to look at green-belt sites. They do not want to do that—of course they do not want to—and they are actively trying to stop that happening. I see a real problem because if my areas put forward such green-belt sites in a referendum, there is absolutely no way that that would get through, and we would not therefore have a neighbourhood plan.
I have asked questions time and again. I welcome my hon. Friend to his post. He will be hearing a lot from me, I am sure, over the coming months.
Stuart Andrew
Indeed. I extend to my hon. Friend a warm invitation to visit my constituency so that he can see the issues that we face at first hand.
Time and again, in questions and letters, I have asked about the exceptional circumstance in which the green belt can be developed and, time and again, we have been told that housing targets cannot be considered as an exceptional circumstance. However, in the neighbouring authority of Bradford—it abuts my constituency—the inspector recently said that such houses can be built because the figure is aspirational and the employment criteria allow it to happen. There is now even more concern in my constituency that when this goes to the inspector, he will say, because the figure of 70,000 has been agreed, that we can build on the green belt. That would have a terrible effect on my constituency. The green belt is there to stop urban sprawl. We do not want to be just a part of the big city of Leeds. The identifiable towns of Guiseley, Yeadon, Rawdon, Horsforth, Calverley, Farsley and Pudsey all have their own identity.
Stuart Andrew
Yes, Rodley. If I miss one out, I will be in real trouble.
I am trying to make the point that there is a willingness to make neighbourhood plans work, but when there is such a conflict with the city council, it is very difficult to introduce them. There is real concern about the green belt, and I hope that the Minister will come to my constituency soon so that I can show him, in detail, the problems we are facing.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, and to welcome the Minister to his place. I will be comparatively brief because I endorse everything said by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) about neighbourhood plans. One of the great enjoyments of my earlier career was to work with him in developing the policy at an early stage. He is right that we did not pick up on some bits of it at the time, but the Minister and his colleagues now have a chance to finish the job.
I have two thoughts about neighbourhood plans. It is important that we push forward with them. I have been disappointed by the slow take-up in areas of outer London, for example, compared with many other parts of the country. That is why it is right to take the measures we are taking. If I may be blunt, I also have a concern that, in some cases, some of our colleagues on local government planning authorities do not always encourage the development of neighbourhood plans because, frankly, they do not want to give up the power that comes from sitting on the borough or district planning committee. That goes wholly against the spirit of what we, as a party, are trying to do. I therefore welcome such steps.
I have another practical suggestion. Currently, the Government leave a gap of eight weeks between the referendum and the making of the plan. I understand why that is done. According to the statute, it is essentially to enable the consideration of any conflict with European and human rights law. Will the Minister consider whether that gap is necessary? Eminent lawyers have suggested that it is almost inconceivable that a plan would advance to the referendum stage without those issues being considered. If we revisited that, we could probably shave another two months off the bringing of a plan into force. Perhaps we may discuss that as the Bill progresses.
The proposal on planning conditions is right. I have seen the abuse of planning conditions. To give just one example, a religious body based in my constituency wanted planning permission for a place of worship in a neighbouring authority, I am glad to say. It was hit with 24 conditions, 14 of them pre-commencement. A number of them in effect duplicated building regulation requirements, including one that undermined the exemption that the faith group has under part L of the building regulations on fuel conservation. That cannot be right and is an abuse.
There is a concern that if one appeals against a planning condition, potentially the whole permission is up for consideration by the inspector. Would it not be sensible to amend the regulations such that it is purely the condition that is appealed against that is subject to the appeal and any consideration of papers or, although unlikely, an inquiry? That would save uncertainty for the whole scheme and encourage people to move swiftly.
Robert Neill
It would certainly speed things along markedly.
The planning register is a sensible and useful device. May I float another suggestion with the Minister? The Welsh Assembly Government have put the historic environmental record on a statutory footing. It might be useful to do that here so that local heritage information is available. That would avoid the risk of something being thrown up that delays the process after a good deal of investment has taken place.
Finally, I endorse all the comments made by my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), about compulsory purchase. He referred to the rates of interest. It is important that we deal swiftly with those matters. As I said to the Secretary of State, perhaps he would be prepared to meet some of us to yet again revisit the vexed issue of the inability of local planning authorities to impose planning conditions on their own land—land that they own as a landowner—that they would enforce as a local authority. Their inability to do that is bizarre. My London Borough of Bromley has ambitious schemes to drive business and business rates growth, but it is bizarre that it cannot, as an authority, put an obligation on its own land that it wishes to comply with in order to drive the rest of a scheme.
I hope that those are constructive suggestions that will make a good Bill even more useful.
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
I am delighted that the Government are giving local people the opportunity to shape the future of their communities. Our constituents have long asked for a greater say on planning, so I welcome the fact that the Bill gives them more power and delivers on our manifesto promises.
There can be no doubt that there is a need for housing, but it is vital that it is delivered in a way that is not only sustainable, but that complements and enhances our local areas. I am therefore very supportive of the key aims of the Bill. Results are already emerging to show that the Government are right to trust our communities to develop their own neighbourhood plans. As has been pointed out, early figures indicate that the level of house building in areas that have a plan is more than 10% higher than in the council’s local plan.
I will raise three matters with the Minister that are of concern to my constituents. He may be able to reassure them that they need not worry. First, I am conscious that although an acceleration in house building is required, developing a neighbourhood plan is a long drawn-out process. That means that those who are now starting on the journey and have a plan that is sufficiently developed to provide meaningful input to the local plan do not have the protections of those who have gone through the referendum phase. Clause 1 goes some way towards addressing that, but will the Minister clarify what guidance will be given to local authorities so that there is consistency in the decision-making process not only from community to community, but across all decision makers? I welcome clause 5, which sets out the support a local authority will offer those who wish to create a neighbourhood plan by way of a statement of community involvement, which should be an enabler of quicker implementation.
Secondly, sustainability should be a key consideration for any development. It is understandable that local residents show concern when consultations are put forward for sizeable developments in their area. A good example is Dordon and Polesworth in my constituency, where 3,000 new houses have been proposed. That would have a huge impact on the infrastructure and services that residents enjoy, not least on the already creaking road network. It is important that plans are made and that residents always have an input on potential new schools, roads, doctors’ surgeries and other local services. With that in mind, I ask the Minister to ensure that the provision of infrastructure and amenities is always a key consideration for local authorities when granting planning consent, and that when there is any significant house building the sustainability of the area is at the forefront of the design plans.
Finally, I wish to raise an issue of particular interest to me and to many of my constituents and those of other Members: the protection of our green belt. I am fully aware that the NPPF puts great emphasis on that, and there has been minimal development on it under the Conservative Government. However, areas such as Keresley and Fillongley in my constituency live in constant fear that a perceived demand for housing, particularly under the duty to co-operate with larger neighbouring councils, puts their green belt at risk of being developed on.
One of the key messages that I receive regularly from parish councils is that the calculation of housing needs seems to be over-inflated and does not reflect actual requirements, especially when local borough councils have met their supply targets. There is a real threat that predominantly rural areas such as North Warwickshire, which, as I have said, are annexed by much larger authorities, will be forced to develop on their green belt to meet the needs of other areas. That cannot be fair.
I must question the method of calculation. I was recently given the example of Coventry, which is seeking to take a number of properties in my constituency as it is unable to meet its own housing demand. It was calculated by the Office for National Statistics that there would be a population increase of about 79,000 in Coventry by 2031, which Coventry was unable to satisfy. Closer inspection of that number is quite revealing, however, showing that the predicted numbers of internal migration and immigration movements essentially cancel each other out, leaving the 79,000 people to come almost wholly from international immigration. As a result of the referendum in June, the Government are committed to a system of controlled immigration, so it is reasonable to assume that that number may no longer be a true reflection of need once the Brexit negotiation is concluded.
I would therefore like the Minister to consider including a further measure in the Bill: a pause on green-belt development unless there is a specific request from local residents. That would enable a review of the demand that our councils will face, which is surely difficult to estimate until the exact nature of what breakfast will look like—[Interruption.] I mean Brexit—somebody else got into trouble for that the other day. It is catching. It is difficult to estimate until the exact nature of what Brexit will look like is concluded. Once the green belt is developed on, it is lost for ever. We should always ensure that we have strong safeguards to protect it wherever possible.
Good development requires the developer, local people and the council to work together, and the Bill encourages dialogue to ensure that development better meets the needs of all interested parties. There should always be a balanced approach between providing the right number of houses and affording our local communities the opportunity to improve their infrastructure while retaining their identity. The Bill strikes that balance by giving local people real control over their future, and I will support it tonight. However, I ask that due consideration be given to the important concerns that I have raised.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to support the Second Reading of the Bill, and it is always a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey). I do not intend to speak for more than five minutes, because I have noticed for the last hour that when Members do that, the cough of the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), gets worse and worse. In the interests of preserving his voice, I will keep my contribution short.
I wish to focus on a couple of key points. First, we in Fylde are not against development. Indeed, about 6,000 houses have been developed there, mostly on greenfield land. However, Fylde is a small local authority, so 6,000 houses represent a lot of new build. We are currently working through an emerging local plan, and during the first stage, as part of an agreement, certain sites were taken off the plan and others were added. However, developers who realised that lucrative sites had come off the plan slapped planning applications on them, regardless of the will of the neighbourhood or the council. That was particularly true in villages such as Warton and Wrea Green, much to the frustration of local people. The result is an even greater number of houses than the plan started with.
I find it frustrating as a Member of Parliament that after people and the council have been asked to go along with the process of neighbourhood plans and local plans, and after they have identified suitable sites near the M55 that could be developed without controversy, developers seem to have given them the two-finger salute by putting in big applications on sites that were taken out of the plan. Everyone seems to lose out but the developers.
My main focus is on the number of sites for which planning applications have been granted yet nothing seems to have happened. There is no great reason for that—there are no infrastructure blockages or any of the other reasons outlined tonight by other Members. It is just land agents sitting on top of blocks of land with planning applications, and God only knows what is happening other than that they are trying to extract the best possible price from developers. That is not acceptable. If a site has a successful planning application and there is no good reason why it is not being developed, it should be developed to meet housing needs.
Another key point is that on many sites developers seem to be building just 30 or 40 houses a year, regardless of the market conditions. They drip them out to a steady drumbeat of 30 or 40. That makes it more difficult to deliver against the five-year housing supply number and the local council’s annual build targets. Frustratingly, it does nothing to make houses more affordable for local people. The prices keep going up. The Government are being robbed of their whole aim of building more houses and making them affordable, because we are dependent on a large number of developers who have got us by the throat. They decide how many houses enter the local supply chain, and nobody else. That is not right.
I urge the Minister to get tough with the developers. We want to build houses that are affordable and available to buy, and it should not be down to developers to dictate planning policy and tell us what ultimately is going to happen. We are the Government. We decide. This is something we care passionately about.
My other key point is that I want councils to be imaginative about provision of affordable homes, and not simply pass over responsibility to housing associations. They should not just pass the buck, pass the cash and hope it all comes out in the end. I want councils to ensure that there are more affordable homes to buy, to allow people to get on the housing ladder, have a stake in the game, feel part of their community and own part of that community. It is not acceptable for a council to say that it is building 30% affordable homes, when that provision is being made by housing associations, which are often very unresponsive to the needs of local people. Councils must understand that we as a Government want affordable homes to be owned by people, to give those people the opportunity to trade up.
I can see that the throat of my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness is starting to go again, and I do not want to make the cough any worse. I am delighted to see the Minister in his place. I know that he is committed to housing. As an MP for a Greater London constituency he knows the pain of not being able to get on the housing ladder more than many other people in this House. I wish him well in his endeavours, but he needs to know that we on the Conservative Benches will support the Government provided that we see the Government doing everything they can to get those houses built.
William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
I am pleased to be able to speak on Second Reading of the Bill, which I broadly welcome. I support its main aims of making the housing market work better for everybody, helping to identify and free up more land to build homes, and speeding up the delivery of the new homes that are so badly needed in many areas of the country. Those aspects of the Bill will help to improve the planning system to make it easier to deliver the Government’s ambition of 1 million new homes by the end of this Parliament.
When I arrived in the House last year a sage senior colleague advised me never to get involved in planning matters. Although that may be very sound advice on conservatories and house extensions, it is none the less our duty to ensure that we play a full role in the scrutiny of the Bill. With that in mind, it is good so see such a strong new ministerial team on the Treasury Bench; I look forward to engaging with that team constructively.
I also support the Government’s manifesto commitment to encourage communities to be more engaged in neighbourhood planning, particularly as a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for civic societies. Community engagement is vital; we need it to build homes and infrastructure while ensuring that that is done in a way that is sympathetic and sensitive to the wishes of local communities. In my view, that will mean that we can build more, not less, as developers and local authorities ensure communities are brought on board at an early stage and are therefore more likely to support developments. That process is under way in Marple in my constituency.
There is no magic wand to solve the housing shortage. It will require many years of investment, hard work and difficult choices, and while Government play a role, ultimately the work is done by those building houses: the developers. To my mind, there are three ways that developers are stalling in the process to deliver the homes we need at the rate required. The first is land banking, which many hon. Members have mentioned, whereby developers buy up land, often brownfield sites suitable for building and sometimes with planning permissions already granted, but do not build on it, either because they have priorities elsewhere or because they are waiting for the value to increase.
The second issue is when developers are keen to build, but there are delays between the granting of an outline application and the submission of the full planning application. Thirdly, once planning approval has been granted, there can be delays from developers in starting construction, which can sometimes be the result of deliberate land banking, as I have mentioned. These delays cannot always be laid at the door of the planning system, which is a common cry of developers. Developers must take some responsibility themselves. However, measures from the Government to encourage developers to reduce delays are welcome, and these are contained in the Bill.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
In Northern Ireland we have a planning system that enables social housing to be set aside in each new development for private house building. When it comes to social housing and those who cannot afford a new house but need a rented house, does the hon. Gentleman feel that some of the land in a development should be set aside for that purpose?
William Wragg
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. That is something that my local authority in Stockport is looking at, to ensure it can use its land assets for the development of housing, so I agree with him on that.
One thing missing from the Bill, although certainly not from our debate this evening, is the issue of the green belt. We know that green-belt land is protected under the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, and it plays an important role in protecting the environment and semi-rural communities, such as the ones I represent, from urban sprawl. Fundamentally, the green belt preserves natural green land, open spaces, wildlife habitats and the character of such areas.
Although it is not currently addressed by the Bill, I am deeply concerned about the threat posed to the local green belt in my constituency by potential massive building development. For instance, the Greater Manchester spatial framework, a policy of the Greater Manchester combined authority, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) referred to, will determine where residential development can take place, including the release of green-belt land. The policy could threaten large areas of green belt in my constituency. I am concerned by the prospect of thousands of properties being built on previously protected land, especially in the High Lane and Marple areas of my constituency. There are significant doubts about whether already stretched local infrastructure could support such development.
Saying that, there is no doubt that we need more housing. However, the areas that should be developed first are brownfield sites, which are those areas previously used for other purposes. Stockport has many such sites that have not yet been developed for housing, and across the country it is conservatively estimated that there is enough brownfield land for the development of some 650,000 properties, making a significant contribution to the Government’s target. I therefore want to ask my hon. Friend the Minister, if this is not covered in the Bill, what is being done or can be done to prioritise brownfield development and to protect green belts from over-zealous local authority plans, such as that in Greater Manchester. I can only hope that development in the green belt in my constituency will be as sparse as Members on the Opposition Benches are this evening.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I welcome this Bill. The importance it places on neighbourhood plans validates the extremely hard and challenging work that so many of my constituents in the village of Brereton and the town of Sandbach have undertaken, in some cases over years, to develop neighbourhood plans and have them adopted. I congratulate them. Other areas in my constituency are working on their neighbourhood plans, which are vital in a constituency with distinct and individual local communities, lying as it does in a relatively large unitary council, Cheshire East, which stretches from the fringe of Greater Manchester down towards Shropshire. If localism is to mean anything, it is important that the people who live in such towns and villages have a real say in the development of their communities.
Does this Bill go far enough? I want to challenge the Minister in one or two ways.
I am pleased to hear the Minister say that neighbourhood plans will be given “proper consideration” in the planning process, that “due weight” will be given to them and that they will have full effect. However, will he clarify precisely what that means where a large principal authority still has no local plan and no agreed housing supply numbers? My constituents who have gone to the trouble of preparing neighbourhood plans are asking whether, if there is no local plan and no agreed housing supply number, their plans should have the status and strength of a local plan when planning decisions are made. That is the critical question.
Without that reassurance, my constituents—particularly those in Sandbach, who are besieged by developers and who have gone far beyond making what I believe is a reasonable contribution to housing numbers in the Cheshire East area—are saying they are becoming “very disillusioned” with the neighbourhood planning process. They quote a recent planning decision in September with respect to an area of land in Sandbach. The inspector acknowledged that the Sandbach neighbourhood plan had been adopted, but said he would not examine the application in the light of that plan. Instead, he set it against the as-yet unadopted local plan with the housing supply number as yet not agreed, which relates to the whole Cheshire East area. According to my constituents, the inspector seems to be saying that the neighbourhood plan is “an irrelevance”. Will the Minister look again at strengthening the authority of neighbourhood plans where there is no completed local plan and no agreed five-year land supply, and declare that the neighbourhood plan has the weight of a local plan where there is no such plan in place?
My constituents have been encouraged by three recent appeal decisions to the Secretary of State in East Sussex, West Sussex and Bath. The Secretary of State cited local plans in the appeals and prevented developments, highlighting neighbourhood plans as a key factor in his decision. I thank the Minister for that and hope that it indicates a trend of thinking in this area.
I support the references that have been made to land banking, or, as I refer to it, permission banking. The former mayor of Sandbach, Mike Benson, wrote to me saying:
“During the Public Inquiries held in Sandbach…Cheshire East’s Head of Planning Strategy…gave evidence that in some parts of the Borough, planning permissions granted over the last 5 years”
had resulted in not one house being built in those locations. Nevertheless, appeals continue to be allowed across Cheshire East on the basis that Cheshire East Council does not have a five-year housing supply. He says:
“What would be fairer is a formula which regards the granting of permissions as the determining factor, not the number of houses actually being built.”
Will the Minister consider that as the Bill progresses? Will he also consider the fact that it is very important to ensure we balance the need for housing with the need for employment land? Businessmen in Congleton tell me that they need more employment land. We cannot afford to have our communities turned into vast commuter belts, because there are simply not the jobs for local people to work in.
I have two final points. First, it is quite clear that in some cases where developments are occurring, for example in Congleton where 4,000 houses are projected to be built in the draft local plan, we will need extra health facilities. However, Cheshire East Council officers have contacted Public Health England, which has been unable to identify any community infrastructure levy-compliant projects to which contributions could be sought for development. It is very important that the Minister liaises with his counterparts in the Department of Health to ensure that health provision projects that can be used for community infrastructure funding are in place.
If I may stretch your patience, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to add one further point, which relates to an issue I have been asked to raise by Cheshire East Council on the importance of guiding developments so that they avoid the most sensitive locations. I refer to a recent decision by the Court of Appeal that renders protective policies, such as green belt, green gap, wildlife conservation and Jodrell Bank safeguarding, which is critical in my constituency, as similar to “housing supply policies”. If a local authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of housing, such housing supply policies are deemed out of date, carrying much less weight.
I have an appeal going through now to the Secretary of State for a large development near Jodrell Bank. Jodrell Bank is concerned that having many more houses in the area will interfere with its instruments. It is a critical, individual, specific issue, and that area needs protection. It is important that that protection is not weakened if the council is unable to resist housing in unsuitable locations. Will the Minister clarify that the Bill will ensure that such sensitive designations will not be overridden and developers’ appeals will not be allowed? Will he confirm that that will be embodied as an amendment to the NPPF?
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I welcome my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), to his place; I am delighted to see him on the Front Bench. I am also glad to see the hon. Members for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods), and for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce), fighting the fight from the Opposition Front Bench. I recall with fondness the many hours we spent this time last year on the Housing and Planning Bill Committee.
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I have a shareholding in a company that finances construction projects.
I welcome the power that the first part of the Bill on neighbourhood plans will place in the hands of local communities. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider strengthening that power further in two ways. First, the preamble to the Bill says that in all but exceptional circumstances local authorities are expected to grant planning permission only in conformity with a neighbourhood plan, but if permission is granted in contradiction to a neighbourhood plan, I ask that it be made clear that it would be expected that the Secretary of State would call that in as a matter of routine, in order to create a clear incentive for local planning authorities to respect neighbourhood plans.
Secondly, is there any way to strengthen further neighbourhood plans in relation to local plans, given that neighbourhood plans will, by definition, have been passed by local referendum? The stronger they are in relation to local plans, the better. I fully accept that the local plan must be respected when it comes to total housing supply, but on questions of detail, I wonder whether the neighbourhood plan should trump the local plan, providing that it would not damage overall housing supply. The Minister will know some examples from our borough of where that might happen.
I say gently to the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead that pre-commencement conditions are frequently a significant problem. The bureaucracy they create ties up both the local planning authority office and developments. When I intervened earlier, I touched briefly on a couple of examples—the notorious cases of bat and newt studies. Bat studies can be done only at a certain time of year, so some developments get held up for an entire year while the bat survey gets done. As for newts, the greater crested newt is apparently an endangered species across Europe. It is not an endangered species in the United Kingdom, as the wretched creature pops up on every site for development as a potential reason for delay. If the Minister could give serious consideration to making sure that the requirements relating to bats, newts and similar creatures were proportionate and appropriate, it would help to expedite the construction of housing in our country.
I agree with the point made by the hon. Lady about resources for local planning departments. The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) also correctly pointed out that resources in those departments are under great pressure. They do not have enough officers, time or resources, and that is a real constraint on the granting of planning consents. Although I am not of course usually in favour of any taxes or fees, many developers would be willing pay significantly higher planning fees if they were ring-fenced to fund local planning offices and attached to a particular service level—so if a planning decision were delivered within a certain time, a higher fee would be payable.
As Louis XIV’s Finance Minister, Colbert, said, the art of taxation is about plucking the goose so as to produce the least possible amount of hissing; well, here is a goose that is begging to be plucked. The goose, if I may put it this way, wants to pay extra money to have these decisions made more quickly. It wants to pay more fees. That would help local authority planning departments, as they would then be properly resourced. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to that point in his concluding remarks. I shall trespass no further on the House’s time or patience, and conclude with that point.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
Beneath the thatch and clay tiles, in the shady byways and cobbled marketplaces of North West Hampshire, people are breathing a little easier as this Bill starts its passage. I would go so far as to say that on the village hall wall, next to the portrait of the Queen and the newly hoisted portrait of the Minister with responsibility for broadband, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), they are making space for a picture of the Minister for Housing and Planning, because he has finally taken a big step in bringing some sanity to what has previously been a gamble of a planning system.
We managed to get ourselves into a high-stakes game of poker between developers, councils, landowners and the Planning Inspectorate, and the compromise that emerged was often unsatisfactory to local residents, extremely expensive, and bureaucratic. That injected a sense of tension and an adversarial tone into the planning system, which should be constructive, in all senses of the word, and try to build the homes that we need.
The Government’s great peace offering to local people was the neighbourhood plan. Nowhere has embraced neighbourhood planning as strongly as my constituency, and the string of pearls running down the A303 from Oakley, Overton and Whitchurch down to Andover. We are destined to take tens of thousands of houses there over the next 20 or 30 years. Those places are embracing neighbourhood planning as the only way that they can see of making sure that planning is done with them, rather than to them.
Notwithstanding that, some ridiculous decisions have been taken in my constituency over the last year or so. In Oakley, just seven days before the referendum on the neighbourhood plan, which had been three years in the making, the Planning Inspectorate allowed an appeal for a slab development of 80 houses, which drove a coach and horses through the plan. The community might as well not have bothered. At that stage, people in the village had already voted by post, yet they knew that permission had gone through. I am very pleased that this Minister and his predecessor took on board the concerns of lots of Members, particularly rural Members, about the need to strengthen such plans.
I would like to raise with the Minister a couple of areas where the Bill could be given even greater strength. The interaction of the different actors I mentioned and the interaction between neighbourhood plans and local plans are absolutely key. Many Members have talked about providing some kind of stick to make sure that councils have a local plan in place. Thus far, neighbourhood plans are pretty pointless without the local plan being in place. Too many councils do not have them.
I wonder whether we could offer councils an incentive, rather than a stick. Where a village has put a neighbourhood plan together and it has been approved, where a borough has a local plan that has been approved, and where there is a five-year land supply, there should be a double lock, whereby the Planning Inspectorate has no remit. These people are playing ball. They have said, “Yes, we will take the houses. This is where we want them, and this is the size and mix we want.” That has all been approved by the Planning Inspectorate, so why should a speculative developer, with an ability to pay legal fees and for hearings, and with QCs on tap, be able to come along and bully the council into reaching some kind of compromise? The council knows that if it goes to the Planning Inspectorate, the decision may not go its way, and is worried about the fines it faces if it loses. A double lock would be a way of freeing people from the man in the suit from Bristol; that would be an enormous incentive. There would certainly be a huge amount of pressure from local residents on borough councils to get a neighbourhood plan, so as to protect the residents. I put that proposal on the Minister’s plate.
My second point is on getting local people to accept housing estates. Neighbourhood planning certainly makes people much more accepting of housing, but the Government’s admirable starter homes scheme could be used to get even more acceptance. When starter homes are built as part of a development—I will have a huge development with lots of starter homes outside Basingstoke in my constituency—anybody from anywhere in the country can apply for them. How about we give local people a short period of perhaps 28 days after completion in which they have first dibs on the houses built in their neighbourhood? That way, the children and relatives of local people—people who can prove a local connection—could snap up those houses first. It would go a long way to getting people over the line, particularly as regards the large-scale developments I will have, if they have that incentive, on a generational basis.
My final point, which I would be grateful if the Minister could address, is on the provision of broadband in new developments. I raised the issue in debates on the Digital Economy Bill. It seems mad to me that we are not putting broadband compulsorily into new developments, as we would gas and electricity.
Kevin Hollinrake
My hon. Friend makes a fine point. When he refers to broadband, is he talking about fibre to cabinet, or fibre to premises? Is not the latter the key future-proof mechanism we need to enable properties to access high-speed broadband?
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend shows his customary ambition. I agree that we should make developers provide fibre to premises in all developments, particularly large ones. The Government are pumping billions into the housing industry over the next few years—rightly, because we need more houses. That will inflate the housing industry, and there will be a lot more activity and a lot more money to be made. The least developers could do is absorb the cost of putting future-proofed broadband in those houses. If we can get those measures into this great Bill, we will have something that neighbourhoods, particularly in North West Hampshire, will welcome. They will wave aloft the Bill as they hoist the Minister’s portrait in the village hall.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), who made important points about the local development plan process, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin). My constituency is a tale of two halves. The half that is in the Cheshire West and Chester Council area is protected by a local development plan. The numerous beautiful areas in my constituency that have put their neighbourhood plans in place have a protection that is not afforded to the other half of my constituency, which is in the Cheshire East Council area. Without an LDP, the neighbourhood plans do not have the same legal status. I join other hon. Members in urging the Minister to ensure that neighbourhood plans carry full protection and force.
I agree with the suggestion for an incentive. When Cheshire West and Chester Council was run by Conservatives, a proportion—10%—of the new homes bonus automatically went to the local parish council to allow it to improve amenities. I urge the Minister to consider putting that proportion in the Bill, because it allowed my local communities to make improvements to their area when they could see a direct result from new housing. For example, Tattenhall in my constituency would have used the money to build six homes for rent for local people in the agricultural community—they would have been permanent protected homes available for young people, allowing them to stay in their farming communities. Unfortunately, the council has switched to Labour control, and has swiped the whole of the new homes bonus. It will not now go to my local communities that are bearing the brunt of the housing development.
I, too, have a string of pearls in my constituency—wonderful villages such as Bunbury, Audlem, Tattenhall, Malpas and Tarporley, which developers are desperate to develop. It is vital that those communities that accept housing see a direct benefit from it. I urge the Minister therefore to consider allocating a proportion of the new homes bones to those communities. Ten per cent. is not unreasonable, and would give an incentive to people to accept development.
On the impact on infrastructure, the Minister has heard many Members of Parliament say the same thing. A recent planning decision exempted doctors’ surgeries and schools, which are statutory services, from section 106 agreements and leveraging funding from developers. This is an ideal opportunity to deal with that and allow the developers to contribute to the additional infrastructure costs that otherwise fall on the local council.
Finally, I urge the Minister to crack down hard on developers who repeatedly put in applications against neighbourhood plans, knowing that they are acting against an adopted neighbourhood or local plan. If planning permission is turned down by the local council, and the developer appeals unsuccessfully and is turned down again, I urge the Minister to consider penalty costs against them. A third of those costs could go to local councils; that could contribute towards alleviating the legal costs that they incur trying to fight these appeals. Another third could go to his Department to provide the resource that is needed for it to look at those appeals, and the final third could go to the Treasury to deal with the infrastructure impact of other developments. That would be a real win.
I urge the Minister to look at that in the Bill, because my constituents are frustrated when they see a planning process in which developers have deep involvement. They think that it is an unfair fight, with no incentive for councils to appeal against decisions or stand up to what they regard as bully developers. Not all developers are the same—we have many good developers in Cheshire—but the feeling among local people is that they are fighting a tide of applications that are swamping them. Some form of disincentive to tackle those repeated applications would, I hope, go some way towards discouraging that type of behaviour.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach). I fully support the provisions of the Bill, and I congratulate Ministers on giving people unprecedented power over planning. It is clear that this is a power not to limit development, but to decide where properties will go and what infrastructure is required. It is a power to decide how it looks—design is a key element in persuading local communities to support new housing in their area.
I welcome the Bill’s giving more weight to neighbourhood plans, which, as detailed in clause 1, will be effective earlier in the process. However, there is a conundrum, as colleagues have mentioned, but, as is not uncommon in the House, I will mention it again. A neighbourhood may have an effective neighbourhood plan that works with the numbers given by the district in its local plan, but it may not be able to demonstrate a five-year land supply. In those circumstances, would it not be appropriate to give full protection to a neighbourhood that delivers those numbers within the overall context of the local plan? That would be a great incentive for local communities to develop a neighbourhood plan and deliver the extra houses that are important to our communities and our national economy.
The neighbourhood planning process is dealt with in clause 5. Local authorities can give help, support and advice to neighbourhood planning steering committees. Some local authorities are less keen than others on neighbourhood plans, and regard them as an encumbrance. Would it be possible to provide some formal training, perhaps delivered centrally? I was delighted when my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell), who has been such an advocate of neighbourhood plans, came to my constituency to talk to local steering groups about how to develop them. As a result of his intervention, we now have some neighbourhood plans back on track.
I also think that small and medium-sized enterprises should be given more help. As we know, SME developers used to build 100,000 houses a year, whereas today they build about 20,000. They are critical to the supply element of the equation. I understand that the idea of extra financial support for SMEs has been mooted in connection with the autumn statement, because lack of finance constitutes one of their biggest difficulties when it comes to developing new homes, but another of their difficulties relates to land, and finding suitable small sites. The whole planning system seems to be stacked against SMEs. It is far simpler to build houses on allocated land than to build them on the windfall sites on which SMEs tend to develop them, but such sites are few and far between.
SMEs are important not just in terms of the number of houses that are delivered, but in terms of their contribution to local communities. They employ local people: local suppliers and local apprentices—SMEs account for a much higher percentage of penetration of apprenticeships per completion than larger developers—and local consultants as well. There are plenty of good reasons for the provision of more small sites that would be suitable for SME house builders, and there are a number of ways in which we could do that. It is frustrating that one of the local authorities in my constituency concentrates all its housing on large allocated sites, rather than spreading the load around the towns and villages for the purpose of not just sustainable development but sustainable communities.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman has mentioned sustainable communities in the context of planning. Does he agree with Dame Alice Hudson, the head teacher at Twyford Church of England High School in my constituency? The school wants to expand, but feels that it is stymied by planning legislation. It has identified the site for a badly needed new high school, but at present there is opposition because of housing that will come with it. Dame Alice says that there must be a way of helping the school to provide more performance and other facilities for community use and public benefit. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me, and with my constituent, that there should be more joined-up thinking?
Kevin Hollinrake
I definitely agree that there should be more community engagement. However, although many people in smaller villages and towns want more development, the policies of local authorities prevent that from happening, which is entirely counter-intuitive. The lack of new development puts schools, shops and public houses at risk. I wonder how we can influence local authorities and encourage them to spread the load around our smaller communities as well. Alternatively, could not a percentage of one of the larger sites—10% or 20%—be allocated to SME developers, so that they could meet some of the needs of larger communities?
Those are some thoughts for the new Housing Minister. SMEs are critical to the successful delivery of the houses that we need in the United Kingdom. However, I am happy to support the measures in the Bill and the ideas behind them.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
It is a delight and a pleasure to see the Minister for Housing and Planning, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), sitting on the Front Bench. I have known him for 20 or 25 years, since he worked in the environmental research department of Conservative central office. He was also the special adviser in the department, and he has been following this issue for a long time.
I must declare an interest. As is shown in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, I still have some shares in a public relations consultancy which advised developers on how to obtain planning permission. I have to say that I have also worked for the opposition, notably in Fulham. However, I have a fairly good understanding of the importance of taking the local community with you to get a planning application through.
One of the best people I ever came across was a man called David Prout, who was in the Department. He was also the director of planning at the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea when we were trying to do a development on what was known as the Tesco tower on the West Cromwell Road. We had failed to get planning permission, and he eventually decided that we needed to produce a master plan in order to ensure that the local community was very much engaged in the whole process. In such cases, it is important to talk not only about the design but about the other community facilities that will be made available. I therefore urge my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that as we seek to put housing development in place, we also look at other issues such as community facilities. I shall say more about design in a moment.
I am the chairman of the all-party group for excellence in the built environment, and we have just published an important piece of work on the quality of housing. I am pretty unique—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I am pretty unique on the Conservative Benches in that I represent a totally inner-city seat. The only piece of countryside in my constituency is the Ponderosa pony sanctuary, which, to be honest, is just a rather muddy field. However, I have a large amount of parkland, which was developed by the Victorians and is absolutely wonderful. What is so super about it is that it has space and the settings of the properties are absolutely brilliant.
We need to recognise that if local authorities grant planning permission, that should not be the end of the matter. They must also ensure that the developers produce the development for which they have been given the planning permission. All too often, companies build up land banks but do not do anything with them. I therefore urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider a proposal whereby a local authority could charge a developer business rates if it had not produced the development, having got people’s expectations up. Developers should not be allowed to have property sitting around doing nothing. It is not good enough simply to get planning permission; getting the property developed is the most important thing. That is what we on this side of the House will be judged on.
We also need to ensure that we have good-quality design. I have a lot of new build in my constituency, thanks to the party opposite. When Labour was in power, it provided a lot of money for new development down in Devonport. I have to say that I am appalled by some of that development. There is brown mould on some of the buildings, and I hear stories of windows and doors that do not fit. The other day I even heard of an instance of sewage going in underneath the floorboards. That is not good enough. This is one of the reasons that I am looking forward to talking to my hon. Friend the Minister about the all-party group’s report. We must ensure that we have better-quality buildings, rather than shoddy developments that could become the slums of the future. We need to have quality in our design as well as quantity.
I also want to encourage the Government to consider ways of getting local authorities to appoint someone to review the quality of the building and design in their area. I have been very lucky. I went to the most beautiful school in the whole country: Stowe. It has the most beautiful Palladian architecture; it is absolutely fantastic. I am not arguing that we should have Palladian architecture throughout the whole country—well, I probably am, actually—but we need to ensure that the volume house builders do not simply build the same factory-produced developments all over the country. I am passionate about this. It is vital that we give people a sense of belonging in their communities, and we need to ensure that we have quality development that will also deliver good community facilities such as doctors surgeries and village halls. It is vital that neighbourhood planning should be done in the round, rather than in isolation.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
I thank all Members—they were mostly Government Members—who have contributed to this debate. They did an excellent job speaking up for their constituencies and the various planning issues that affect them, and extolling the virtues of neighbourhood planning. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) also did an excellent job in explaining how important neighbourhood planning was to his constituency and the need for local plans to refer to it. I was also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) who, as always, pointed out exactly what was wrong with the Bill, what needs to be improved and how we need to support planning more effectively.
I am rather surprised to be speaking again on planning legislation so soon after our proceedings on the Housing and Planning Act 2016. After all, the ink is barely dry on the paper. However, as there have been six pieces of planning legislation in the past six years, I perhaps should not be that surprised.
The Minister said that he wants to have shovels put in the ground, but I am not sure that this is the Bill to do it. Indeed, the Bill is much more interesting for what is not in it than for what is. I am not sure whether it represents—in the words of the Secretary of State earlier— “action on many fronts”. In fact, his own colleagues came up with quite a substantial list of things that should have been in this Bill. They thought that there should be something about infrastructure and how it could be funded effectively to underpin developments and something about carbon-neutral housing. They felt that local plans should have a strong relationship with neighbourhood plans, or that neighbourhood plans should trump local plans, and that there should be a green-belt review. There was some suggestion that there should be a statutory footing for local plans and deadlines for their delivery. There were other suggestions that the Bill should cover broadband in developments, the use of vacant public sector land, how to protect hedgehogs, how to pluck geese, how to repeal applications, how to use fees more effectively, land banking and permission banking, the failure to address Brexit, and a call-in procedure for neighbourhood plans. Those were just some of the issues that were raised, so there is a lot to be addressed by the new Minister, whom I welcome to his post. I look forward to working with him in Committee on improving the Bill.
We strongly welcome the measures to strengthen neighbourhood planning. We all agree that communities should be at the heart of development and that development should start with our neighbourhoods. Any measure that will strengthen neighbourhood planning should be welcomed. Too many people think that planning is done to them, and we need to return to a much happier place in which communities feel that they and their representatives have some control over planning.
There are a few issues about neighbourhood planning that I hope to address in Committee. We need to look at whether it is being properly resourced, and whether the links to local plans are strong enough. We welcome the opportunity of a planning register that will allow for better scrutiny of permitted development and, in particular, the scale of use of permitted development. The Government Front-Bench team will know that we have a long-standing objection to permitted development being used for the delivery of housing in this country. Indeed, we would not need a register if we did not use permitted development in the way that it is used, as all homes would have to go through the planning process properly, and there would be some control of the infrastructure that supports them and the quality and standards of the properties being built. However, as the Government are using permitted development, it seems sensible for a register to be in place.
One of our main bugbears with the Bill is that it does not sufficiently recognise the difficulties that local planning departments are facing as a result of the lack of resources to carry out their responsibilities. Ministers would be living in a cupboard if they did not know that right across the housing and planning sector, developers large and small, a large number of agencies and planning departments are saying that the lack of resource for planning departments is the major spanner in the works for delivery. Since 2010 spending on planning by local authorities has almost halved, from £2.2 billion in 2010 to £1.2 billion last year. The Royal Town Planning Institute, the Local Government Association, the Town and Country Planning Association and the British Property Federation have all pointed to the fact that greater expectations must mean greater support for planning, yet the opposite is happening. Planning fees are vital to plug the gap.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
Would the hon. Lady support greater flexibility for each local authority to be able to set its own planning fees to meet its own circumstances, and possibly to allow higher fees to give accelerated results?
Dr Blackman-Woods
Indeed. That was one of the amendments that I tabled to the Housing and Planning Bill when it was going through the House. Alas, it was rejected by the then Housing Minister. It was interesting to hear the same point being made earlier in our discussion. I am pleased if Conservative Members are coming round to our view that planning departments should be able to set fees at full recovery level.
On a more positive note, we welcome the measures to streamline compulsory purchase orders. The new Ministers must have been studying their copy of the Lyons review. We argued strongly there that CPOs were not fit for purpose and needed to be streamlined. I am pleased to see those measures in the Bill but, again, they could be improved.
I want to spend a minute or two on pre-commencement planning conditions, which is the area of the Bill on which we will probably have most discussion in Committee. I am pleased that the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) is in his place. He criticised pre-commencement planning conditions at length, yet I have a list from a development taking place in my constituency and I cannot see what is wrong with any of these conditions. The developers have to provide samples of materials. The development is in a conservation area, so that is important. They have to provide full details about bats. Well, we must protect bats. There must be noise mitigation and notice of demolition.
Gavin Barwell
The hon. Lady gives the example of notice of materials. I can entirely see why that is a legitimate issue if the development is in a conservation area, but why must that be settled before a spade goes into the ground and the groundworks start?
Dr Blackman-Woods
That is a question that I would like the Minister to put to his constituents. People surrounding new developments very much want to know what the development looks like, what the quality of the build will be, what materials are going to be used and whether they fit into the surrounding landscape. If he is serious about neighbourhood planning and giving people a say over what happens in their area, pre-commencement planning is important. Some of the measures could lead to more delays in the planning system, rather than speeding it up, which I think is what the Minister is trying to do.
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Lady mentioned landscape. One of my SME developers was required to submit a landscape scheme before starting on the development itself, as a pre-commencement condition. Does she not see that some of these conditions are completely inappropriate?
Dr Blackman-Woods
The problem is that we do not know why the local authority required that particular condition. It could have been worried that no plan might ever be produced.
John Mann
I recall that when I was knocking down and rebuilding a wall, for which I required planning permission, I was expected to provide a sample of brick in advance, from the wall that I had not yet taken down because I did not have planning permission. Is there not the potential for some compromise between the two sides on this?
Dr Blackman-Woods
Certainly not is the answer to that question—absolutely not.
In conclusion, we think that it is a real pity that the Bill does not contain more about infrastructure and how to deliver garden cities and new towns, but we look forward to having those discussions with the Minister in Committee. We do not intend to divide the House tonight, but we will see what happens in Committee.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)
This has been an excellent debate, with contributions from 18 colleagues on the Government Benches. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and my hon. Friends the Members for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) and for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) got to the heart of the matter: the interaction between neighbourhood plans and local plans, and particularly the issue of the five-year land supply. We will want to return to that issue as the Bill goes through Parliament.
We should be honest that there is a tension here. On the one hand, clearly we cannot expect our constituents to put a huge amount of work into neighbourhood plans if they do not hold weight in certain situations. On the other hand, if there is a local authority that either does not have a plan, or that has a wholly deficient plan that does not meet housing need in its area, any Member of this House who cares as passionately as we do about building the homes this country needs cannot allow such a situation to persist for years and years. That is a difficult issue, and I think that the suggestion of a mix of carrots and sticks is probably the right way to address it.
Sir Oliver Letwin
Does my hon. Friend think that there is at least a potential for the NPPF to be used as the reference point under those circumstances?
Gavin Barwell
I certainly do, and I think that there are ways we could look at addressing the issue, either through the Bill or through policy changes. I am very conscious of what the problem is, and I am sure that we can work together to find a solution as the Bill goes through.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers) spoke passionately about the green spaces in her constituency. She also sought reassurance on pre-commencement conditions, which I can provide. The consultation paper states:
“This measure will not restrict the ability of local planning authority to propose pre-commencement conditions that may be necessary—for example, conditions in relation to archaeological investigations or wildlife surveys.”
So there is protection there.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) spoke with his customary passion about the importance of custom build. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) asked about support for groups producing neighbourhood plans. We have made £22.5 million available between 2015 and 2018. I can reassure him that that money will go directly to the groups doing the relevant work.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) said that the view of his constituents was, “Enough housing, infrastructure required.” I half agree with them; it is absolutely right that we must get a much better linkage between the provision of infrastructure in return for taking more housing, but I cannot agree that we have enough housing in this country. We need more housing, but the infrastructure must go with it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), who is such a fantastic advocate for his constituency, spoke with passion about the difficulties it is facing. It is certainly the case that neighbourhood plans must be consistent with the relevant local plan, but he tested the issues in relation to the green belt. If he will forgive me, I cannot talk about the particular plan, because it may well cross my desk at some point, but if I can talk in the generality, we would expect inspectors to test the figure for objectively assessed need and to test whether the circumstances in which an authority seeks to change green-belt boundaries meet the test in the NPPF, which is that they should be exceptional circumstances.
Dr Huq
The Minister mentioned green-belt de-designation, and I just wondered whether he had any thoughts on metropolitan open land. Twyford C of E High School in my constituency, which I mentioned, has identified a new site—a disused Barclays sports ground—but the school is tied up in knots because of the land’s status.
Gavin Barwell
Metropolitan open land is a status that is specific to Greater London, but it holds the same weight, effectively, in Greater London as green belt. If the hon. Lady were to consult the London plan, similar circumstances should apply in terms of its de-designation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) showed his huge experience in this area in his contribution. He made a number of constructive suggestions, which we will certainly look at.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey) raised issues around the calculation of assessed need and in particular in relation to migration. The population projection figures do assume a fall in migration. While migration is clearly a factor, about a third of household growth nationally is due to net migration, so even if there were no migration into the country, there would still be significant pressure for more housing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) made two very powerful points. The first was about build-out rates. As a Government, we want to listen to developers and to address evidenced concerns about things that are slowing up development, be it pre-commencement conditions, the time it takes to agree section 106 agreements or concerns about utilities. However, if we do all those things, I think we have a right to turn to the development industry and ask what it is going to do to raise its game in terms of the speed with which it builds out. My hon. Friend also made another critical point, which is that, when we talk about affordable housing, yes, council and housing association housing are a part of that, but what most of our constituents want is a home that is affordable to buy, and he was absolutely right to stress that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (William Wragg) made the powerful point that this problem is going to take time to solve. There is no quick switch that anyone can throw to deal with it. He rightly wanted to hear more about what we can do to focus development on brownfield land. The Act that received Royal Assent earlier this year set up the principle of brownfield registers, where local authorities will set out clearly the brownfield land that is available in their areas and suitable for housing development.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), and Opposition Members as well, referred to resourcing for planning departments, and that is something the Government have consulted on. As part of the White Paper, we will want to come forward with a response to that consultation.
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
Are we going to intervene in the case of indolent councils that claim they have the right resources but continually fail to provide a local or a neighbourhood plan, which we will certainly not see until the end of next year at the earliest? Can we bring in a planning inspector sooner?
Gavin Barwell
The Government have signalled that we will intervene early in 2017, potentially, on councils that do not have local plans in place. The Secretary of State talked about that issue and about our determination to take it forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) raised the critical issue of broadband, and I hope I can provide him with some reassurance on it. We have legislated through the building regulations to require that, from January 2017, all new buildings, including homes and major renovations, include in-building physical infrastructure. We are also legislating to introduce a new broadband universal service obligation to ensure people can request an affordable connection at a minimum speed from a designated provider. There are therefore measures in place, and I am happy to discuss them with him and to check that they reassure him on that vital issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) talked about the importance of incentivising communities by seeing a proportion of the uplift in land value going back to the community. I do not know whether her council has adopted the community infrastructure levy, but if it has, there is a proportion—15%—that goes to the local area, and that increases to 25% if the relevant local community has a neighbourhood plan.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) made an absolutely vital point about the importance of small sites. If we want to get small builders involved in greater numbers, it is about not just financing but releasing small sites.
Finally on the Government side of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) made the absolutely critical point that this is about quality as well quantity, and that if we build beautiful buildings, it will encourage communities to go for growth.
Turning very briefly to the Opposition, there is no doubting the passion of Labour Members in addressing our housing problems, but several things were said that show their policy prescriptions sometimes do not match such ambition. I entirely understand concerns about permitted developments, but it is worth putting on the record that we have had over 11,000 permitted development applications. We do not know the number of homes involved—we want to collect data on that—but reform of permitted developments has made a significant contribution to increasing the housing supply.
We have also heard concerns about the duty to co-operate. I know that that is difficult, but for a core urban area that cannot meet all its housing need, it is vital that surrounding areas play their part. Getting rid of the duty to co-operate might mean not providing the housing we need in such areas.
Finally, concerns were raised about planning conditions. The shadow Secretary of State asked for data, and I have had time to dig some out. A survey of small and medium-sized builders carried out by the National House Building Council reported that 34% of them were concerned about the time to clear conditions and 29% of them were concerned about the extent of those conditions, so there is real evidence of concern on that issue.
In conclusion, last week the Secretary of State set out the first step in our plan to get this country building the homes it desperately needs. This Bill is the second step. We entirely accept that it is not on its own a solution to the problem and, later in the autumn, we will publish a White Paper. However, the fact is that for years and years we have not built enough homes in this country. The consequences for the ability of young people to get on to the housing ladder have been dramatic: 50% of 45-years-old owned their own home by the time they were 30, but only 35% of 35-years-old owned their own home by the time they were 30 and the projection is that only 26% of 25-years-old will own their own home by the time they are 30. This Government are determined to build a country that works for everyone, and critical to that will be creating a housing market that works for everyone. The Bill is an important step in a wider plan to deliver that critical ambition for the future of this country.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Neighbourhood Planning Bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Neighbourhood Planning Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on 1 November 2016.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration and any proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Heather Wheeler.)
Question agreed to.
Neighbourhood Planning Bill (Money)
Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Neighbourhood Planning Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:
(a) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by a Minister of the Crown, a person holding office under Her Majesty or a government department, and
(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Heather Wheeler.)
Question agreed to.
Neighbourhood Planning Bill (First sitting)
Tuesday 18th October 2016
(8 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesNeighbourhood Planning Act 2017 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 18 October 2016 - (18 Oct 2016)
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary announcements. Please switch off electronic devices, or turn them to silent. Teas and coffees are not allowed as props during sittings. We will first consider the programme motion. We will then consider a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before the oral evidence session and a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication. In view of the time available, I hope that we can take those matters formally, without debate.
Ordered,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 18 October) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 18 October;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 20 October;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 25 October;
(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 27 October;
(e) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 1 November;
(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
Date | Time | Witness |
|---|---|---|
Tuesday 18 October | Until no later than 10.30 am | British Property Federation Federation of Master Builders Home Builders Federation Country Land and Business Association |
Tuesday 18 October | Until no later than 11.25 am | Local Government Association Historic England National Infrastructure Planning Association Town and Country Planning Association |
Tuesday 18 October | Until no later than 2.30 pm | National Association of Local Councils Royal Institute of British Architects |
Tuesday 18 October | Until no later than 3.00 pm | Locality Campaign to Protect Rural England |
Tuesday 18 October | Until no later than 4.00 pm | Compulsory Purchase Association Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors Law Society Royal Town Planning Institute |
Tuesday 18 October | Until no later than 4.45 pm | Department for Communities and Local Government |
(3) proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 3; Schedule 1; Clauses 4 to 7; Schedule 2; Clauses 8 to 36; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
(4) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 1 November.—(Jackie Doyle-Price.)
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Gavin Barwell.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Gavin Barwell.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee room. We will now go into private session to discuss lines of questioning.
The Chair
Before we start hearing from the witnesses, do any Members wish to make declarations of interest?
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
I think I probably need to do so, because I still have shares in a company called Polity Communications, which gives advice to developers on how to get planning permission. I have in the past done work on opposing things with community groups as well.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I should mention that I employ a local authority council member in my parliamentary team.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I should draw colleagues’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a shareholder in a business that provides finance for construction projects.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I draw the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am the majority shareholder of a company that provides finance for construction equipment.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)
I employ two local authority members in my parliamentary and constituency office. For the record, I should probably also say that one of the witnesses is the leader of the council in my local area.
Examination of Witnesses
Andrew Whitaker, Roy Pinnock, Andrew Dixon and Ross Murray gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from the British Property Federation, the Federation of Master Builders, the Home Builders Federation and the Country Land and Business Association.
Before calling the first Member to ask a question, I remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill, and that we must stick to the timings in the programme order. The Committee has agreed that, for this session, we have until 10.30 am. Welcome, witnesses. Would you introduce yourselves, from left to right?
Andrew Whitaker: Certainly, sir. I am Andrew Whitaker. I am the planning director at the Home Builders Federation.
Roy Pinnock: I am Roy Pinnock. I am a solicitor and partner at the law firm Dentons, and I am here on behalf of the British Property Federation.
Andrew Dixon: I am Andrew Dixon. I am head of policy at the Federation of Master Builders.
Ross Murray: Chairman, good morning. I am Ross Murray. I am president of the Country Land and Business Association, representing the rural interest and the rural economy.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
Q Thank you, Mr Bone. Good morning. It is a pleasure to see some of you again. We have been around the houses a bit on planning and housing Bills.
I will start with the most contentious part of the Bill for the Labour party, which is the changes to pre-commencement planning conditions. What evidence is there to suggest that pre-commencement conditions are overused and cause delays in planning processes? It would be helpful if you could give some examples to help us understand the issue.
Andrew Whitaker: Obviously, anything that prevents somebody from getting on site and starting implementation of their planning permission is a delay to implementation. Any condition on a planning permission that says that you have to do something before you can commence that development is an obvious delay. Therefore, by very definition, pre-commencement conditions are a delay. However, I want to make it very clear that we are not against pre-commencement conditions per se. They perform a valuable role and are a valuable tool in allowing permission to be granted subject to various things that still need to be sorted out. Therefore, we are supportive of the provision in the Bill.
We want to see greater dialogue between local planning authorities and applicants about the kind of conditions that they believe are necessary on their permission and the timing of those conditions. At the moment, the default for those conditions is to make them pre-commencement, rather than to have a discussion with the applicant about the most appropriate time for those conditions to be discharged in the development process.
We accept that some very important conditions must be discharged before the commencement of development but, similarly, we believe that a lot of unnecessary pre-commencement conditions are put on planning applications that, by definition, delay implementation.
Roy Pinnock: I will address the question in relation to the number of instances of those conditions. The Killian Pretty review, which reported eight years ago almost to the day, conducted research that identified an average of eight pre-commencement conditions. I am not sure which sample of consents it looked at, because now the number of pre-commencement conditions could range up to as many as 22.
In my experience as a practitioner, you would be lucky these days to get away with eight pre-commencement conditions; 22 is more likely to be the norm. That is a lot to work through to get on site, particularly when there is an effect on the ability to fund schemes, to get them across the line and to get them moving in a period where there may be uncertainty. The BPF’s position, to reflect Mr Whitaker’s points, is that pre-commencement conditions play an important role. They often reflect the choices made when applying for consent, and do not provide detail or engage in fully detailing some of the plans and costs before consent is granted. But pre-commencement conditions are often imposed in a way that is arbitrary, unnecessary and indiscriminate. The British Property Federation would support greater use of model conditions backed by a system for being able to seek determination of whether it is appropriate to use those model conditions and modifications to the proposed section 100ZA, which is proposed by clause 7(5). I would be happy to outline the BPF’s proposals for those amendments in due course.
Andrew Dixon: Those of our members who are small-scale house builders consistently tell us that the number of planning conditions they are facing has increased very significantly in recent years. Our 2016 House Builders’ Survey asked a question as to which of a number of different causes of delays within the planning application system—
The Chair
I am sorry to interrupt. It may be that I am going deaf, but the volume seems a little low in here today. I do not know if anyone can flick a switch or something to try to get it turned up, or perhaps the witnesses could speak closer to the microphone. It was just a little difficult to hear at this end.
Andrew Dixon: I may have been mumbling—I apologise. I was saying that our latest House Builders’ Survey asked a question as to what our members saw as the most significant causes of delay within the planning application process, and the signing off of planning conditions came at No. 2 out of six, I think, just behind the under-resourcing of local planning departments and ahead of things like negotiations and signing off of section 106 and delays caused by statutory consultees that have traditionally been seen as major causes of delay and stasis within the system. There is some evidence there. As the last two speakers have said, our members report this is a problem.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Q I am sorry to interrupt you, Andrew. You said there is evidence there. Actually, what you have collected is the opinions of your members. Did they provide examples to demonstrate what was actually causing the delays?
Andrew Dixon: In terms of what causes the delays, it is not just undertaking the actions specified in the conditions but the delays in signing off those conditions. It is the delays in having those conditions discharged. Unfortunately, quite significant delays in signing off conditions are, we think, the norm.
There are any number of reasons for that, but I think one of them is that the incentives within the system for local authorities are to process applications within a given period of time and, to some extent, to have permissions in place, but the strong perception from our members is that once the permission is granted, the impetus from the local authority’s point of view goes out of the window. Quite reasonably, their priorities then may be elsewhere. That is the fault within the system that leads to conditions causing unnecessary delays.
Ross Murray: The Country Land and Business Association carried out a survey of its members this summer, in July, and over half said they wished to partake in provision of more rural housing, which we thought was very encouraging. But a third of them said that they are frustrated in making these investments because of the planning system in general. This is not specific to your question, but we also provide our 32,000 members with an advisory service and by far the largest call on advice was to do with planning: roughly 4,000 inquiries a year are to do with planning, of which a proportion—I cannot give an exact amount—relate to conditionality.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Q Are the measures in the Bill sufficient to speed up the whole pre-commencement planning conditions issue, so that you will get quicker agreement on what needs to be done by your members and in the discharge?
Ross Murray: No, not at all. In my experience, the problem with the whole planning process is that the potato stamp comes out from the harassed officer who is dealing with the application, and the first time the applicant generally sees the conditions is when the report goes to committee and becomes public five days before committee hearing. Best practice would suggest that actually the planning officer should negotiate and discuss with the applicant pre-commencement conditions during the process of assessing the application, but in reality I do not believe that happens. So the problem is that the applicant, if he is successful when the committee has passed the application, has then got to deal with pre-commencement conditions that might not accord with section 206 of the national planning policy framework, in that they are unreasonable or whatever.
Andrew Whitaker: We actually think that it will help. We have tried to get local authorities to have a conversation with applicants about the conditions they wish to place on planning applications in order to grant permission, and it has just not happened. Good practice has not worked, so using legislation appears to be the only way we will be able to get local authorities and applicants to have a dialogue about what conditions are being imposed on the decision, which of those should rightly be pre-commencement and which should be discharged further in the development process.
Roy Pinnock: Could I put forward a middle way in that context? The BPF’s position is that it has concerns that the measures as put forward under section 100ZA(5) would not deliver a faster outcome for applicants. That is because where applicants disagree with the draft conditions, the only recourse they have is the recourse they have already got, which is ineffective given the time and cost implications of pursuing a full-blown planning appeal. So it leads us no further forward, but we have introduced a further layer of complexity to the planning onion for people to talk about.
Although I agree with Mr Whitaker’s comments and the other comments that have been made about the need for dialogue and the need to promote that dialogue—where that is done, it can lead to some quite good results—the difficulty, in particular in the context of local authority resourcing, which we might come on to later, is that those authorities simply do not have the capability, the capacity and, I stress, in a few cases, the competence to deal with it now, because they have been totally denuded of that. So the ability to actually deliver what the Government are seeking is under huge pressure.
The BPF’s proposal is that there is a specific right of appeal under section 100ZA, so that if a consent is refused or has to be appealed solely because of a failure to reach agreement in relation to pre-commencement conditions—where peace has been given a chance—it should be possible to appeal and to appeal on that point alone. That appeal is then dealt with on a constrained basis, so that, rather than a wholescale reconsideration of the application de novo, only the issues relevant to the condition itself are considered. Obviously, as you know, applications to vary existing planning conditions under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 are already dealt with on that basis, so there is already a clear legal framework, both in terms of statute and case law, for dealing with appeals on that narrow basis. How narrow it is—and the law confirms—depends on the nature of the condition.
My last point on that is that that appeal system should provide for a fast-track written reps appeal process. That was done for the section 106BC appeal route that was provided for under the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013. It was very successful in terms of timescale, and there is absolutely no reason why that could not be done here, subject to resources being available within the Planning Inspectorate to deal with it. Given that it should reduce the overall burden on the inspectorate in relation to appeals, one would hope that a fast-track system would actually deliver something. We are hearing that it is required, ultimately, and sometimes it would be inevitable that it would be. The BPF’s position is that costs should sit squarely and clearly from the outset with the party that fails. The BPF’s position is simply that in using the legislation—the levers Government have—there can be changes, like section 96A and other changes that have been introduced, that drive a cultural change quickly, so that people do not constantly need to have recourse to legislation to effect what we are trying to achieve on delivery.
Oliver Colvile
Q Thank you very much, gentlemen, for giving up your time to come and have a chat with us. Before I was elected to this place, I did a lot of work in the development industry, giving advice to developers on how to manage community consultations and stuff like that. A number of my clients would have said that every time the Government get involved in producing another piece of planning law, frankly, that delays everything. I would be interested in your comments.
Turning to preconditions, I am very keen to make sure that local communities are absolutely and utterly involved in the whole decision-making process and feel that they should have their say. How do you think we can ensure that the preconditions are also considered by local communities in the process?
Andrew Whitaker: I do not think there is any doubt that local communities are involved in the planning process and in the planning application process. Therefore, the discussion over the determination of the planning application should involve whether things about the planning application need to be sorted out at a later date, and therefore communities should be expressing those concerns in their representations as part of the planning process. They are represented by elected members at a local level, so I have no worries that local communities are not involved in the determination of a planning application as it proceeds through all the legal procedures. Whether to place a condition on that planning permission is part of the determination process, so whether or not as a community you agree that condition or that the condition should be pre-commencement, it is possible to raise that through the normal procedure, rather than as a discussion on the particular schedule of those conditions. That is a technical process as to whether you need the condition in the first place.
Andrew Dixon: We would very much agree with that. We do not see this as in any way reducing the extent to which local communities and local residents can be involved in the process or can have their say on particular applications. Broadly speaking, the Federation of Master Builders is positive about the provisions on conditions in the Bill because we think that they would institute an earlier conversation about which conditions are necessary, which need to be pre-commencement conditions and which do not, and which can perhaps be pre-occupation conditions, but none of that precludes those conditions being in place or those issues being tackled in some other way. It should serve to institute an earlier conversation about how best to deal with those issues.
Helen Hayes
Q Mr Whitaker, you mentioned a couple of times that it is best practice for conditions to be agreed in discussion between the local authority and the applicant, and I agree with you. The Bill proposes a much more formal process than that through an exchange of letters between an applicant and the local authority to agree the conditions. The mechanisms in the Bill for resolving a dispute, when that process can be resolved through an exchange of letters, are pretty blunt: the rejection of the application wholesale, and the developer is then left in the position of going to appeal. Notwithstanding what you said about the system not working so well at the moment, can you comment on whether this will help to further encourage best practice, or whether formalising the process in the way proposed in the Bill might have unintended consequences?
Andrew Whitaker: Formalising the discussion in writing—of course, that does not mean by post these days—is reasonable. It makes it very clear what people have and have not agreed to, and one can go back and check that that is the case. We would agree with the BPF’s proposal that a fast-track appeal mechanism when disagreement continues would be a good idea, because that would sort out some of the potential further delay that this provision would introduce.
In terms of whether this is a blunt sword—a blunt instrument—the whole point is that one is not supposed to hold the other party to ransom. The applicant is not going to say, “I am not going to accept any pre-commencement conditions on my planning decision at all,” because then it might be perfectly right for the local planning authority to say, “In which case we will refuse your application, on the basis that you haven’t sorted out a particular detail that you could do via condition, so long as you do it prior to commencement of your application.” Or they have to think to themselves, “Would we be happy defending that at an appeal when the only thing we are concerned about is not whether this particular issue can be dealt with via condition but whether it needs to be worded as a pre-commencement condition, rather than as a condition that can be discharged at a different stage in the development process?”
There are lots of trigger points in a development, the most obvious of which is prior to the occupation of a dwelling. You are allowed to do all the groundwork—to slab level, as we call it—so you can word conditions like that. You do not need to agree everything prior to commencement, and we believe that that discussion will be able to focus minds and, ultimately, will lead to the best practice that we all seek.
Roy Pinnock: I have just two points on that in relation to the discussion and dialogue, and the role of the planning onion—we just add another layer to it and make things more complex, rather than less complex. I think that is in part your point: do we add to the systemic complexity that we already have in this regime, which is already a series of layers? As I have already said, the BPF’s position is that there is an opportunity here to do something that is quick, clear and effective, which is where a measure that has real teeth tends to drive cultural changes.
I go back to the question on whether more legislation can really achieve anything in the planning world. Section 96A is a really good example of that. It is a very small amendment to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 that has had a great impact on the day-to-day lives of practitioners by making things a lot easier, and it has driven a cultural change without people having to rely too heavily on legalistic points.
The second point is in relation to how we actually speed up the dialogue and use this as a tool. In part, the solution may be to have greater use of model conditions, which the Planning Inspectorate used to promote. We feel there is an opportunity for the Government to be much clearer about what their model conditions are, using working groups from industry and the government sector to say, “This should be the starting point. This should be when these kinds of conditions are imposed. We shouldn’t be asking for details of windows when you are decontaminating a site or knocking buildings down. This is the form of the conditions imposed.” By doing that we would drain away a lot of the administrative tasks that planning officers, of whom there are too few, are being required to do. They can rely on those model conditions and say, “We have done our job and have justified departures from them because we think it’s important to local people on this particular issue. We are prepared”—as Mr Whitaker said—“to justify that in front of an inspector, and we think they will reach the same decision.”
Helen Hayes
Q I am a member of the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government, and yesterday we heard evidence from a range of witnesses within the sector, including from the Federation of Master Builders and the Home Builders Federation, about the lack of resource and capacity in local authority planning departments. It was suggested in that evidence session that the reported overuse of pre-commencement planning conditions is a symptom of a lack of resource in planning departments, rather than a wilful misuse of pre-commencement conditions on the part of local authorities. Will you comment on your experience of the resourcing issues in local authority planning departments?
Andrew Dixon: We would certainly agree that under-resourcing is one of the major drivers behind the high level of use of planning conditions. The strong perception among our members is that planning conditions are often being used to limit the necessity of engaging in detail with a full application. Among the things that often arise from that are planning conditions that have actually been covered in the full application. An example of that would be landscaping. I have heard a number of our members say that detailed landscaping plans were included in their full application but that there did not seem to be any engagement with it, there then being a condition to bring forward those details. Under-resourcing is a major issue that causes numerous hold-ups within the system, and we think it is one of the drivers behind the excessive use of conditions.
Ross Murray: This is very profound in rural planning authorities, which are significantly under-resourced in planning. Our members around the country see that all the time. The Committee must also have a mind to the resource of the applicant and the risks within the process. We should do anything that we can to provide certainty of process after the application has been determined, and when an applicant finds that the pre-commencement conditions just do not work for him. In a rural context, these are often low-return projects, and the planning process is the highest risk point at the start of the process.
Andrew Whitaker: It is very much a chicken-and-egg situation. If local authorities do not put enough resources into determining a planning application, the temptation is—rather lazily, in my opinion—to deal with everything via condition, rather than as part of the primary application. If authorities focused their resources on what needed to be done as part of the application, they would need to condition less. That would relieve them of having to discharge conditions, which can take just as many resources as the primary application. Therefore, we think that local authorities should reassess their systems and processes to focus their limited resources into the right parts of the process.
Chris Philp
Q I would like to continue the line of questioning on resourcing and planning departments that Helen Hayes started. Mr Dixon, you said earlier that the lack of resourcing in planning departments was the No. 1 impediment to getting more applications. Will you confirm that that was the case?
Andrew Dixon: That was the case.
Chris Philp
Q Mr Murray said that certainty of process was the most important thing. Would your members or the development community be willing to pay for further resources in local authority planning departments by way of higher planning fees if, in exchange, they had guaranteed service levels—that is, the extra planning fee would be refundable if the service level was not met? Are you willing to pay to remedy the problem you are highlighting?
Andrew Dixon: The overwhelming feeling of our members is that they are quite happy to pay a higher application fee as long as those resources are ring-fenced and go into a demonstrably improved service. There would be very little resistance to that.
Chris Philp
Q It is relatively rare to find people volunteering to pay more money.
Andrew Dixon: It is fairly standard in any walk of life that people are prepared to pay more for a better service. Our members are no different in that sense.
Ross Murray: From my perspective, I would agree. Delay is risk; risk is money.
Roy Pinnock: The BPF’s position is absolutely in agreement with that. It has set that out in its response to technical consultations. There are issues of how the application is structured, indexation, inflation, and the linking of that fee not just for authorities that are performing well, but for those that are under real pressure for other reasons. There is a general consensus, particularly among commercial development investors, that you get what you pay for. There is a completely profound lack of resource in authorities to deal with the situation in which we find ourselves. It is the single biggest brake on development, in terms of applications and starts on site, in my experience as a practitioner.
Chris Philp
Q What level of fee uplift, compared to today’s levels, would your members or the development community be willing to pay if a guaranteed service level—an application determined within x period—was associated with that fee uplift? Give us a feel for the quantum.
Roy Pinnock: I might just duck that question, like any true lawyer. The critical point is that we are very used to planning performance agreements, and to guaranteed service levels being offered and assumed, and then not being delivered. There is sympathy for the reasons for that, not least because applications are complex. Local people’s relationship with planning is complex, and quite rightly so, as we are making difficult decisions. Probably the worst thing, from an applicant’s point of view, is that a guaranteed committee date is set and you do not get that committee. You then go into the long grass, and that is used to ransom the applicant. Concessions are made throughout the application process to get to that committee.
Chris Philp
Q So if the fee uplift was refundable if the date got missed, would that give comfort?
Roy Pinnock: It would and the planning guarantee should achieve that currently. The BPF would support that planning guarantee being amended, which would require the application regulations to be changed. The original idea of the planning guarantee was that you should determine either way—refuse if it is a rubbish scheme or approve if it is a great scheme. Within 25 weeks there should be certainty. That certainty is crucial to everyone.
How the planning guarantee works at the moment is that where there is an agreed extension of time, it drops away entirely. It is not the case that if you agree to extend the time to enable a sensible dialogue about the detail of planning application matters, and then that extension fails to deliver a result, you go back to the position of being able to claw back the application fee. What happens, for no good reason, is that it kills off altogether the ability to rely on the planning guarantee. That is completely wrong and undermines the whole purpose and intended effect of the guarantee. In our view, that should be amended so that the system has real teeth.
Chris Philp
Q Am I right in thinking that the current planning agreements apply only to large applications? The planning agreements that can already be entered into do not currently help small applications, so one could also introduce that.
Roy Pinnock: Yes, although there is another resourcing issue around entering into and administering planning performance agreements. There is a cultural shift that needs to go on around how applications are project- managed. That is true of the commercial sector, in terms of how it approaches negotiating section 106 agreements, when it looks at conditions in the application process and how much it is prepared to take things on at the earliest stage.
There is also an issue around how to programme-manage people’s diaries. Within an authority, you need sign-off from transport, the education aspect of the authority and housing officers. At the moment, you cannot get a meeting. I have waited three months for an authority to sit down. We said, “Look, there’s no point us sending ping-pong emails on this agreement because you keep telling us everything is not agreed. We just want to sit around the table with everyone and understand your views.” That is impossible, and it is partly due to the chaos, unfortunately, that is going on because of the multiple restructurings and the lack of resource.
Chris Philp
Q Are you satisfied that section 106 agreements, which are currently entered into after planning permission is granted, are adequate? It can take a long time to agree them. Are you satisfied that they are adequately addressed by the Bill or not? Do you think that they can still be a source of delay?
Roy Pinnock: They can be a source of delay, but equally, they are highly sophisticated tools for development. I will give you one example: the North Greenwich peninsula. There are 15,000 new homes approved on public land, despite the number of parties involved: the Greater London Authority, the developer and the Royal Borough of Greenwich. That took place within three months of the planning board.
There are other examples. I have just done two schemes further south and west in the country, and it has taken more than a year to get from committee resolution to approval to planning consent. It depends very much how that is approached, but fundamentally, far too much is in section 106 agreements. Much more should be in planning conditions. The Housing and Planning Act 2016 provides a mechanism for a dispute resolution service. We think that should be used in the same way as the appeal that we have spoken about in relation to section 100ZA to provide recourse where planning obligations are used unnecessarily.
Chris Philp
Q Should we make section 106 part of the main planning application so that the whole thing gets dealt with in an expeditious fashion in one go?
Roy Pinnock: The difficulty with that, from a practical point of view, is that there should be dialogue about what needs to go into that agreement. It is fine to do a first draft, but there is a dialogue in planning applications. Other witnesses will have a contribution on this as well.
Chris Philp
Q Yes, but dialogue can happen in pre-app.
Roy Pinnock: Yes. No plan survives contact with reality. There is always dialogue. There should be dialogue in planning; it is fundamental. I think BPF members value pre-application discussions but recognise that once you are in the mix, having submitted the application, the most important thing is how you project and programme-manage those discussions so that you know when local authority resources are available. The crucial thing is that we preserve the ability to have a sensible dialogue about quality, but drain off some of the issues involving technical things, which can be addressed by model planning obligations and model conditions.
Andrew Dixon: Just to pick up on a couple of points, you asked about the use of PPAs on small sites. They are not normally used on small sites—they are probably too clunky and an inappropriate tool for small sites—but we think there would be value in a standard, very basic, perhaps one-page agreement for covering small sites that would perform the role of some kind of service level agreement against which the applicant can hold the planning authority.
Chris Philp
Q So if I pay a higher fee, then this is a service I get in return?
Andrew Dixon: You could have that range or, whatever fee you pay, you could have an agreed service level that the planning authority has to meet—
Chris Philp
Q Without extra resources, there will not be any extra service, and extra resources mean more money.
Andrew Dixon: No, and in response to your other question, I cannot put a figure on how much more our members would be prepared to pay, but the planning application fee is a fairly small proportion of the total cost of moving forward a planning application. For an improved service, they would be prepared to pay more.
Chris Philp
Excellent.
Ross Murray: Can I take the Committee on a journey from the Greenwich peninsula, with applications for 15,000 homes, to the barn conversion, which is my members’ domain? The concept that someone would instruct lawyers, pay for the authority’s legal department and negotiate a section 106 agreement for a very small, low-value application beforehand is just not practical. There is not time and it will load risk and cost on to the applicant, so I think there are probably circumstances when the section 106 agreement will follow after the determination of the resolution to grant.
Chris Philp
Q Finally, on the question of pre-commencements, are there any particular conditions or parts of the planning process that you think are particularly onerous or absurd and would like to draw the Committee’s attention to? It might be anything to do with great crested newts, for example, without wishing to lead the witnesses.
Andrew Whitaker: No. It is possible to discuss everything. It is right that we have conditions that control various things that are not controlled in the planning application, but as I said before, people should be focusing on what is in the application and what the applicant is going to do to mitigate all the concerns on any subject. We frequently find that the mitigation that is proposed in the planning application itself is ignored. A planning condition is placed on the decision notice and the applicant then resubmits the self-same evidence that they submitted as part of the planning application and it is approved under discharge of planning conditions. That is a total nonsense. It is absolutely right that we take a lot of things into account. A lot of people are engaged in the planning application process.
I am interested in the evidence from your questioning of the other witnesses in respect of whether people pay for a better service and whether they get one. Small applications already have a PPA. Those are statutory timetables within which local authorities need to determine a planning application, and they get a fee for that.
Chris Philp
Q If the LPA breaks that, no consequence flows from it, other than a bad statistic in its report.
Andrew Whitaker: Absolutely, and we have suggested in various documents that a staged payment process of all the planning application fees would be better, because the other thing that your questions draw attention to is that there are lots of stages of a development, and not just the tiny part that is the planning application and/or the conditioning of that planning decision. We are also talking about allocations of site in local plans and in neighbourhood plans—the other part of the Bill—and then pre-application discussions, the application discharge conditions and section 106 agreements. All those things need to be looked at in the round, rather than merely focusing on a tiny little part and asking, “Would you pay more for a planning application fee?”. It is a very simple approach but it does not have a very simple answer.
Roy Pinnock: Just to round that off, where those additional fees are ring-fenced for the planning service—either where they are going into a smaller application so that an officer who might be a specialist in the 15,000-unit scheme, but who is dealing with smaller but no less valuable schemes, is freed up, or where they are funding on a locum basis, or however we need to deal with this problem—we should use that fee. We should ring-fence it and use it to allocate resource. I think the industry would probably support that. You get what you pay for, in that sense, and I think that is more important than the idea that we have a specific set of milestones, which may well be missed, just because that’s life.
We need to know that we have someone dealing with the application, that they have read all the papers and are not going to get switched over, that they understand the ecological mitigation because they have read, unfortunately, the three habitat surveys that have been done, and that they can have that conviction, because it comes from a deep knowledge of these complex schemes. At the moment, we have a real crisis in dealing with these applications, because we do not have the deep knowledge available. Unfortunately, with the best will in the world, this is a resource issue.
Ross Murray: May I come back to your point about newts, Chair? Newts and bats are totemic in rural England and Wales in the planning process. I offer you a personal story about an application for a barn conversion. Thieves came and stole the slate roof. There was no roof and, therefore, there were no bats. The planning authority insisted on the bat survey—and there we were, £1,000 later.
Mrs Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Q I possibly take a slightly different view from my colleague of newts and bats. There is some anxiety about the Bill, probably based on a misunderstanding of what the changes on pre-commencement conditions actually involve, so this discussion is very helpful from that point of view. I have constituents who are keen to see local authorities retain the power to ensure that proper surveys are done in relation to wildlife and archaeological heritage. From what I understand from the debate on Second Reading and from what you have said today, the planning authorities will retain the power to impose conditions of that kind; there will just be a change in how that is done to ensure that it involves the developer at an earlier stage and does not necessarily have to happen right at the start, before the whole process has begun.
Mr Whitaker, can you explain, in simple terms, at what stage of the process surveys of that kind can be required? I can then reassure my constituents that the Bill will not prevent an archaeological survey if it is necessary, and that the aim is to ensure that it happens in a way that causes less delay and cost to developments. It is obviously important to ensure that such work is done before a final decision is made on a planning application.
Andrew Whitaker: You are absolutely right and we agree with you. There are many stages in the planning process at which a local planning authority can reflect the community, in many instances, by asking what are the important things that need to be considered as part of the development of a site. They can do that when they allocate the site in a local plan—they can set out various matters that will need to be addressed as part of the development. That can be done by the community themselves at a neighbourhood plan level; it can be done as part of the pre-application and consultation discussion, with the potential applicant, of the issues that the local authority will want to be addressed via the planning application process; and it can then be discussed as part of the planning application process itself, prior to a decision being made. It can also be addressed as part of a planning condition attached to the planning permission.
At all those stages, one can quite legitimately raise any issue that one sees as being key to the planning decision, whether that is archaeology, bats and newts, or any other issue—for example, drainage is often seen as causing delay. Some of those issues will be so critical to whether the development is allowed to go ahead that they should, of course, be addressed very early on in the planning process.
If my local plan allocated a site but said, “This is a difficult site to drain. We will want to see all drainage details sorted out as part of the planning application. We are not going to leave this to a planning condition because it is fundamental to how much development you are allowed to put on the site, depending on your drainage scheme”, the developer would accept that as a constraint and would submit a detailed drainage scheme with their planning application. It is up to the local planning authority to then say, “Okay, this is an important issue for this site. Is the proposed drainage system capable of mitigating the drainage issues and should we approve the planning application on the basis of the scheme submitted with it?” The problem we see is that a lot of local authorities say, “We haven’t got time to do that now. We will make a planning condition that says that, prior to the commencement of the development, we want to agree a drainage system for the site.”
As I have previously explained, frequently, all that happens is that you submit exactly the same drainage system as was submitted with the planning application, or the same mitigation for wildlife, or the same detail that you knew was critical to the determination of your planning application later down the line as a pre-commencement planning condition, rather than it being sorted out as part of the original planning application. We think there are lots and lots of points along the planning journey at which the things that are key to the development of sites can be sorted out. The Bill does not change that at all.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
Q I was pleased to hear that answer, Mr Whitaker, because that issue was on my mind as well. You suggested earlier that planners might focus on the essentials of preconditions. We have to be clear about who determines what the essentials are. For example, when is a bat more essential than a ditch? I think you have made it quite clear, and I do not think that those of our environmental colleagues who are listening will feel you are trying to steamroller over the environment. Can you just give me a yes or no?
Andrew Whitaker: Yes.
Roy Pinnock: He is not.
Rebecca Pow
Q You are not. Good. Then I would like to go on to my main question, which I put to Mr Murray first. If the local authority and the developer disagree on a pre-commencement condition, there is no recourse in the Bill other than to reject the application and to then appeal the whole thing. I wonder whether that puts off, in particular, rural folk from applying for planning conditions. Does the system put them off because it is too arduous if they fear being turned down the first time?
Ross Murray: They can be put off at two stages. They can be frightened by the whole prospect of a change of use and actually applying in the first place. In the post-common agricultural policy Brexit world, we know that the rural economy has got to diversify and we have got to reduce our reliance on agriculture, so there has to be development. I think if we have legislation that does not ease that process of the scrutiny of applications, it will put people off. It will also discourage people from actually going through with appeals. I have members who have applied for planning permission, and when the list of conditions comes out, even if it is passed, they know an appeal is not affordable. They are put off by the prospect of a very expensive appeal, because there is the prospect of the inspector opening up the whole principle of the application.
Rebecca Pow
Q They cannot just appeal on one of the small preconditions that was under debate, is that right?
Ross Murray: They cannot appeal just on that, or they are at risk of it being opened up. I must say I think clause 7 is almost there, but it could be bettered if you put in a simplified appeals process. We already have a simplified system for householder or advertisement development, which is eight weeks’ written representations rather than a full-blown appeal. There is a precedent there, and I think that would help.
Rebecca Pow
Q Do you think we would get more houses and more developments as a result of a small tweak like that?
Ross Murray: I think there is absolutely no doubt about that. If we get the legislation right with clause 7 and bring in a proposal like that, I think people will understand that the planning process is fairer, simpler and less costly.
Rebecca Pow
Q Shall we just put that to Mr Dixon? Do you think that would help small and medium-sized developers as well?
Andrew Dixon: Some kind of appeals process on the issue of pre-commencement conditions?
Rebecca Pow
Yes; making it simpler, rather than have to go through everything.
Andrew Dixon: It could be a useful addition to the system. By and large, and perhaps we are being too optimistic, we do not think it is very likely that there will be protracted negotiations about the use of pre-commencement conditions. The aim should be for some of those conversations to be conducted fairly simply and fairly quickly. We are perhaps a bit more optimistic, particularly around smaller applications, about the scope for huge controversy in those conversations. We think the most important thing is that that conversation takes place at an early point in the process.
Roy Pinnock: Just to be clear, the BPF’s perspective is that the clause, as it stands, will not achieve anything—that is to be somewhat bleak. It will leave applicants in the position they are already in, which is that, if they do not like their consent, they can appeal and have a de novo consideration by the Planning Inspectorate, which will take some time. That is very weak as a dialogue and as a negotiating position.
Oliver Colvile
Q Thank you for allowing me to have a second go, Mr Bone.
I have always thought very seriously that we should make sure we have master planning taking place at a very early stage as well, which would mean the local community could get very involved in it. I am also not going to miss an opportunity to talk about ecology and about making sure that we include hedgehog superhighways in the development, too. That is important, because it is something that does not often necessarily feature in the discussion that takes place with developers. It would be a really good thing if we could encourage that, in my view, because hedgehog numbers have declined by 50% over the past 15 years.
Roy Pinnock: Planning application resources have also declined by 50%, which I think was recently noted in the Communities and Local Government Committee’s evidence session on the local plans expert group. That is perhaps unrelated.
Gavin Barwell
Q Thank you, Mr Bone.
There are just three brief points I want to make, picking up on what a number of you have said. The first is a request of Mr Dixon. You referred to the survey you had done of your members. First, can you tell us how many members you had surveyed? Committee members might find it helpful to see a copy of the results of that survey.
Andrew Dixon: We are very happy to submit that information to the Committee. I understand that 108 SME housebuilders took part in that survey, so a not insignificant number.
Gavin Barwell
Q With all due respect to the HBF, I suspect there is a very strong consensus across the House that one of the things we want to do is to encourage more SME builders. If this is particularly a concern to that sector, it is highly relevant.
Mr Murray, if I understood you correctly, I think you were saying that you were not sure that these changes regarding pre-commencement conditions would achieve anything, because dialogue between applicants and planning committees was needed. I put it to you that surely that is what this change will require. Because it is going to stop local authorities imposing pre-commencement conditions without an applicant’s agreement, it will surely create the kind of dialogue you want to see.
Ross Murray: The proof will be in the pudding going forward. My principal concern about clause 7 is the process of appeal afterwards, if those conditions are not acceptable and not viable. Regarding the point we have just discussed, an appeal that focuses purely on the offending commencement condition would be beneficial to everybody, if the dialogue has not resolved it beforehand.
Gavin Barwell
Q Yes. I think we will go on to discuss this when we get to line-by-line consideration, but the difficulty is that when an inspector looks at a condition, it is difficult to judge it in the absence of the overall application, because the council would say that the condition is necessary to make the overall application acceptable. It is difficult to just look at one condition in the absence of the overall package.
My last question is for Mr Pinnock. I understand the point you are making that there will still be an issue if this Bill goes through as it stands. I want to challenge you on what you said, that people would be in no better a position at all. At the moment, as an applicant, if you do not like the conditions attached to your application, you can appeal. I would argue that there is a beneficial step here in that, now, authorities will not be able to attach conditions that you do not agree to. The authority would have to feel so strongly about one of these pre-commencement conditions as to turn down permission for the whole application. Do you not think that it is at least going to reduce the number of cases where there is a problem, even if it will not eliminate the problem altogether?
Roy Pinnock: It may do, but it is an uncertain position. The issue for investors and also for communities is about how we create a more certain pathway to the number of homes that need to be delivered, and the amount of supported development and infrastructure. It will stop local authorities granting planning permission. That is what clause 7 does at the moment, and the BPF is wary of any measure that arguably stops authorities granting consent. There is a real risk that it is in the “too difficult” box already, and in terms of that dialogue and that negotiation, the authority will just sit back and say, “We’ve got a load of other applications that have come in, and we’ve got to meet our deadlines on that. This one’s just gone straight into the ‘we’re under a statutory restriction to grant consent’ box, so come back to us in a few months’ time when you want to agree our pre-commencement condition,” which, probably, is what would happen. We would still have the delays of discharging the pre-commencement conditions.
A targeted, fair system that allows authorities to stand by their concerns and have those adjudicated by the planning inspector on the same basis as the section 73 consideration that is undertaken at the moment, which has opened out where a condition goes to other points of the application. Quite fairly, it is broadened out. If the majority could be dealt with by written representations, that would provide a real release valve.
Also, as I say, the key thing about any legal change is that it drives a cultural shift, rather than necessarily being something people rely on. The BPF’s view is that this must have teeth and must be speedy and deliver the ultimate objective of certainty for everyone, in order to be a meaningful provision.
Jim McMahon
Q This follows on from the Minister’s point about how you compile an application with conditions to make it acceptable to the local community and the design elements within that locality. We have heard a lot about bats and newts, and a bit about hedgehogs too. There have probably been more discussions on those than on people and community. I want to explore a bit more the points you were making about the type of conditions being put forward and how reasonable or unreasonable they were perceived to be. Let us use the example of landscaping, which has been used to say, “This is how ridiculous the system is.” Following on from the Minister’s point, the idea that landscaping—planting a few plants here and there—will somehow delay an important development could be the difference between whether an application is acceptable to the local community or not. If a development is alongside your house, the screening and treatment of that could be critical to whether you support it.
Equally, the idea of phasing elements, whereby some conditions could be delayed or brought further into the application—drainage was mentioned—was predicated on the view that costing delays mount up, and that it is better to crack on, get the site done and resolve those issues later. The counter-challenge is that if you are applying for plant equipment or site security, but you cannot get an agreement on drainage, surely there is an inherent cost with that proposal. I want to challenge that to try to get some balance. We are in danger of going from one extreme to the other, and the truth is always somewhere in the middle.
Andrew Whitaker: I do not think we are. We are obviously talking about something different. We appreciate that some conditions on a planning permission will have to be pre-commencement. They are right at the heart of the application, and all types of different conditions may well be at the heart of a particular application. We are not suggesting that all landscape conditions cannot be pre-commencement.
You are absolutely right that in some cases—few, I would suggest—the landscaping proposals might well be the fundamental determining issue of that application. In others, it will be other things. The whole point of this proposal is to have that dialogue so that applicants to local planning authorities can say, “Is this really fundamental to you granting me a planning consent, given what I have already put into my planning application proposal?”
To use your example, if I have already screened the neighbour using whatever it was we agreed at the pre-application discussion, it is there as part of the plans of my planning application, and all you need to do is grant me consent in accordance with the plans that I have already submitted to you. You do not need an unnecessary condition requiring further landscaping details to be submitted.
If we have that discussion, I can point out to you that I have already submitted what I believe to be an adequate landscaping scheme. You, as the local planning authority, must then tell me why that is not adequate, whether I could address it through amended plans and all sorts of things, rather than just using the potato stamp—I think we heard that term earlier—of saying, “There is a pre-commencement landscape condition. Let’s sort this out later.” That leads to the delay, but we could have had a discussion about it as part of the planning application or as part of the determination process.
Andrew Dixon: I mentioned landscaping, so I am keen to clarify that point. I was not for a second suggesting that landscaping is not a proper consideration within a planning application. Above all, I stress that we do not see the provisions as a means to exclude certain considerations from the planning process. This should be about rationalising when certain information is needed and the optimum point in the process for it to be submitted, so that the development can come forward as speedily and efficiently as possible. If we get that right, the gains are huge.
Roy Pinnock: I have one point to add. I have sympathy for authorities, in that they will raise the issue of monitoring. They can generally see, when site operations start, that they will receive pre-commencement discharges anyway. Sorry to hit on this point again, but it goes back to resourcing. They will say, “It is just too difficult for us to monitor, after commencement, what is going on at the site, so we need it to be pre-commencement to create certainty.” We always have to be sympathetic to real life, boots-on-the-ground planning where we understand what is happening with these sites.
Some thought needs to take place between the Government, the sector and the commercial sector as to how we can assist the process and set the right stage. There is a preoccupation with many things. There will be a genuine concern that that trigger is missed, that you then cannot evict people and that it is a weak trigger. Therefore, getting it right, and having examples, guidance and model conditions from the Government is important.
The Chair
We will have to end this session. We could have gone on for a lot longer, but 10.30 am is our limit. I thank all the witnesses. The conversation we have had today is most helpful, and undoubtedly will inform and help Members as we progress the Bill. Thank you.
Examination of Witnesses
Councillor Tony Newman, Duncan Wilson, Angus Walker and Hugh Ellis gave evidence.
The Chair
We now come to the second panel of witnesses. I refer Members to page 28 of the brief.
We will hear oral evidence from the Local Government Association, Historic England, National Infrastructure Planning Association and the Town and Country Planning Association. For this session we have until 11.25 am. I welcome the witnesses. Could you please introduce yourselves?
Councillor Newman: I am Councillor Tony Newman representing the Local Government Association. I am a member of the LGA’s Towns and Environment Board and also leader of the London Borough of Croydon.
Duncan Wilson: I am Duncan Wilson, chief executive of Historic England.
Hugh Ellis: I am Hugh Ellis, interim chief executive of the Town and Country Planning Association.
Angus Walker: I am Angus Walker, board chair of the National Infrastructure Planning Association.
The Chair
Does the shadow Minister want to go first on this one? We have already done declarations of interest so the Minister has made it clear, councillor, that he is going to be on his best behaviour.
Councillor Newman: Likewise.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Q Thank you and welcome everyone. We are going to continue the discussion on pre-commencement conditions. It would be helpful to hear your views on whether they are overused, whether they do in fact cause delays in the planning process and whether you have evidence to support that.
Councillor Newman: If you are looking at the whole of clause 7 of the Bill—the conditions and the pre-commencement—best practice is where there is a strong, well-resourced local government planning department, to use traditional language, working in partnership with developers. I know that is a view the British Property Federation share: two thirds of them support the LGA’s view that we should see well-resourced planning departments. The whole perspective of what I am seeing in the Bill looks very much like a sledgehammer to crack a nut approach—another layer of red tape. If you look at the actual outcomes in terms of local government and planning, nine out of 10 permissions are given, and 470,000 permissions are already granted for homes up and down the land that await development for various reasons.
I am not saying there is not room for improvement from an LGA perspective and from a planning perspective on how you conduct pre-commencement conversations or any other approach. There is always room for improvement, which I think the starting point of the clause—this is a huge issue that the LGA needs to address. There is a collective issue about how we genuinely work better.
On best practice, I am not here specifically to talk about Croydon, but there is an awful lot of development happening there. As the Minister would recognise, where there are strong relationships between a council and the developers, it is all about taking a strategic view—what is a sustainable position and what do you want to achieve for the wider community?—and coming up with really exciting plans that are actually happening. Where development becomes mired in red tape and becomes a legal battle, more often than not the end result, as we have seen in my borough in the past, is a piece of land that sits empty for years while legal wrangling takes place. This does feel like unnecessary red tape, I think.
Duncan Wilson: On behalf of Historic England, our primary concern is with archaeological investigation pre-commencement conditions. Essentially, we believe the current system works quite well. We understand that developers need certainty and the system provides for conditions relating to investigation of sensitive sites. Only about 2% of planning applications are covered by these archaeological pre-commencement conditions. Most developers want to know what is there.
I go back quite a way at English Heritage in a former existence and I remember the Rose theatre, where there was a lot of messing around that did not really suit the developer and did not necessarily provide the best archaeological outcome either. That was because there was no clear archaeology pre-condition. Afterwards PPG 16 was introduced and has worked quite well, we believe.
We are more than happy to discuss any perceived problems with the system or any real problems with the system. We are not actually aware that archaeology in particular is causing those problems. We think, on balance, the system as it exists works pretty well for developers because it is based on an investigation of what is actually there and an assessment of the risks. That relies on local authority expertise and resources to help make that assessment, and we have our part to play in that too. I suppose it would all depend on the regulations that came with the Bill, which we do not yet know about, as to whether archaeology was mentioned as something where a pre-commencement condition would normally be appropriate in a very small number of sites. In a sense, we would have to await that.
Hugh Ellis: From our point of view, the concern about conditions is that they are fairly crucial in delivering quality outcomes. The short answer to your question about whether we have evidence that conditions result in delay is that we do not. What we do have is a growing concern that planning has to strike the right balance between the efficiency of the system for applicants and outcomes for people. The evidence about outcomes is a bit more worrying, particularly in relation to things like quality design, flood risk and various other issues, which are often secured through conditions.
The reasons for that are complicated. The discussion about resources, though, is overwhelmingly crucial, because that really is about the expertise of setting conditions, ensuring that they deliver strong outcomes and, ultimately, ensuring that they deliver the objective of sustainable development in the round. The question is: how does this measure help us with that wider endeavour of planning and delivering sustainable development?
Angus Walker: I also cannot provide you with any evidence this morning. Indeed, my expertise is more in the national infrastructure planning system where all this will not apply, but I can see that there may be one or two unintended consequences of this clause when put into operation. It is clearly designed to eliminate the lazy application of conditions where the survey, as you heard earlier, is already in the application and all that sort of thing. I can see situations where more planning permissions are refused because the applicant and the planning authority cannot agree on whether to impose a condition. I can also see conditions being recast as not being pre-commencement conditions but as having the same effect later on—pre-operation conditions, if you like—so I am not sure whether this will work, essentially.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Q Do you think that the measures in the Bill change the balance of power more towards the developer, and what are the risks with that? We have not yet talked this morning of the risks, particularly in clause 7.
Hugh Ellis: Pursuing that point, it is an issue about whether you end up with a planning system whose primary purpose is the efficient allocation of units or a wider endeavour around place-making and inclusion. Although it seems like a good idea because it is difficult to defend inefficiency or apparent inefficiency when it is thrown up, really good place-making requires good dialogue with developers, but also strong control from local government and an empowered local government to ensure that community visions are truly delivered.
The system has been weakened—permitted development is one example of that—and the Bill needs to strike the right balance. I suppose that if it went forward, the safeguard would be, and would need to be in the wider system, the place-making objective, otherwise we would find a series of outcomes that potentially have very long-term and serious impacts on everything from public health to wider economic efficiency.
Councillor Newman: I agree with that. As I said earlier, the Bill would potentially build in a more confrontational approach, and we would lose that ability to have a place-making and sustainability overview of a development, along with the benefits and perhaps future development to come.
Somebody mentioned permitted development. We have certainly seen the flip-side of that. Where permitted development has sometimes let rip, we have seen poor-quality provision of homes—perhaps people do not have any choice in a market such as London. Permitted development has proved not to be the answer. At one point, I think, half the permitted development in London was happening in Croydon. We got an article 4 direction for Croydon town centre, and we were able to protect what is now thriving business use and office space, so permitted development was not only delivering poor-quality planning outcomes but threating our local economy by damaging a space that is now at a premium for investment in jobs.
All that would reinforce my view that you need a holistic approach where possible. That is not to be naïve—there will always be confrontation in the system, but to build it in at the start seems to me to be the wrong approach, and in the LGA’s view it is an unnecessary further layer of legislation or red tape in the process.
Duncan Wilson: It seems to me that there are two issues. One is the imposition of unnecessary conditions and the other is the time taken to discharge conditions. I have been on the other side of the table too as, in effect, the developer of a number of major heritage schemes in London, and inasmuch as we had any trouble, it was to do with the time taken to discharge conditions, which was largely related to the people and resource within the local authority—it is simply a matter of getting people up to the place to tick the box and see that we had done what was required of us. The same applies to a whole load of other things such as building regulations.
On the imposition of unnecessary conditions, the local authority has to be reasonable already—if it is felt that unnecessary conditions are being imposed, it is challengeable. I worry that the proposed new system will lead the local authority to have to make a choice early on as to whether it wants to impose a condition that would be challenged—the application could be turned down and the condition challenged again. That whole system would surely take longer than arguing about the condition and determining whether to impose it at the beginning.
Angus Walker: In line with the other speakers, I think that the planning system is a balance. Although economic growth is important and development contributes to that, it still has to be in the right context and have regard to social and environmental factors.
I can see that, if an applicant and a local planning authority cannot agree on a condition, in some cases the planning authority will refuse permission, which may be appealed and then allowed. In others, the authority will agree the application without the condition in it, even though it might have been one that ought to have been imposed. In answer to your question, it seems to me that there is a slight increase in the balance being weighed towards applicants by the measure.
Chris Philp
Q Good morning. One of the speakers briefly touched on this. What is the panellists’ opinion about whether planning departments in local authorities are adequately resourced to deal with the kind of issues we are discussing—pre-commencement conditions and the determination of applications?
Councillor Newman: Local government has taken more than its fair share of efficiency savings in the past few years and has faced serious cuts. Planning has to be properly resourced: the LGA would put forward the figure of £150 million a year for the planning department, which is effectively subsidised by the council tax payer. The British Property Federation—two thirds of it anyway—supports the view that they would rather see a contribution that meant it was properly resourced and not subsidised by the taxpayer, and there are always issues around recruitment. Many planning departments work well but are stretched to the limit. There are extra pressures and other challenges in growth areas. I do not just want to sit here and say that more resources are needed, but local government is operating on tight budgets after year-on-year decreases in our budgets.
Chris Philp
Q Will other members of the panel comment on the resourcing question: do you think local authority planning departments are adequately resourced bearing in mind the demands being placed on them?
Duncan Wilson: In relation to archaeology, it very much depends on the archaeological advice rather than the planning department. Some local authorities have that advice, but in the past few years there has been a reduction of around 30% in the volume of archaeological advice directly available to local authorities. There is no straight-line relationship between the quality of the advice, its timeliness and the number of hours that the local authority has, but obviously there is a relationship. There is also the question of conservation offices, which is another specialist area where there has been a significant decline in local authority resources. It would be counterintuitive to suggest that there is no relationship between the volume of resources available to the local authority in terms of its planning department and conservation and archaeological advice, and the timeliness of turning casework around, but it is not quite as simple as that.
Hugh Ellis: I am trying to choose my words carefully based on research we have just carried out on the production of local plans. The research showed that planning teams had fallen below the critical mass capable of delivering a local plan effectively in the rural areas that we looked at that were at severe risk of flooding. In some of those authorities we visited, we found 1.2 full-time equivalent members of staff were working on a local plan process, which I found quite shocking. There is no fixed limit for how many people you need in a planning department, but minimum service levels are a critical issue, both establishing them effectively and resourcing them properly.
What struck me about your discussion with previous witnesses was that, while fees could be increased—that is an option—there are low-demand areas where not many applications are submitted. Those applications would not attract much fee income but would require significant planning services, particularly in those areas trying to deal with the aftermath of significant severe weather and flood risk. Cumbria is one of those places.
There is a crisis in the planning service—it is not everywhere because some urban areas have sustained resource—that overwhelmingly affects efficiency and the quality of neighbourhood planning service that the community receives. That is probably the single biggest thing for us as an organisation presented to us by applicants and communities about the state of the modern local planning process in England.
Angus Walker: I do not think there is any question that a large number of local authorities are not adequately resourced in their planning departments.
Chris Philp
Sorry, can you say that again?
Angus Walker: A large number of local authorities—perhaps not all—are not adequately resourced.
Chris Philp
Q The previous group of witnesses, who by and large represented the property development industry, appeared unanimously to support the idea of paying higher planning fees for some kind of guaranteed service level—for a determination within a particular time. If that target was not met, the extra planning fee might be refunded. Do panel members think that that might be one way of getting extra financial resources into local authority planning departments? If one proposed that idea, the Chancellor would probably say—I am putting words in his mouth—“The danger is that you put the extra money into the planning department, and the council reduces its subsidy, to spend it on something else, so the total amount of money stays the same; it just comes from applicants, rather than the subsidy.” If you do think extra planning fees for a guaranteed service is a good idea, how do you prevent existing resource being diverted to another part of the council’s activities? I suppose that is a question for Councillor Newman.
Councillor Newman: As you alluded to, if there was a different planning fee, there would be some relationship with, or expectation relating to, the outcome. I think what you are asking is whether it would be ring-fenced. There is a way of doing that without getting into the ring-fenced budget piece. The other position on that, the LGA would say—I welcome the question in that sense—is to have locally set planning fees. That would involve people who know an area, know what the demand is, and know what the recruitment issues are for the planning department in one area, vis-à-vis another. Then it would be for the local authority to justify both the fees it charges and the outcomes of the service it offers. Locally set planning fees and, related to them, performance indicators on how the process works—that is something that should be explored.
Chris Philp
Q Would you support the specific idea of extra planning fees conditional on service delivery?
Councillor Newman: I have to be careful what I support. I represent LGA policy here. There is a principle in the line of questioning you are asking. I think there is a way forward around locally set planning fees related to an expectation of the service one gets. That would be a step forward in terms of localism, and democratic accountability locally for the performance of the planning department.
Chris Philp
Q Do you accept that there is a danger that if you allowed local authorities to charge higher planning fees, you would at the same time have to stop them from simply diverting existing financial resources elsewhere, in order to make sure that you got an increase in total resource level in the planning department?
Councillor Newman: I do not think it would be beyond somebody to construct the model, but the key test would be the outcome—whether the planning process was working well, or was speeded up, depending on what the local challenge was.
Chris Philp
Q Can I invite other panel members to comment on that exchange?
Duncan Wilson: In the Historic England context, clearly the issue of hypothecation is really important. My colleague has said more or less what I would want to say on that. However, it is probably worth noting that Historic England has operated something called enhanced advisory services for the last year or so on more or less that basis. If it is worth your while as a developer, you can buy a tighter outcome, in terms of deadlines and delivery, and a more detailed assessment in relation to listed buildings and scheduled monuments. That has been introduced with the encouragement of the development industry, on the whole, and the British Property Federation.
Chris Philp
Q Have you found them coming forward and saying that they would like to pay these higher planning fees?
Duncan Wilson: Exactly. It can be consensual, because the cost of a planning application, certainly in the sorts of services that we provide in relation to listed buildings, is a tiny percentage of a major development project.
Hugh Ellis: I would add that there are two problems here; it is partly the planning service in local authorities, but I would not want us to completely ignore the fact that there is also a crisis in the number of planners. There is direct investment in planning schools that we also need to get right. There is a major recruitment problem in local government, not just in being able to afford planners, but in finding them. We need to take a wider step back and look at how we bring planners through the process. It is also about the messages you send to young people about why planning is important and why it might be a career that they want to take up. That is important.
Chris Philp
Q One of the challenges is that local authorities lose planning experts to private practice, because private practice can afford to pay more, and because local authorities are very stretched, so it is a slightly stressful and harassed environment to work in. The resource issue might partly address the brain drain to private practice.
Angus Walker: Undoubtedly, if you pay more for dedicated resources, you will get a better service. My concern would be that those who made applications and had not paid any more would get a worse service as a consequence. Maybe the diversion of funds would be a consequence of that. It would not necessarily be more money in the system that everyone would benefit from.
Chris Philp
Q Of course, you would still have the statutory time targets, and if you increased total resource levels, it may most directly benefit those paying more, but it might have wider benefits as well, even to applicants who were not paying the extra fees.
Angus Walker: It is possible, but in my field, it is not financial deadlines—we have time deadlines in some areas, and not in others. The ones that have a decision required, statutorily, in a certain length of time get their decisions within that time; the others probably take longer than they otherwise would have done, because more of the resources are devoted to making those decisions on time.
Helen Hayes
Q I have a question for Councillor Newman, and perhaps Hugh Ellis as well. Have either of you undertaken any assessment of the likely additional burden to local planning authorities from the new proposed process in the Bill? Supplementary to that, and following the discussion that was just had about the possibility of applicants paying for an enhanced level of service, might a better system be for local authorities to be able, on a transparent and consultative basis, to charge the full cost of their development management service through fees? One concern I have about the proposal that developers be able to buy in an enhanced level of service is that it is potentially quite difficult for local authorities to manage fluctuating demand, in relation to individual applications. Surely what we actually want is for local authorities to be properly resourced to do the job well for everybody, irrespective of who the applicant is.
Councillor Newman: We do want to be properly resourced anyway, as a starting point. There is a £150 million tax subsidy going in; that would absolutely be the starting point for me, but I still think that this is worth exploring, in terms of the particular recruitment issues we have, because there will never be agreement on what “properly resourced” would be. That is why I would not rule out looking at—I do not like the word “enhanced”. There is something around fast-track and something around some major developments perhaps requiring more resource than other developments, but there is a discussion to be had. One way or another, we have to get more resource into a system that is under-resourced financially, and where in many areas, as we have heard, there are pressures regarding recruitment and staff coming forward.
On the other question you asked, I know the LGA is submitting written evidence later in the week. I have not got figures in front of me to evidence the extra burden, but I think the extra work this would potentially bring round is significant. As colleagues here have said, you could see more refusals, and the whole thing could become mired in a more confrontational process that, by definition, will set planning applications back, rather than them being, where possible, resolved, sometimes in a mature manner.
Hugh Ellis: Just to reiterate, planning is a key service with vital outputs for communities; in that sense, it needs to be resourced properly, and certainly at a minimum level. It also worries me that a lot of this resource in fees would go into development management, leaving open the question of how you fund the rest of the planning service, which is, in some senses, the most important part for us—the development plan, neighbourhood planning and master planning process, and getting it right up front.
On the idea that applicants would pay a fee base for a particular service, and that that would somehow sustain the planning service, there are some real questions to answer. It could be part of the answer—that is absolutely true—but I return to the point, on section 106 and the community infrastructure levy, that there is already, in pure taxation terms, a slightly regressive element to planning: you get most in high-demand areas. If this was another measure that led to that, it would be challenging, partly because the planning system has to deal with all sorts of varied issues. The examples coming in from Cumbria really reinforce that. They need very powerful local plans; how are they to pay for them if the predominant form of income generation is fees from applications that they do not get?
Helen Hayes
Q I have a further question for Duncan Wilson. You mentioned concerns about archaeology. It seems there have been indications from the Government that some assurance might be provided around the question of archaeology, and we will wait to see what comes forward in that regard. Are there other areas of heritage about which you have potential concerns relating to pre-commencement planning conditions?
Duncan Wilson: Less severe ones. A number of concerns were raised in the context of the Housing and Planning Act that were perhaps more significant than in relation to this particular clause, other than for archaeology. Our concerns on brownfield land, design, massing and density are not really centre stage, as I understand, with pre-commencement conditions here.
Kit Malthouse
Q Obviously, the Government are trying to strengthen neighbourhood plans in the Bill. Do you think the provisions they have in there at the moment are likely to eliminate the erratic decision making from the Planning Inspectorate that we have seen with regard to neighbourhood plans?
Hugh Ellis: They go some way. The relationship between neighbourhood plans and local plans in law is still really quite problematic. There is a direction of travel question about whether or not we end up with a full coverage of neighbourhood plans and in some sense an idea that they might replace local plans. That is talked about but it is important to get that right.
There are a range of challenges. For example, the neighbourhood planning process is producing neighbourhood plans of variable coverage, predominantly in areas with the social and economic capital to prepare them. In law, neighbourhood plans escape a number of the placemaking duties that the wider planning system has applied; those on good design, for example, in law, do not apply to neighbourhood planning but do apply to local plans. I think these measures try, do they not, to fill some of those loopholes in relation to the status of an unadopted neighbourhood plan as it comes through the process, which might help solve part of that appeal process.
For us there is still a wider issue about how the system will work as a whole and the friction that is inevitably produced by neighbourhood plans coming forward in advance of a local plan; the different legal status between the two plans; and ultimately the adoption of a neighbourhood plan as part of the development plan. Part of this debate could very usefully settle what the vision is for neighbourhood planning. Is the idea that the neighbourhood plan ultimately becomes the key lodestone of the English planning process with local plans doing something else, or are local plans going to remain intact? That is a very important question going forward, because many neighbourhood plans are not dealing with the full range of placemaking issues that we need to resolve. That is perfectly fine because communities have a measure of choice about what they do with them, but in relation to good design, flood risk and climate change, for example, those issues are not well represented in the content of neighbourhood plans. So, this is a step; I am not sure it resolves the full range of legal issues that we are confronted with between neighbourhood and local plan status.
Kit Malthouse
Q So in your view, even if this provision goes through and a post-examination neighbourhood plan is given full weight in a planning application, in the absence of an approved local plan, do you still think we are likely to see neighbourhood plans effectively upended?
Hugh Ellis: You can still see neighbourhood plans upended because of the tensions that exist about whether we have a plan-led system, which is probably another three-hour debate. In a nutshell, the difficulty we have at the moment is that because of the tension between the national planning policy framework presumption in policy in favour of development and the legal presumption in favour of the development plan, you can find circumstances where a brand-new development plan can be rendered out of date because of its performance on five-year land supply—literally within months of adoption, rendering the entire framework of housing policy in that plan out of date. If they have adopted neighbourhood plans in support of that plan, then communities can quite understandably feel confused about that. That is a wider issue about the status of whether we have a plan-led system. For us, that balance needs some attention, to say the least.
Kit Malthouse
Q But if we do have a plan-led system, which seems to be the way that we are going, would you therefore support greater strength being given to local authorities’ ability to defend the five-year land supply?
Hugh Ellis: There is a need to end that uncertainty and it seems to me that the core issue—very crudely and very quickly—is that local development plans allocate five-year land supply but have very little influence over delivering it. The issue about joining those two things together is about other measures in play: local authorities playing a much stronger role with housing companies, and as lead and master developers. That is the way to resolve it. But the position at the moment, whereby allocations can be made and then overturned because of a deliverability issue that the local authority has no control over, needs attention. Otherwise, what happens—five-year land supply is crucial, by the way, to deliver the housing we need—is that the system becomes discredited in the public’s mind, particularly when neighbourhood plans are being overturned as a result of it.
Kit Malthouse
Q Given that the overall objective perhaps ought to be certainty for resident, council and developer alike about what is allowed where over time, if you can get to a situation where you have a post-inspection neighbourhood plan and an approved local plan—in other words, you have got two of the pillars in place—with a five-year land supply available, do you think that the role of the planning inspector in that circumstance should be diminished or not?
Hugh Ellis: That is an attractive proposition, but it is extremely difficult to see how you could remove an individual developer’s appeal rights without engaging a whole other legal debate. Whether you want to balance legal rights in the planning system between communities and applicants is a very interesting question.
Councillor Newman: I certainly would not want a position where neighbourhood plans were seen to override a local plan. I don’t think that is what you are suggesting, but the local plan does enable strategic and sustainable planning, in terms of health provision, schools or whatever, and a neighbourhood plan, by definition, is coming from a different starting point. The LGA would want to see local government having, in relation to the local plan, more powers to agree, for example, where homes should be, when they are not coming forward. That takes me back to the nearly half a million planning permissions granted that have not been acted upon as we sit here today.
As you said, it is about credibility in the system, so that the public do not start believing that their neighbourhood plan is going to have no impact or will probably be overridden, either by the local plan or by developers going to appeal. I do not have the answer sitting here, but I think it has to be about a system that has credibility—where people believe that if they make representations to their council or their Member of Parliament, although it may not always come out how they would want, the system is responsive, and respects their—there are tensions in this.
Kit Malthouse
Q On that point, is it possible for a developer to obtain a large permission in an area, and then not develop it out, and then challenge a refusal on another site in that area on the basis that a five-year land supply has not been fulfilled? That happens, right?
Hugh Ellis: Yes.
Kit Malthouse
Q That does happen. Therefore, by being patient, they are able to blow a hole in the land supply and get a permission that they otherwise would not have done, and double up.
Hugh Ellis: I would not want to comment on their motivations, but as a strict matter of policy and law, yes, absolutely that is what can happen.
Duncan Wilson: On behalf of Historic England, we do get engaged with neighbourhood plans when we are asked for advice and expertise, and it has been pretty positive, in the sense that it gives the local community a voice in a system that can seem, frankly, rather arcane otherwise. Where that has happened, we have found that neighbourhood plans have been quite strategically drawn and they have not fulfilled people’s worst fears, which were that they would be very narrowly drawn.
Angus Walker: I suppose it would be interesting to know, as Mr Ellis said, whether the intention is that the whole country will eventually be covered by neighbourhood plans. The resourcing issues that were raised earlier would be a lot worse if it were reliant on parish councils and neighbourhood forums to produce all these plans.
Kit Malthouse
Q Presumably the Bill is designed to provide that incentive. The incentive is that if you have a neighbourhood plan and it is strengthened you are more likely to have certainty about what is going to be developed in your area, so if you are bothered about development you should have a neighbourhood plan. I am interested in what you say about local plans. We hear that neighbourhood plans deliver more housing than was otherwise predicted. Is that your experience?
Hugh Ellis: It is. I think the Government produced some statistics about that. It has been one of the really positive surprises about the neighbourhood planning process. On housing, there are positive ways forward. On whether or not neighbourhood plans offer the full range of issues that planning needs to cover in a local area, the evidence we have is that they probably do not. But then, that is not what they are being set up to do. That is why I ask, is the ambition for them to be a kind of replacement for the local plan, or not? In our view, you need both. Neighbourhood plans are great at articulating community aspiration inside the local plan framework. When both work together very powerfully, that can be a very strong framework for a community.
The Chair
Q I just want to clarify for the Committee what Mr Malthouse was asking. If I understood right, Mr Malthouse was asking: if there is a neighbourhood plan, a local plan and an established five-year land supply, should there be a restriction on the right of developers to appeal?
The Chair
I was not quite sure whether the witnesses had answered that. Would everyone just say yes or no to that?
Hugh Ellis: I will try and be a bit clearer. In policy terms, you could probably strengthen that issue, but a legal restriction on an applicant’s right to appeal has always been in the legal territory of impossible because of engages of the legislation. You could certainly tighten the policy framework, but an absolute restriction on appeal is probably impossible in law.
Oliver Colvile
Q Thank you, gentlemen, for coming to see us. What a delight, Councillor Newman, to have you here, for the simple reason that I was the Tory party agent in Mitcham in the 1980s when Nicholas Ridley introduced the whole local plan process in the first place. I have been very interested in following all this.
You have talked quite a bit about resources. I am pretty aware that my council in Plymouth, for which I am the Member of Parliament, has similar issues. However, we have a university and a planning school. To my mind, councils could have a much closer relationship with their planning schools and try to use some of those resources. Is that something that you have looked at?
Councillor Newman: Periodically but, to be completely frank, not enough. As the LGA, and perhaps as local councils, sometimes we do not sell the exciting career that local planning can be for many people. Many people who are part of it stay for many years and have a good career. There is more work to be done on how we market a career in the local planning department and some other roles in local government.
There are other pressures. If you are in London, it is not about marketing the career. Social workers, for example, cannot afford to live in many localities. In London, the question is whether people can afford to live in the area where they might want to come to work. It is not just a single issue. I would encourage the sort of practice you describe in Plymouth.
Oliver Colvile
Q It seems to my mind that students, I keep being told, find it very difficult to make ends meet. They have tuition fee loans and all those kinds of things. It would actually be a way of trying to get them to have some practical experience in the planning world. Similarly, local archaeology people come to see me, some of whom are doing things at the university. Is that a resource that you might think about using and looking at?
Duncan Wilson: There are certainly supply-side issues with archaeology over the whole country in relation not just to local authority advice, but to the large number of archaeologists we will need to fulfil the demand for archaeology arising from major infrastructure projects. It would be an oversimplification to say that that is just an aggregate supply of archaeologists. The higher education sector is not necessarily producing archaeologists with exactly the right kind of skills to deal with the different kinds of problems that archaeology in Britain throws up. More fieldwork is rather an important issue in that context.
The Chair
I am sorry to interrupt, Mr Colvile, but I am very conscious that we have limited time and three people want to ask questions. I will bring in John Mann, because I know he will be brief.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
Q How many of these 500,000 unmet house planning consents are in neighbourhood development plan areas? Does anyone know?
Councillor Newman: I do not, but we will write to you rapidly with that information.
John Mann
Q Nobody knows. What is the increase from what the position was in the same areas covered by neighbourhood plans, in terms of proposed new housing units in areas covered by neighbourhood development plans?
Angus Walker: I do not know the answer to that, but I think the Secretary of State said on Second Reading of the Bill that, of those who had an increase, the average increase was 10%. That does not give how many there were overall.
John Mann
Q You said that the five-year land supply for housing was critical for housing development. How do you know that?
Hugh Ellis: It is an element of it. To be clear, the problem with the delivery of housing in this country is not primarily the planning system; it is development, but five-year supply is important.
John Mann
Q Correct. Am I right in saying that every neighbourhood development plan, in order to be in any way legal, has to incorporate new housing development?
Hugh Ellis: The position is that it has to be in conformity with the development plan, if there is one, and the NPPF, which means that it has to recognise local housing need and the five-year land supply to go with it.
Hon. Members
No.
Hugh Ellis: The general view, when neighbourhood plans were being developed, was that they could not plan for less housing—which is sometimes how people tried to use them—than the local development plan had allocated, so there is a kind of floor. They certainly can plan, and have planned, for more housing than the local development plan has allocated.
John Mann
Q Is there a reason why English Heritage has not tried to initiate neighbourhood development plans using major historic buildings, such as cathedrals, as the core basis for defining urban communities?
Duncan Wilson: As I said before, we do engage with neighbourhood development plans, but normally on request, rather than proactive consultation on every neighbourhood development plan. When we do engage, we certainly encourage proper consideration of the historical character of the area and how development can sit alongside that. Cathedral cities are a really important subset of that group.
John Mann
Q My final question: is not the strength of neighbourhood development plans also their weakness? The strength is that at the moment a plan lends itself perfectly to villages with parish councils, which can easily, and very ably and effectively, localise the planning process—in my area virtually every parish council has or is developing a neighbourhood development plan, all of them increasing the housing supply significantly, and they will be delivering on that housing supply significantly over the next five years—whereas the weaknesses are in urban areas, where defining what the community is actually requires a bit of original thinking; otherwise everything simply becomes one urban mass. Is that not the opportunity, be it for the English Heritages, the good planners or enlightened councils, to get urbanised neighbourhood planning to involve communities in exactly the way that villages have hugely successfully involved vast numbers of people in the development of the existing neighbourhood plans that have been agreed, or are currently rolling forward?
Councillor Newman: I think you could have more urban neighbourhood plans, but I would want to see them still sitting with the overarching plan in an urban area—such as the one I am very familiar with, Croydon—to be the local plan. As we have learned from mistakes in the past—although I know this is not what you are suggesting—we should not just focus on increasing housing numbers without looking at the sustainability of the community in terms of health provision, school provision, transport links and everything else. Much as we need new homes, it should not just be a numbers game that leaves us in the same place we were in the ’70s.
Duncan Wilson: In relation to our historic towns, yes, I agree that neighbourhood plans would be and sometimes are a good way of crystallising that discussion, but it is really important that the areas around towns are brought into consideration too. Otherwise, you have a plan for an historic town and all the housing gets pushed out to the periphery, without a proper strategic consideration of how that relates to the historic town in terms of transport links, public spaces, infrastructure or design.
Hugh Ellis: In a way, the critical flaw in neighbourhood planning is the neighbourhood forum model. There has to be an issue around making that accountable. The differences in neighbourhood planning between an accountable parish or town council and an unaccountable forum were always pretty stark. It was always unclear where that ended up. There would probably be more enthusiasm for urban neighbourhood planning if that problem could be resolved.
Rebecca Pow
Q Will the changes proposed to the pre-commencement conditions leave enough flexibility to deal with things that local communities are really concerned about? In my area of Taunton, the big issues are all about what Mr Ellis referred to: design quality, the look of the houses, vernacular character, flood resilience. Can we get all that cleared through the changes proposed, or are we relying utterly on neighbourhood plans to do that? Are there enough teeth for that to be taken into account when the planning consents are given?
Hugh Ellis: Although there is conflicting evidence in planning, one thing we can be absolutely certain of is that the design quality of domestic housing in this country is one of the great lost opportunities.
Rebecca Pow
Q And it is one of the big bugbears locally, when you talk to people, in all neighbourhood planning.
Hugh Ellis: We are capable of delivering so much better. That would require two things: a sense that planning is part of the solution to these problems and not always part of the problem, and a fairly robust local planning process. I think it would also include a greater emphasis on good design as an outcome in planning.
Rebecca Pow
Q But where would you put it? In the pre-commencements?
Hugh Ellis: You would need to think about it right from the top. The content of the NPPF on design is actually quite good, but I do not see it being enforced, particularly, through plan-making.
Gavin Barwell
Q I have two quick questions for Councillor Newman. You felt that the planning conditions measures were a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I want to get a sense of the size of the nut. Among the previous witnesses, there was a consensus that the use of pre-commencement conditions has been growing over time. Does the LGA share that view?
Councillor Newman: As I said at the start, I think there is sometimes a perception in Government that planning is the problem. Maybe we are not even looking to crack a nut. To repeat what I said at the start, we risk setting up a far more confrontational process at the start. Conversations around design, sustainability and so on get lost, because people have to take a fixed position very early on in the process. Look, it is not perfect—there will always be examples that people can give of where it has ended up in confrontation—but the evidence seems to suggest that the nut is not particularly large.
Gavin Barwell
Q It is not getting bigger, in the LGA’s view?
Councillor Newman: No.
Gavin Barwell
Q In its submission to us, the District Councils Network acknowledged that the discharge of planning conditions can be a factor in slow decision making and supported the Government in seeking to address conditions. Why did district councils take a different view on this from the LGA as a whole?
Councillor Newman: I have not had district councils coming to me, knowing that I was coming here, but if that is the position of their network, we will include it in our evidence.
Gavin Barwell
Q You made a very good point that in the year to 30 June, this country granted a record number of planning applications for housing, but that there is a gap between the planning permissions we are granting and homes being built out. If you do not think planning conditions are part of the problem—I would certainly say they are not the sole problem—what do the panel think are the reasons for that gap?
Hugh Ellis: The core reason is that we have restricted our delivery of housing to a single development model. You have signalled, Minister, that you are interested in exploring how we can find new ways to challenge that. The critical issue is that from 2019-20 onwards, the private sector will probably go on building 150,000 homes a year, almost forever. The critical elements missing from our debate—I know your mind is open to this issue—are how we deal with scale strategic development, how we join up infrastructure with housing development and, crucially, how we deliver a new generation of new settlements.
I am very conscious of Macmillan’s achievement in delivering 350,000 homes in the mid-1950s, but he did have a programme that was 32 new towns strong at that point. They are a fantastic way of delivery. They overcome the issue of delivering numbers. Milton Keynes is delivering almost 4,000 homes a year. I believe that there is an exciting opportunity for us to take that up again, but it seems to me above all that in our collective debate about housing delivery in this nation, we need to address our attention to that strategic scale.
Councillor Newman: I will finish with an example from Croydon. If a planning permission has not been taken up within three years, perhaps a council building company like Brick by Brick should be invited to step in and start building the homes that somebody promised they would build but did not.
The Chair
I am afraid that time has beaten us, although we could have gone on much longer. Thank you, witnesses. That ends this morning’s evidence session.
Neighbourhood Planning Bill (Second sitting)
Tuesday 18th October 2016
(8 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesNeighbourhood Planning Act 2017 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 18 October 2016 - (18 Oct 2016)
The Chair
We will continue with evidence from the National Association of Local Councils and the Royal Institute of British Architects.
Examination of Witnesses
Ruth Reed and Jonathan Owen gave evidence.
The Chair
Welcome, witnesses. Will you introduce yourselves for the record?
Ruth Reed: My name is Ruth Reed. I am past president of the RIBA, I chair the RIBA planning group and I am representing the institute today.
Jonathan Owen: I am Jonathan Owen. I am chief executive of the National Association of Local Councils, which represents 10,000 parish and town councils in England.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
Q 6868 Do the provisions of the Bill go far enough to support groups that want to undertake a neighbourhood plan and, in particular, does the Bill do enough to support groups in disadvantaged areas? Please address both parts of the question.
Jonathan Owen: You have probably put your finger on the most important issue facing the plans, which is how to make them credible and respected in the system, so that communities engage with and buy into them. The Bill does a lot to help with that process. I have visited lots of parish councils over the last few years and they certainly have expressed concerns about how difficult it is to revise some neighbourhood plans, and about some of the advice that they are getting from principal authorities. Some elements of the Bill will help with that, but I do not think that it tackles the fundamental issue, which is how credible the neighbourhood planning process is within the planning system as a whole. We are in danger of building a lot of expectations that will not be fulfilled.
Neighbourhood plans have been enthusiastically embraced by parishes and communities, with loads of people volunteering to help with them and 400,000 people voting in elections or referendums on them. A really good plan is produced at the end of that process, but all too often those plans are set aside on appeal, or decisions by planning authorities are taken contrary to the plans. We would like to see the Bill tightened to ensure that neighbourhood plans have more influence in the process, and so that there is a clear statement from Government about what exactly the role of neighbourhood planning is in the planning process.
Ruth Reed: Funding has already been put in place for providing plans for disadvantaged areas, but local authorities are beholden to identify and bring forward local plans and we do not yet know whether the funding is sufficient to enable that.
Where you have a clearly identified community, whether it be parishes or other well-knit communities, it is very easy to put in train the process of producing a local plan. In a city area with no clear community boundaries or, necessarily, a sense of community, plans are much harder to bring forward. I am not sure that there is anything other than the intention under previous instigations to provide funding—there is nothing necessarily in the Bill—to promote the identification of those areas and to bring them forward. It would be good to see this rolling out across all communities to give them the same access to the democratic influence in their immediate area.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
Q Dr Owen, you said that a lot of neighbourhood plans had been overturned, or that decisions on appeal have blown a hole in the neighbourhood plan—that certainly happened in my constituency—so do you think that the provisions of the Bill will iron some of that out? Do you think that the intervention point, or the point at which the plan has more weight post-inspection, is the right moment, or could it conceivably be earlier in the process?
Jonathan Owen: I think it is helpful that the Bill proposes, in effect, giving plans influence from earlier in the process. Obviously we need to see how that works in practice, but it goes some way to address some of those concerns. We probably need during the passage of the Bill to try to press for greater clarity on the exact role of the neighbourhood plan and get some statements about the importance and significance attached to them.
Kit Malthouse
Q What do you think it should be?
Jonathan Owen: I think we should have a much more plan-led system—I am sure that will not surprise anybody. Neighbourhood plans need to sit very closely with the local plan, and together they should form a robust base on which planning decisions can be taken. The problem at the moment is that some local plans are not as developed as they might be. They do not have five-year land supplies. We have neighbourhood plans coming on stream more quickly, and they have caught the problems of the tension between the various tiers. A bit more clarity in the Bill about the respective responsibilities of those tiers and plans would be helpful.
Ruth Reed: Nothing beats having in place a local plan that is robust and that has sufficient provision for housing land supply, which it can renew throughout its life. The concern is that, if neighbourhood plans are brought forward pre-referendum immediately before local plans have been adopted, it will slow down the very necessary local plans process. The problem then is about the provisions to go back and amend neighbourhood plans. The danger is that you are disillusioning local groups that have thrown a lot of voluntary time and effort into preparing those plans. They will see the local authority, which in cities can seem quite distant—less so in the smaller authorities—wading in and changing something they hold dear because they have gone through the process of having prepared it themselves.
Kit Malthouse
Q But is it the case that, wherever you pick in the lifespan of the neighbourhood plan—from inception through to referendum—by picking a point at which you create weight, you also create a window for land speculators or developers to try to get in under the wire? Do you think the point the Government have chosen for the cut-off date—post-inspection—which is where this weight occurs, is too late? Of course, all the work is done pre-inspection. As you say, part of the mission is to make the process credible so people who are embarking on a two and possibly three-year, process do not feel their time is wasted because an application comes in just before inspection.
Ruth Reed: I do not want to run down the majority of neighbourhood plans, but they are generally prepared by voluntary work, sometimes by amateurs, and until they have gone through the inspection process they are probably not rigorous. It would be difficult to indicate to decision makers, whether the local authority or the inspectorate, that they should be given significant weight, because they have not had the thorough scrutiny of the inspectors’ examination. I personally would not bring it any further forward than that. My greater concern is that they are produced without the backing of, and without being in sync with, a local plan, which would ensure coherence and strategy across a local authority to provide housing where it is needed.
Jonathan Owen: Hopefully, the requirement in the Bill to make local planning authorities provide clear assistance to parishes should help to improve the efficacy of neighbourhood plans. My colleague is right that they are produced by volunteers, but that is a strength. They are often produced by volunteers with exceptional experience. I think that the earlier in the process they have a robust position, the better.
Kit Malthouse
Q Thank you. You have both referred to the importance of the local plan. Obviously, a neighbourhood plan is hampered in the absence of an overarching local plan with a five-year land supply. That is not the fault of the area that has put the neighbourhood plan in place. Do you think there is scope in the Bill or elsewhere to create some kind of compulsion on local authorities to have a plan in place? Some of them seem to take their time.
Ruth Reed: I believe that has already been addressed by the Local Plans Expert Group. I understand that the Minister has already made some comments about that. It would be extremely desirable for there to be some mechanism to make it a statutory obligation to have a local plan in place. Presumably, that should include a robust way of reviewing the five-year land supply to ensure it continues to be effective and not out of date throughout its lifespan.
Jonathan Owen: I agree very much with that. We would also like to see some certainty about how the community infrastructure levy will operate, and perhaps a time limit for getting those schemes in place. Again, one of the things that I hope the Bill will do is incentivise local communities to take control of their places and develop neighbourhood plans, but they need to see some reward for that, and I think that a share of the community infrastructure levy is a key element. The National Association of Local Councils is pushing for that to be increased from 25% to 35% where an approved neighbourhood plan is in place, which would help incentivise and perhaps persuade some communities, including some of the more deprived ones, to see the benefits of having a plan in place.
Kit Malthouse
Q On that notion of having a neighbourhood plan and a local plan, probably the most feared organisation in my constituency is not the Inland Revenue or the police, but the Planning Inspectorate. When a neighbourhood plan that has been through a referendum is in place and a local plan has been approved and has a five-year land supply, do you believe that there should be some restrictions on the jurisdiction of the Planning Inspectorate in such circumstances?
Ruth Reed: The Planning Inspectorate has a duty to make decisions in accordance with the development plan and other material considerations, one of which is national policy. I do not think that it is pushing a particular agenda; it is merely carrying out its duties. I declare an interest: I was an inspector.
Jonathan Owen: I think we would like to see some process perhaps to review the decision of those inspectors. We are calling for a right to be heard, or a right of appeal, so that where decisions are taken contrary to a neighbourhood plan and a local plan, people may have some reference to the Secretary of State or Minister to take a final view on the thing. It is really important that we have consistency across the piece, and that communities developing neighbourhood plans are confident that when they do the work, backed up by a local plan, those plans will have real importance and significance. If they do not, people will ask, “Why bother volunteering time to do these things?” Why bother to spend a lot of time on how to accommodate more housing and more growth in your community if those considerations are set aside for all sorts of complicated legal reasons that the planning system always seems capable of throwing up?
Ruth Reed: May I make a technical point there? The inspectorate is the Secretary of State—it stands in the shoes of the Secretary of State—and the recourse is a section 288 challenge.
Kit Malthouse
Q Yes, I understand that. All MPs can, pretty much, point to inexplicable decisions by the Planning Inspectorate in their area. One of the things that alarms local communities is this notion that the decisions made seem broadly random. I guess what I am trying to fish for is whether there is some way for an area that can prove it is playing ball, is providing housing and has its plans in place, to have the planning inspector say to a developer, “Well, don’t even bother asking, because we are not going to participate”.
Ruth Reed: Every group can be an appellant and has the right to appeal to the Secretary of State, so it would be undemocratic to deny people the opportunity, whether they be housing developers or individuals. Everyone has a right to appeal.
The Chair
Q It is a very important point that Mr Malthouse is making, but may we just be clear that if there is a neighbourhood plan, a local plan and a five-year land supply, you still think that the developers should have the right to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate?
Ruth Reed: If everything is in place, the developer’s case would not have any weight.
The Chair
But do you think they should have the right to appeal?
Ruth Reed: Everyone should have the right to appeal; they do not have the right to succeed.
Kit Malthouse
Q When you say “everyone” should have the right to appeal, you do not mean the residents.
Ruth Reed: Everyone who has had a decision made—no, I am not talking about third parties. I am talking about planning refusals under section 78. Anybody who has had a refusal is allowed to appeal the decision—appellants themselves may appeal the refusal, whoever they are.
Kit Malthouse
Q I understand, but you said that was of democratic importance—
Ruth Reed: Yes—
Kit Malthouse
Q But obviously a lot of residents believe the system is one-sided, because they cannot appeal an appeal that is allowed.
Ruth Reed: If there is a material error of process, they may ask the local authority to take it up as a 288 challenge in the High Court.
Kit Malthouse
Q Okay. My final question is on neighbourhood plans and the areas, to which you alluded earlier. Do you think that neighbourhood plans could be put in place by self-defined areas?
Ruth Reed: My understanding was that you could put forward an area and have it accepted. That is, to a degree, self-defining.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Q May I have your views on the availability and level of resources to support communities that want to undertake neighbourhood planning? What more could be done to enable and encourage neighbourhood planning in more deprived communities and in areas of high housing need, for example, where there are voices that might not be heard in the planning process, but that might stand to benefit from the neighbourhood planning process?
Ruth Reed: I personally believe that there should be a proactive role for local authorities to instigate and identify neighbourhoods, and put in train a process. There should also be an opportunity to financially enable not only the technical aspects of planning, but—on behalf of the Royal Institute of British Architects—to provide design capacity to enable them to input well-worded design policies, and even design codes so that individual neighbourhoods can give expression to the kind of development that they would like to see, and to make it real to them. We believe that there may now be financial provision for this. One of the problems in planning is that it is a paper, two-dimensional base exercise. Sometimes you need people like architects to make it real and three-dimensional and to be able to explain what it would look like, using models or digital models.
Jonathan Owen: The pump-priming funding provided by the Government to support neighbourhood plan development has been an element that has encouraged parish councils to get involved, and it has driven neighbourhood planning of the 2,000 plans that have been produced. Parishes have led 90% of them, so they are embracing that opportunity, and I would like that to continue. The element in the Bill requiring planning authorities to identify the kind of advice that they would provide to groups and draw up neighbourhood plans is helpful. Where it falls a bit short is where it does not set out what is required or expected by the local planning authority.
We would like to see something more formal by way of either a statutory memorandum of understanding or a code of practice relating to what might be expected of the local planning authority in terms of helping with community involvement, helping them to access the principal authority website to do consultation work on it and that kind of thing, rather than just a basic entitlement. So it would be a mix of hard cash and softer things that could be provided by the planning authority. I know that would cost them money, and there was a good debate this morning about planning authority resources.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
Q Prince Charles’s Foundation for Building Community did the groundwork in my area to self-define an urban area around a historic church as a community. It is a coherent community, and it is a community that has not been defined as such for 300 to 400 years. In your position, would you say that there was far more scope for this? Imagine if it had been done for the St Paul’s neighbourhood plan 40 years ago. Things might be rather different. Do you see great scope in this, and do you see scope for your organisation in prompting this kind of thinking?
Ruth Reed: I think we have locally active members who have been engaged in the first phase of neighbourhood plans. It is not core to architects to bring forward planning initiatives. There is no reason why certain individuals should not get involved, but it is not something that the RIBA would do, since the RIBA exists to promote architecture rather than enable communities to deliver local plans. There are groups aligned to the RIBA, including the Design Council, the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment and the Architecture Centre Network to put design capacity into local authorities. The RIBA would be involved in initiatives in this kind of area to provide resources to local groups.
John Mann
Q Some would say great architecture defines communities and I hope you will give further thought as to how you might inspire people, particularly in urban areas and around our great cathedrals and other great buildings. Most of your member organisations were busy consulting vast amounts of local people over local plans, and then the Government changed the goalposts in March 2013. How many local plans have had to be redone because of the requirement to consult neighbouring authorities?
Jonathan Owen: I don’t have the answer to that. Two thousand neighbourhood plans have been prepared by our parish and town councils—
John Mann
There must be a significant number, because councils like mine that had had all the consultation were informed that they had to start again entirely from scratch, which seems to me to be quite a way of delaying house building—albeit inadvertently—by the coalition Government.
Ruth Reed: I think stability in the planning system is to be welcomed, because it gives confidence to developers and other people bringing forth developments that they will get planning. That is why it is important that local plans are in place, and it is very important that they have adequate provision for housing land in particular. The stability we have had since 2012 has been quite welcome.
John Mann
Q The stability we have had? There has been no stability in all those councils that had to abandon their local plans—there is no plan there, so in fact there has been instability. Dr Owen, have there not been cases where small district councils, with the risk of adverse costs should they lose at appeal, have felt obliged to pass things that they do not want and their local communities vociferously do not want for fear of risking a quarter of a million pounds in costs from their budget? Does that sound familiar?
Jonathan Owen: I am sure there are examples of that, but from a parish perspective I guess that also introduces uncertainty into those neighbourhood plans themselves. We have had plenty of examples of where those neighbourhood plans have had to be redone, revised or tossed aside. In the pack of papers we sent in by way of submission, we quoted Haddenham parish council, which gave evidence to an all-party parliamentary group last week mapping out the enthusiasm of the people who drew up that neighbourhood plan. They got experts involved from within the community and produced a really great plan, but within six months it got set aside through a judicial review.
The representative from that parish came here and was deeply disappointed that all that hard work and effort had come to naught. He could not see how he would be able to engage his local residents or his community in shaping such a plan again. That is why we need some certainty, clarity and credibility around the whole system. Hopefully the Bill will help address that.
John Mann
Q Indeed. My own parish council had exactly the same experience. Vast numbers participated. A community plan was drawn up with huge engagement. It was environmentally sound and very forward-thinking on green technologies. Architecture was built into it, with what the new housing should look like to fit in with the feel and history of previous architecture, but that was overturned because of the five-year housing supply. Someone wants to build something that does not fit in at all, and that was not agreed by anyone, because someone in Whitehall says, “You’ve got to have this number of houses.” Will that inspire more neighbourhoods to have plans, or will that mean there will be even more cynicism about the planning system?
Jonathan Owen: Well, I think you are right—cynicism is a very real risk. That is why we need to ensure that we build a system where the role of neighbourhood plans is clearly spelled out and we are not raising expectations unreasonably, so that, together with local plans, they provide a really robust framework to support communities to have control over their areas and get the right kind of development.
John Mann
Q The evidence, overwhelmingly, is that where there is a neighbourhood plan that increases the potential housing supply through land allocation, that housing will be built and will be built quickly. However, there is a bit of a time lag in proving that in huge numbers. Do you intend to keep providing that information on how successful neighbourhood plans have been in bringing forward new housing? Would that not therefore strengthen the argument that where there is a neighbourhood plan that has been formally adopted by one of your members in district council, after a referendum and a council vote, that should be the plan stuck to by everybody?
Jonathan Owen: We will certainly showcase those examples. Government research shows that something like 10% additional housing is provided by neighbourhood plans. I am particularly pleased that Newport Pagnell, one of our larger town councils, won an award from Planning magazine for the quality of its neighbourhood plan, which, among other things, provided for 30% more housing than was set out in the local plan.
We believe—you would expect us to say this—that parishes can really drive forward neighbourhood planning, and can set aside the outdated nimby view of parishes and build communities that have housing for local residents and others, provided in a way that has infrastructure and community support. The key thing is to make sure that people’s enthusiasm for that is not set aside because the plans are set aside or overturned on appeal or whatever.
John Mann
Q Indeed. With more than 20 local plans either agreed or proceeding in my constituency, every single one brings forward new housing—more than any plan previously. Every single community is willing to have housing, but wants to have a great say on what kind of housing—what shape, what design—and where it should be. Seing as so many of them are in beautiful parishes such as the village where I live, is there not a danger that one part of society is going to benefit from this whereas in more deprived communities, in urban areas, there is the same desire for local control over neighbourhoods, but it requires a bit more imagination to create communities sufficiently robustly small to carry out this kind of planning? Should we not be giving far more incentive, encouragement and expert advice to those communities, on the basis that all politics is local as long as you are prepared to trust local people?
The Chair
In 10 seconds, please.
Ruth Reed: I think we have already said that we would support the proactive work by local authorities in identifying communities and bringing forward neighbourhood plans in more deprived areas.
Jonathan Owen: And parish councils, of course, are increasingly being set up in urban areas these days. Sutton Coldfield, Swindon and many other places are setting them up, so hopefully, with a bit of luck, we will see more parish councils in those urban areas helping those deprived communities.
Mrs Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Q Part of this has been covered by John Mann’s questions, but just to be clear, it seems to me there are far fewer neighbourhood plans in big cities than elsewhere. It would be useful to understand from you what you think the main cause of that is. Is it because it is very difficult to identify a community small enough to be viable for a neighbourhood plan within a bigger urban area?
Jonathan Owen: I think it is that, and I think those communities need support from their local planning authorities. Of course, the absence of a parish or town council in those areas means there is no institution that can drive it forward and raise funds through precepts to support the neighbourhood plan, with an ongoing democratic existence over time.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
Q One of the things so many communities want is to have an influence on how their communities look and feel, what nice places they are to live in and all of that. Do you think the changes proposed in the Bill will help that? Will people really feel that they are going to influence the places in which they live?
Ruth Reed: I think it would be helpful if it was explicit that provision is made for enabling the capacity for local communities to express what they want out of the quality of their environment. I do not think it is explicit. It is implied that there will be funding provided for guidance, but it does not say that that should be what it is. I think it would be good if the Bill made a clear statement that good design will be brought forward through this process.
Rebecca Pow
Q Do you think that will be an incentive for people who are sceptical about the process we have been discussing? Would it really encourage them to do it?
Ruth Reed: I think if they felt they had some control over the way things looked, they would be much more incentivised to bring it forward.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
Q I am interested in the powers providing the finance to deliver and get the expertise in, and so on. What about practical support beyond that, for instance toolkits, pro formas and websites that can generate content and formatting? Maybe I can use this opportunity to blow the trumpet of Greater Manchester, which is currently embarking on a project with the Cabinet Office to develop open data mapping. Would more projects like that help your parish and town councils?
Jonathan Owen: I have been interested in how the neighbourhood planning process has taken off over the last few years. We should recognise that it was an experiment, really, and we are at the early stages of that experiment. In any experiment we need to have plenty of ways to share good practice and showcase what others are doing, and the kind of toolkits you have mentioned. Certainly, from talking to parishes, they are reassured when they are able to talk to other parishes or other neighbourhood forums that have done it and learn lessons from that. Anything that we put in place—not necessarily in the Bill but through any financial support— to ensure that sharing of good practice would be brilliant.
Ruth Reed: Any obligations placed on local authorities to provide extra services, if they are not accompanied by funding, are going to put extra pressure on a system that is already in a—
Jim McMahon
The mapping, of course, could be provided by central Government. The technology platform could be provided centrally.
The Chair
Order. I am really sorry, but time has beaten us, and we have to move on. Thank you so much for coming and giving evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Carol Reilly and Matt Thomson gave evidence.
The Chair
We now hear oral evidence from Locality, and from the Campaign to Protect Rural England. For this session we have until 3 pm. I welcome the witnesses. Could you please introduce yourselves?
Carole Reilly: Hello, I am Carol Reilly. I am the head of neighbourhoods and housing at Locality.
Matt Thomson: Good afternoon. I am Matt Thomson. I am the head of planning at the Campaign to Protect Rural England.
Jim McMahon
Q I am interested in the balance of the drive and ambition to build more homes with trying to protect the environmental standards, in particular around the green belt. I would welcome your views on that.
Matt Thomson: Shall I kick off, given that green belt is one of the key things that the Campaign to Protect Rural England is concerned with? It comes down to the general principle behind neighbourhood planning, that people and communities at the local level are best placed to make decisions about the impacts of development on their area, and about the type of development that takes place in their area. The more local the level at which decisions are made, the better the outcomes can be for those kinds of concerns.
Carole Reilly: I think it is really important that we listen to communities. We have seen a number of neighbourhood planning groups that are challenging local authorities that have not got a “brownfield first” policy. That is one the things that we see: a brownfield list that is going to be updated and reported on. That surely will be one of the ways, viability issues all being considered, of securing the green belt.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Q Welcome to Westminster. Do you think the way the local plan interacts with the neighbourhood plan could be improved in any way, particularly bearing in mind that the neighbourhood plan has been subject to local referendum? If you think that interaction could be improved, how would you suggest improving it?
Carole Reilly: I think we are going to see quite an interesting two years coming up, where local planning authorities are getting their local plans in place. I think neighbourhood plans and local plans can be produced in tandem. They depend on a lot of the same evidence. We are very heartened that this Bill shows a commitment for local authorities to explain what their support is going to be. There are a number of ways in which the development of the local plan would really help the development of a neighbourhood plan: giving maps, giving evidence, sharing diagrams—stuff that often does not happen at local authority level. So I think there is a way that they can be developed together. Without a local plan, obviously the latest plan takes precedence under the national planning policy framework—it is the neighbourhood plan. Where there is no five-year land supply, that leaves your neighbourhood plan terribly vulnerable. So I think the two have got to be intertwined. We also have to remember that, in practice, we are four years in, and there was a lot of scepticism from local authorities about neighbourhood plans. It feels like there is a far more open, partnership approach now.
But local planning authorities have been stripped of funding and they have reduced huge amounts of skills. Lots of people do not have a lot of experience with neighbourhood planning, and their focus will be on writing and producing the local plan. So I think they should be produced together, they should be meshed together, and that can be done by sharing that top-level evidence that is gathered by the local planning authority, but I think the resources are tight and the focus is going to be on the local plan.
Matt Thomson: I would agree with a lot of what Carole said. The question reflects one of the key problems that we have been facing with the operation of the planning system for decades. That is that where you have tiers of nested planning policy documents, there is always a question of which has precedence over the other. It should not necessarily be just a question of the one that is produced most recently holding the most weight in a planning application environment.
Another, bigger, question has vexed us with regard to the relationship between local plans, county structure plans and regional strategies. We tend to think of neighbourhood plans as somehow needing to be prepared in the context of an adopted local plan, despite the fact that, although we have lots of adopted local plans, we do not have enough adopted local plans. But we need a relationship whereby the work that goes on at the neighbourhood plan level informs the preparation of the local plan, rather than the local plan, when it is finally produced, somehow trumping a short-lived neighbourhood plan and forcing the neighbourhood to review that plan. We need somehow to protect the policies and proposals of the neighbourhood plan, and bring them into the local plan when it is being produced.
Chris Philp
Q On that point, can you think of particular examples of the type of policies or measures that might appear in a neighbourhood plan and that you think could or should trump a local plan?
Matt Thomson: The existing NPPF says that detailed policies—non-strategic policies—in a neighbourhood plan, where they exist, can outweigh the policies in the local plan.
Chris Philp
Q What is the definition of “strategic” in that context?
Matt Thomson: I think, generally speaking, that that is interpreted as relating to the scale and location of mainly housing development. It is the big picture things. A lot of local plans have quite detailed policies on design, and on the kinds of development management policies and conditions that can be imposed on planning permissions and so on. A neighbourhood may feel that the design policies are not the right design policies for their particular area, and so produce their own design policies. It is that kind of thing.
Chris Philp
Q As an example, let us say that the local plan specifies the total number of housing units in a five-year period to be built in a particular area—in a village or a particular neighbourhood of a suburb. Would it be reasonable to say that a neighbourhood plan could allocate different sites—that would take precedence—provided that the total number of housing units was the same as specified in the local plan?
Matt Thomson: That, I think, is a tricky area. A good example of where this has worked well is Thame in Oxfordshire. The district council gave an overall housing requirement for the Thame neighbourhood plan to meet and identify its own sites. It is more difficult when the district council has already identified sites, because the owner of that site has a reasonable expectation that they will get planning permission for it. It would be difficult for a neighbourhood plan to de-allocate a local plan. It is not impossible, and it may be appropriate to do that.
One of the other pitfalls we would want to watch out for is this: we know that neighbourhood plans are allocating more housing sites than they were expected to—that is the 10% or 11% figure that the Government have been talking about—and that is great news. What I would be really concerned about is when a neighbourhood is expected to provide 100 houses, but plans for 110 houses, and the local plan then takes the extra 10 houses off its total. It should be putting those 10 houses somewhere else in the district and not just double-counting, because it might lead to a void and end up punishing that neighbourhood for being much more forthcoming with housing sites.
Carole Reilly: Also, where a local plan is allocating a large housing development, quite often what we have seen in practice is that, on designation of the area, the local authority has removed that strategic site from the neighbourhood planning designated area, against the wishes of the qualifying body. Quite often they are not even able to take those out, and there has been quite a lot of wrangling over designation for boundaries that are coterminous with parish boundaries, because strategic sites have been removed. Whether that is about not wanting to interfere with housing development or about protection of the community infrastructure levy, there are a lot of questions.
Matt Thomson: To clarify, if it is desirable for a neighbourhood plan to de-allocate one site and allocate a different site, then that is a good thing—it is something that the CPRE would often support, because, as I said before, it is better for local people to make the decision. I am just saying that it would be tricky to do that. It could be tricky and there could be legal ramifications if an investor has invested in that site as a result.
Chris Philp
I am not sure that any public body has ever been financially liable for changing planning permissions.
Helen Hayes
Q May I ask Carole Reilly how many neighbourhood plans Locality has supported to date?
Carole Reilly: To date? Under the current programme, we have supported 1,300 neighbourhood plans with grants for technical support. In outline, there are two ways in which you can get support. You can get cash—£9,000 for straightforward plans and, for those that are more complex, the grant can go up to £15,000—and, alongside that, we offer a number of technical support packages. Under the current programme, which we have been running since the beginning of 2015, we have worked with 1,200 or 1,300 groups.
Helen Hayes
Q Of those, how many neighbourhood plans have been in urban areas and/or in areas of significant deprivation?
Carole Reilly: It is pretty similar to the national figure, so we are talking about 10% deprivation, but on the programme about 15% of groups coming from non-parish areas, which is slightly more—it stands to reason that those people would come in for higher levels of support.
Helen Hayes
Q Have you done any work to understand good practice or the resources necessary to engage effectively communities that might not naturally have the capacity or inclination to engage in strategic planning?
Carole Reilly: We have. We undertook an internal review early days, thinking, “Why is this going on?” because we always seemed to be speaking mainly to the parish council. I have to say that that is one of the elements of the Bill that I feel most disappointed with—it does not go far enough. There was a manifesto commitment to encourage neighbourhood planning across the country, but I think we could be sitting in this room in 10 years’ time and, if we have not done something very significant around urban and deprived areas, we will still be having 10% to 15% of forums doing neighbourhood plans.
Some of the issues are very straightforward. Parish and town councils have a place, a building, a phone, a clerk and an address where people know to go, so they are easy to do. When we did all the asset transfer work at Locality, people understood district councils better than counties. People understood where to go. Those councils also have a big infrastructure, like a number of other bodies, to inform them, “This is an opportunity, take it!” and they have a bank account that they can get going straightaway.
In urban areas, who is your neighbourhood? Is someone on the next street your neighbourhood? Where is the boundary? Is it coterminous with another one you know, such as your political or health boundary? What is it? That is really difficult. Who are the leaders on that? I think it is a major problem that neighbourhood forums have a five-year lifespan. From the start, that does not build in long-term thinking.
There is a problem about funding for implementation for forums, so while my first reaction would be to say that CIL is an issue, it and the new homes bonus scheme only channel funding to areas where there is growth already. If we look at those forums in deprived, urban areas, where CIL is set but set at nought, 0% of nought is still nought, so it makes no difference. These issues could be helped in terms of big-picture stuff. A national policy that tried to balance regeneration and planning would be really helpful so that people can understand what a neighbourhood plan can do for an area where there is actually not a lot of housing demand—there is not a problem because there is not a shortage—but where there is a shortage of employment. Using your neighbourhood plan to understand employment space and encourage and generate that would be great.
The reason why it does not happen in urban areas is that there is not already a thing or a vehicle to do it. In poorer areas, there is an issue about personal investment. If you do not own your own home—if you live in private rented accommodation—you have no investment there, and there is nothing to lose. If you are time-poor, you are not going to get involved. There are also things about skills, transient communities and a general point about focus.
I think a huge amount of work can be done. There have been promotional campaigns on neighbourhood planning, but I think we need something much more targeted and focused, something that works with the people that we know on the ground—the local planning authority—and supports them. We also need to fund it, so it is about a very proactive, promotional mobilisation campaign that targets specific groups to take it forward, otherwise we will be still be at the same picture.
Mrs Villiers
Q I would very much like to ask Matt Thomson about one of the points made in your recent report, “Safe Under Us?” about housing development on the green belt. Obviously our planning rules say that such development should be made only in very exceptional cases, but I am alarmed by the research that CPRE and the London Green Belt Council have done, which seems to suggest that inspectors are now deeming general housing pressure and housing need to be sufficiently exceptional to justify green belt development. Could you expand on that?
Matt Thomson: Well, you have put the case that I think CPRE would make very eloquently. Despite the fact that Ministers have said on several occasions that housing demand on its own is not sufficient justification to grant planning permission on green-belt land, it is of concern to us that neither local authorities nor the Planning Inspectorate have necessarily enforced that in all cases, and certainly not in a number of cases that are of concern to CPRE.
Secondly, under the same principle, it is very clear, in our view, in paragraph 14 of the NPPF that, while local authorities should plan to meet their objectively assessed need in full, the requirement does not apply in green belt areas and other areas listed in footnote 9. However, councils are planning for growth—despite being restricted by green belt—and releasing land from the green belt to meet that growth need at an increasing and higher rate than regional plans were doing before they were abolished, largely for the reason that they were proposing development in the green belt. Yes, that is a great concern to us. Housing need obviously needs to be met somewhere and there is still some way to go in order to overcome the problem of how housing need should be met while protecting the green belt and other areas of landscape importance and so on that we would expect to be protected.
Mrs Villiers
Q Is there a legislative fix to this? Should we be thinking about adding something to the Bill to resolve the problem?
Matt Thomson: Strangely, we are not calling for that. Our position is that the NPPF should be enforced, as the policy is clearly worded at the moment. At the moment, our feeling is that local authorities, which are hard-pressed to get local plans in place and to meet their unrealistic housing targets, are granting planning permission and releasing sites from the green belt through their local plans simply because they do not feel like they will get the support from the Planning Inspectorate and the Secretary of State if they choose to do what the NPPF policy actually tells them to.
Jim McMahon
Q I want to try to get under the skin of trying to encourage planners to come forward in areas of deprivation. In previous sessions, we have heard about a conflict between identifiable neighbourhoods of scale. Planning tends to be easier where a village can be identified that is very defined in its own right, but a lot harder in urban areas. Is that partly because, in urban areas, local is extremely local—the street or collections of streets, rather than defined villages and towns on a bigger scale? Could more support be given even more locally so that people could have a say? Perhaps clusters of communities might be able to come together with a bit more support than is currently offered.
Carole Reilly: In urban areas?
Jim McMahon
In urban areas.
Carole Reilly: There are lots of examples of how you can find leaders in urban areas to help to identify what the needs are. Until recently, we ran the community organisers programme, funded through the Office of Community Services. That was an amazing way of finding out what people were passionate about in their communities, because—let’s face it—2,000 groups doing neighbourhood planning is not about a passion for planning. It is about a passion for places and for placemaking. We need to be really clear about that. It happens in cities and towns as much as in rural areas, so we should try to harness it, and there are a lot of ways of doing that.
We must commend the 14% of groups on our programme that are from urban areas and are delivering neighbourhood plans as forums, and we should understand why those groups exist. There is a really active group in London that is bringing together London neighbourhood planners and inspiring people, despite enormous odds including enormous development pressure, high land values and conflict over boundaries where every scrap of land is worth so much money. Conversely, in the north, regeneration may be at the very core of city centres, but is not in suburban areas.
There are loads of examples. Community organising approach is a big one, as is working with neighbourhood planning forums already in urban areas and getting them to spread the word. We have just started to run the neighbourhood planning champions programme, which is a really good way of inspiring people—come and see it. The resource programme is good. A lot of money has been dedicated to neighbourhood planning, but the promotion around urban areas has been under-resourced. The way to mobilise people in urban areas is to have a far more focused, targeted and funded intervention.
Rebecca Pow
Q In suggesting modifications that might be introduced to the neighbourhood plans, do you think that there will be enough chances to include and consider the environmental implications?
Matt Thomson: The existing legislation—the Bill does nothing to harm this—gives communities the opportunity to address whatever issues they feel that they want to address through their neighbourhood plan. The serious question is whether the effort to which they go to do that will be taken notice of when it comes to planning permissions being granted.
Neighbourhood planning has the power for placemaking and environmental protection. Difficult decisions at a local level about how to balance the need for housing in a green-belt village with the desire to protect the green belt and that kind of thing are effectively made through neighbourhood plans. The question is whether the decisions actually get made in accordance with the neighbourhood plan. At that point, the concern about environmental protection really kicks in.
Rebecca Pow
Q If this was made very clear, perhaps with the guidance of the Bill, would that encourage communities to be keener to have development?
Matt Thomson: There is already evidence that demonstrates that as soon as communities start considering about their development needs, even when they start off from a very nimby perspective, they think, “We are really worried about development that is going to come and destroy our village,” or whatever, and then they all sit down together and start talking about it. They then realise that there is a development need: the neighbour’s children need somewhere to live, there is a school that is threatened with closure or a shop that is closing down and so on, and people start to recognise the needs that they have. But again, because they are the local people and they know their area, they are best positioned to resolve the potential conflict between growth and conservation.
Carole Reilly: There is a wide interpretation of environmental issues. We talk about coding on houses and new developments having to reach certain codes, but neighbourhood planners are the best people to understand their area and to build into it those things that make places permeable—things that make you able to walk to your shop, and not have a development that faces out in which you get in your car and drive to the mini-supermarket.
We do see lots of neighbourhood plans that are coming up with environmental policies, and they are very interesting. They have policies around walkability and building cycle paths. I think that is core to building communities; I do not think they are separated.
John Mann
Q On that point, before you spoke, Ms Reilly, I wrote down safe walk routes, including school routes, and road design and layout. Are there sufficient powers in neighbourhood planning in relation to those issues, or is that merely illusory? Separately, Mr Thomson, in relation to neighbourhood plans that specify explicit preference for forms of energy that should be used within the neighbourhood and state that preference should be given only to housing that uses those forms of energy—in other words, plans that define what the energy requirements should be and how they should and perhaps should not be delivered—is there more scope for that? Are the powers there?
Carole Reilly: I think there is more scope for it. One of the things we see time and again in neighbourhood planning is protecting green spaces. There is a balance between what is a land use planning policy and what is something that has actually drawn people to the table in the first place but is not a land use planning policy, and is then appendicised in a neighbourhood plan and therefore does not form part of a statutory document. These things always have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, but there are loads of examples of neighbourhood plans that have protected green space and encouraged cycle paths, and there are other things that are more tangential that have not.
On the issue that was Matt’s answer about environmental energy use, the key question will be about viability. One of our technical support packages is around viability. We see neighbourhood planning groups being increasingly interested in site allocations, understanding the strategic environmental assessment and, on top of that, looking at the viability of a site. Neighbourhood planning groups will look at those sites that are not interesting to the volume house builders—they will look at a site that might have four plots on it. We run a programme for community-led housing in locality and we see these inspirational community organisations that think, “Actually, we need something for old people and we want to build it here,” in stuff that would be completely overlooked. I think it is not just about energy; it is about understanding those areas that would be distressed areas forever and understanding them within their viability in terms of using different sources of energy.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Q Carole Reilly, I think you said that the five-year life spans of neighbourhood plans do not encourage long-term thinking, if I understood you correctly.
Carole Reilly: For neighbourhood forums. A neighbourhood plan is the length you determine it to be.
Dr Huq
Q Right. The Bill requires a local planning authority to review its statement of community involvement every five years. I wonder whether both of you think that is a suitable length of time. For a neighbourhood forum, do you think that five years is not long enough? In a constituency such as mine, there are a lot of transient people, and a lot of neighbourhood plans. People staying in urban areas do not get them, and there seems to be a mushrooming, with every street seemingly submitting one at the moment. There used to be a Central Ealing one, but now, even with that, everyone is coming forward with the whole impetus to localism. I wonder, for both of you, what those timeframes should be.
Matt Thomson: My view on statements of community involvement is that they are a strange hangover from the former form of development plans. Really an SCI should be a piece of information, which is on a council’s website, that explains how people engage with the planning system in that council area. So it should be updated every time that the council has a new bit of information that it wants to share. The idea of reviewing the SCI every five years is bonkers; it should be reviewed all the time to make sure that people know how to engage with the planning system.
The Chair
Order. On the point of bonkers, I am afraid we are going to have to stop. I have stretched it as much as I possibly could. I really apologise, because we could have gone further. Thank you for being excellent witnesses, but we have to move on. We will now hear evidence from the Compulsory Purchase Association, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Royal Society and the Royal Town Planning Institute—for Members, page 32 of the brief. For this session we have until 4 pm.
Examination of Witnesses
Colin Cottage, Richard Asher, Tim Smith and Richard Blyth gave evidence.
The Chair
Welcome, witnesses. Will you introduce yourselves?
Richard Blyth: My name is Richard Blyth. I am head of policy for the Royal Town Planning Institute.
Richard Asher: My name is Richard Asher. I am a chartered surveyor and a member of the RICS governing council.
Colin Cottage: I am Colin Cottage. I am also a chartered surveyor, and I am chairman of the Compulsory Purchase Association.
Tim Smith: Good afternoon. My name is Tim Smith. I am a solicitor and member of the Law Society planning and environmental law committee.
Jim McMahon
Q I will start with the planning conditions element but perhaps, with the Chair’s permission, return to the compulsory purchase powers element later. On the planning conditions, what evidence is there to suggest that pre-commencement conditions are overused? Is there evidence that they are unnecessary?
Tim Smith: The Law Society represents those in private practice and in local government, so we get both sides of the story, as it were. The complaint is more from those who benefit from planning permission and have to implement the conditions. Certainly there is complaint there that the weight of pre-commencement conditions can be onerous for those wanting to start on site.
It is probably helpful to categorise the problem by breaking it down into two separate areas—first, pre-commencement conditions that are relevant but need not be discharged before commencement. One can conceive of conditions that perhaps affect the operation of development, which would certainly have to be complied with before occupation, but not necessarily by commencement, yet often by default the imposition is that they must be discharged before commencement of development.
Secondly, on a more granular level still, “by commencement of development” means, in essence, before any development at all is carried out—development as defined in the legislation. There are some examples, we feel, where certain early works, such as demolition and site clearance, could take place before the conditions fall to be discharged, which would help with the timely implementation of development, but still ensure that the details that need to be discharged are done by the time that they need to be. I have seen one commentator express the view, for example, “Do you really need to approve the details of your roof tiles before you start to demolish and clear the site?” The answer is probably not. However, if there were a way to ensure that the conditions were discharged when they had to be discharged, some development could be got under way quicker than it is at the moment.
Jim McMahon
Q In order to allow flexibility—so you would not argue for a blanket rule to allow demolition in all cases, because there might be an argument to say that what is there now could be better than the alternative, depending on the final scheme presented.
Tim Smith: Yes. It is the kind of thing that is susceptible to regulations and policy far better than it is to primary legislation, but that would be an example of where some welcome flexibility could be brought.
Richard Blyth: I think there is an issue around whether the condition needs to be pre-commencement or not—around leverage, I suppose. If construction is under way, there is less incentive for the developer to come forward and submit the relevant scheme because they are already getting on with it, whereas saying, “You must do all this before you start,” gives a very powerful incentive for the party to come to the table. That may be why local authorities have tended to do that. They are afraid that, if they try to implement and enforce a condition after the starting gun, they might find that that was very difficult to do in terms of ultimately getting the court to agree. There are lawyers here who would probably better interpret that than me, but that may be why this has arisen.
Under the Infrastructure Act 2015, if a condition is not discharged by a certain time, it will be discharged in a deemed fashion, so the issue of having to discharge them is not necessarily requiring further legislation—we have just had some legislation on that. The other question is that, if a condition is not really serving a useful planning purpose, welcome other aspects of the Bill would say that it should not actually be possible to impose it in any case.
I am just a little concerned that requiring every good developer and every good planning authority to go through a written sign-off procedure for the sake of the minority, perhaps, of planning authorities and developers who may be pursuing less good practice is kind of asking everyone to take on an extra burden for the benefit of some bad eggs. Maybe there is another way of dealing with the problem of poor practice than requiring everyone else to have to go through the process of signing off conditions and, ultimately, the risk of applications being refused as the only way of resolving the dispute.
Chris Philp
Q The draft legislation provides that the Secretary of State by regulations can prohibit the use of certain planning conditions entirely, should the Secretary of State see fit. First, do you think that is a reasonable provision? Secondly, assuming you do—or if you do—are there any particular kinds of planning condition that you, if you were advising the Secretary of State, would advise him or her to prohibit?
Tim Smith: We have some visibility about how this might play out, because the consultation has been issued for views on what sort of conditions might be prevented. What we have in those proposals are things that, as a matter of policy, ought not to be applied anyway. I recognise that putting them on a statutory footing places a different emphasis on them. It is not just a question of whether policy should be interpreted so as to prevent them. The starting point will be that they should not be applied.
Having seen the list of conditions that are proposed, I would have a concern that some of them are not capable of being drafted in a sufficiently precise way. One proposal, for example, is that conditions should not be imposed that place a disproportionate financial burden on developers. That is easy to state and easy to understand as a concept—
Chris Philp
Q So you think that is inappropriately broad.
Tim Smith: I think that, as the proposal stands, that would present difficulties both for developers and local authorities in deciding whether or not it were a permissible condition, and it is not the kind of thing that I can see is easily capable of being further defined so as to provide that certainty.
There are other things that I think are appropriate. One of the examples is—
The Chair
Order. Sorry to interrupt. The hon. Member is taking a sip from that cup. It looks remarkably like tea. I am sure that it has cooled down to a temperature that is no longer regarded as hot. In other words, we cannot have hot drinks in here, bizarrely. I am afraid that is one of the rules. I am sorry—do continue.
Tim Smith: I think that the proposals we have before us in the consultation are on the species of condition that it would be apt to prevent. I do not know whether this is an appropriate answer to this question, but I should perhaps flag that there is one type of condition that should be expressly permitted that currently is not. It would be a missed opportunity if the Bill did not allow for it. It is something that the Law Society has expressed a view on before. I am happy to elaborate on that now or, if you would prefer, I can come back to it.
Chris Philp
Q No, elaborate now, please.
Tim Smith: At the moment, one cannot use a condition for the payment of a financial contribution. In some cases of minor development, the planning obligations sought from a developer upon the granting of planning permission are those that would be minor financial contributions. As things stand, the developer and the local planning authority are forced to use the vehicle of a planning obligation under section 106, which is the negotiation of an agreement, and that takes time and incurs additional cost for both sides. The cost, however, will be borne by the developer in defraying the cost to the local authority in putting that agreement in place.
One of the things that the Law Society has recommended in response to previous consultations is that, so long as it be agreed between local authority and applicant—a proposal that forms part of the Bill, albeit for different reasons—it would speed up the system to prevent the developer from having to enter into a section 106 agreement because they will have consented to a condition requiring the payment of a financial contribution. That is the very reverse of what is being proposed at the moment. These are conditions that must not be opposed. We are saying, and we have recommended this previously in consultations, that it would add utility to the system to allow conditions that are expressly approved by the developer to require the payment of financial contributions.
Chris Philp
Q So are you in effect suggesting that what we currently refer to as a section 106 agreement should be integrated into the main planning consent to avoid having to then have a lengthy and uncertain subsequent negotiation?
Tim Smith: It will not be appropriate for all cases. This relates to a safeguard that would apply for the benefit of the developer. The concern had always been that, if you allowed conditions to be imposed about the payment of financial contributions, it could be done unilaterally by the planning authority, leaving the developer having either to appeal the permission or to submit another application to get rid of that condition.
A sufficient safeguard would be if the developer said, “I’m fine with the process here. I’m fine with the principle of paying this contribution, so let’s put it into a condition so that I do not then have to negotiate the planning obligation.” In a sense, you might be surprised that I am sitting here as a lawyer saying that there are some things that lawyers get involved in that are perhaps not necessary, but the view expressed fairly broadly in the committee is that it would be sensible to include the idea in a piece of legislation.
Chris Philp
Could I invite other witnesses to comment on that?
Richard Blyth: On the issue of whether it is necessary, the proposals to elevate a list of satisfactory kinds of conditions into law from policy have been around under successive Governments for a very long time, and the principle is well understood. It seems sensible to elevate that list into the status of law. I am not clear, however, on why the Government need to go further and empower the Secretary of State to add a whole series of secondary legislation to the list of what constitutes a reasonable condition. I do not see why that is necessary; we have not had that before. I would have thought that policy and guidance would be quite able to elaborate, if the Bill becomes law, on a satisfactory basis in principle for defining a reasonable condition.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Q Can I move on to look at some of the compulsory purchase order provisions in the Bill? To what extent do you think the proposals in the Bill will free up more land for development and lead to the delivery of more homes in a speedier and more streamlined way?
Richard Asher: I think that any improvements to the compulsory purchase process are to be welcomed. The provisions in the Bill for resolving the long-standing issues about temporary possession are very important. It has long been an area of great difficulty for practitioners to try to interpret how temporary possession should be dealt with. That is a key advantage of the Bill. Some of the detail needs further work, as the wording could lead to further legal disputes or litigation. However, the principle of providing for temporary possession on broadly the same terms as permanent acquisition is very important.
There is one area of difficulty: the danger that authorities may use powers to acquire land compulsorily when it is only required on a temporary basis. That interferes with long-term prospects for development by landowners, whose development plans are quite often disrupted by compulsory purchase on a temporary basis. That needs to be considered to ensure that authorities only acquire land on a temporary basis when it is required temporarily.
Colin Cottage: I agree with that, and the Compulsory Purchase Association welcomes a more codified approach to temporary acquisition. At the moment, the large number of compulsory purchase orders do not allow for temporary possession at all. Where there is potential to introduce it through development consent orders, Transport and Works Act orders and so on, each of those particular instruments is drawn separately, so a codified approach is to be welcomed.
As Richard said, there are practical issues with temporary possession that need to be dealt with, including the interrelationships between different tenures in land, how to deal with an occupier of land when that land is taken temporarily, and what to do if buildings have to be demolished and so on. Those issues can be overcome, but they need to be looked at carefully if the Bill is to come into law and to not cause, rather than solve, problems.
Another issue that we are quite conscious of is the ability to take both temporary and permanent possession. We are of the view that a decision should be taken at the outset as to whether possession will be temporary or permanent. When a business or individual homeowner is faced with compulsory acquisition, and possession is initially taken temporarily but may ultimately become permanent, huge amounts of uncertainty are created. The person or business does not know how long the land will be taken for, and whether it will be for a temporary period or whether it will be permanent, and that makes planning difficult.
When temporary possession is taken initially, compensation is paid on the temporary basis. At the moment, because the system is not codified, there is no strict ruling about when compensation is paid, so the introduction in the Bill of advanced payments should be encouraged. But, of course, even if compensation is paid, it is on a temporary basis. If permanent possession is then taken, it may cause a problem for relocation or for funding a business move.
Richard Blyth: The concern for us, as we set out in our briefing, is that we do not think it is reasonable for the owners of private land to benefit from public investment in infrastructure. I am not a lawyer so I cannot tell whether that is in the provisions of the Bill but, from a lay point of view, that is an important point.
I was in another building in the Palace of Westminster yesterday talking about the issue of land hoarding before the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government. The Royal Town Planning Institute is not really of the view that developers are necessarily guilty of as much land hoarding as is the case. There is a difficulty in situations where the most sustainable choice for the expansion of a town requires the conversion of greenfield land into housing land. That puts the owner of that land in an extremely powerful position. It would be regrettable in that situation if those owners were, as it were, to hold the city to ransom—to require very high prices for the sale of land for conversion to residential use—not only because of ideological concern but because finding money for schools, health centres, roads and other infrastructure is increasingly difficult.
What is vested in the increase in land value coming from the grant of planning permission is an extremely important possible source for trying to deal with the difficulties of the lack of infrastructure provision in relation to housing. It may assist with what Dr Blackman-Woods started with—the understandable resistance to large-scale housing development that communities feel when they find it means there is a longer queue for the doctor, it is harder to get a primary school place and there is more congestion on the roads and railways. In answer to that question, lower land prices would be useful. I would not advocate CPOs as a way of enforcing that, but they are a useful thing to have deep in the background.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Q Those were very interesting responses, but they did not actually address my question, which was, are the provisions in the Bill likely to bring more land forward for development and speed up the delivery of more homes, or are they too much at the margins to make any real difference? In which case, should we have a much bigger review of CPO to see whether we can get a better system?
Richard Asher: I believe, and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has always believed, that codification of the whole of the CPO rules, which go back to 1845 and are highly complex, would be a sensible way forward. I think the simplification of the rules for CPO would be a major step forward.
A CPO, at the end of the day, is a draconian measure. It is taking people’s land without their consent in the public interest. That means there has to be a balanced approach. I think the complexity often deters people—particularly local authorities, in my experience—from using CPO powers. It also results in a number of CPOs being refused or rejected by the courts because of the complexity of the rules that surround them. There were two Law Commission reports in the early 2000s that went some way to making recommendations that, had they been implemented, would have speeded up the process.
There are also too many routes and different procedures. One of the most recent—the development consent order—is in its infancy, but it seems to be a way of delivering compulsory purchase quickly. That is to be commended. I think there should be a rationalisation of the process.
Richard Blyth: I think it is a very difficult balancing act. I commend the fact that the Government have taken on CPO as an issue to include in the Bill and the previous Act earlier this year. It is a tricky job and a long journey. One of the difficulties with this area is that if you were to propose some kind of utopian world, it might be that the perfect is the enemy of making improvements. We support the fact that the Government have made steps on a journey. Although it may not be completed now, they are very commendable steps for the time being.
Colin Cottage: My short answer to your question is no, possibly they will not. There are more underlying problems with the system. It is lengthy. It is uncertain for all parties—both for acquiring authorities and for the people affected by it. Acquiring authorities do not know how much it is going to cost them, because the process is uncertain in that regard, and people affected by compulsory acquisition do not know how much compensation they are going to get. That then causes conflict, and it does so from the outset.
The existing system is not helpful for reaching quick solutions. In fact, in many ways it encourages people to be fighting with each other from the outset. Ultimately, that increases the uncertainty, conflict and cost. That is really the issue that we have to look to address in order to give ourselves a more streamlined system. We need to try to bring dispute resolution to the forefront of the process, rather than it being very much at the back end, where it current is.
Once conflict has set in and disputes have got hard-grounded, there is the possibility of resolution through the tribunal. In itself that is an immensely costly process. Even a relatively cheap case will set a claimant client, who may be just a private individual, back a couple of hundred thousand pounds. There is an access-to-justice problem that needs to be overcome. Those costs are also a risk for acquiring authorities as they go through the process. Those are the kind of things we need to deal with to make the process more user friendly, both for acquiring authorities that are trying to bring forward housing development and for those whose land is acquired.
Tim Smith: The provisions are sensible so far as they go, but none of them tackle any single major obstacle to the delivery of land, so there is not going to be in the Bill a silver bullet for compulsory purchase to allow housing development to come forward. There is nothing in there that is hugely significant. What is on its face the most significant proposal—the statutory enactment of the no-scheme rule—is effectively what happens anyway. That is the position that has been established by case law. It is fine so far as it goes, but it does not go very far.
John Mann
Q Should there be additional powers to encourage house building that allow planning authorities to more easily compulsorily purchase land from within the public sector?
Richard Asher: I do not think more powers are required; we need a more streamlined process that allows the authorities to have more certainty. As Colin was saying, it is the uncertainty that is preventing a lot of authorities from using compulsory powers where they might otherwise decide to use them.
There have recently been several high-profile cases in which compulsory purchase orders have been rejected by either the Secretary of State or the courts. That is because there is not the clarity about the process that there needs to be. As Colin said, the uncertainty applies to the property owners as well. The longer the process goes on—CPO is a very lengthy process—the more uncertainty it creates for the landowners as well.
There is no silver bullet, but if we had a more streamlined system with clear milestones, that would go some way to encouraging local authorities in particular, because it is quite often local authorities that do not have the experience or capacity to deal with compulsory purchase orders. For large-scale projects such as High Speed 2, there is clearly the ability and understanding to deliver that. For smaller-scale housing projects for local authorities, there is still a fear of using compulsory purchase powers.
Richard Blyth: I commend Birmingham City Council, which has developed high-level expertise in this area and puts it to good use, and it is available to other authorities to use. The contracting out and sharing of excellence across the local authority sector makes sense, rather than a very small authority having to build up its own expertise on a specific matter, which it may not use very often.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Q That is interesting in terms of good practice. Are there any other countries that do CPO better than we do and that we could look at?
Colin Cottage: The American system has some merits. At the CPA, we are looking at that at the moment. It is not perfect in all regards—no system is—but in the States, for example, projects are funded up front in a way that they are not in this country. That means that there are no public inquiries; the scheme just goes ahead, so people know they will be affected by it. Then there is an independent assessment of value in advance. Value is independently assessed, and that then forms the basis of an offer to the landowner. The landowner can challenge that, but there are cost implications if they do.
We had a chap by the name of Douglas Hummel, who came over from the International Right of Way Association, the American body that oversees compulsory purchase best practice. The results there are that in the order of 81% of land value compensation assessments are agreed immediately, and another 4% settle after a short period of time. Only the remaining 15% are then contested for any lengthy period of time. That is a much higher strike rate than we have in this country.
I am not necessarily saying that the American system is exactly the way to go, but there are examples of early dispute resolution. That is what it is in form: an independent valuation. In the UK system, the claimant puts forward his claim, and that is then contested by an acquiring authority, and you have a creation of conflict. An independent third-party valuation up front should really be considered quite carefully, and could lead to a reduction in conflict.
Richard Blyth: We are not necessarily going to look for places that do CPO better, because I think everyone would agree that it is better never to have any, but Germany has a land reorganisation system, where all the private landowners party to an urban extension of a town are put into a readjustment system, and the local authority then provides the infrastructure out of the increase in land value. It is then reapportioned.
That is quite useful. From my experience when I was in practice, it is very difficult if you are the landowner who gets the bit of land that will be the public open space, or the balancing pond or something, in a wider scheme. It can seem very unfair, but this kind of approach not only makes sure that all the infrastructure gets put in, it evens out the benefits across a clutch of landowners more fairly, so the first one does not get all the benefit. That is certainly impressive, in terms of how to ensure that infrastructure is provided in advance, so house builders can just get on and build the houses within the plots that are then made available, and are often of very different sizes.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)
Q I want to probe a little bit more on the issue of temporary possession. You expressed a concern in relation to uncertainty about the length of time that temporary possession might last. In the Bill as drafted, acquiring authorities will have to specify the total period of time for which they are taking temporary possession, and owners—freeholders and leaseholders—can serve a countering notice placing limits on that. How are you suggesting the Bill needs to be developed further to give even greater certainty? We have tried to address that in the drafting.
Colin Cottage: There are two issues. The first is on our reading of the Bill. There is still the possibility of taking both temporary and permanent possession, and that will create uncertainty for people affected by it, because, even if there is a period of temporary possession, it may be converted at a future date to permanent possession and they will have no control over that.
Secondly, we feel that, for freehold owners, six years is too long. Three years as a maximum is better. Notwithstanding that, the ability to serve counter-notices is correct and encouraging to development. Six years is quite a long period. If a business is dispossessed of its property for six years, that is effectively almost as good as a permanent dispossession because if you are away from your premises for six years, you will have restarted and be trading somewhere else. With that restriction, we encourage and welcome the proposal on the table.
Gavin Barwell
Q Can I just clarify one further point? The concern about both temporary and permanent CPOs is that one might be used and then another, which could create uncertainty over time. You might have a site where an authority needed permanent possession of part of it because it wanted to put, say, a goods yard on the second section and wanted part-temporary and part-permanent. Is your point about starting with one and then converting to the other?
Colin Cottage: That is correct.
On the other point of clarification, we do not have an issue when there is temporary possession of land, but a permanent acquisition of rights. That can work perfectly well also, so it is not an issue. The point is just when the same piece of land may be subject to temporary and then permanent. We think it should be one or the other.
The Chair
The point of the evidence sessions today is to inform Members better for when they go through the Bill clause by clause. Now is your opportunity to leave the Committee with one thought, which Members may like to deliberate on as they progress through the Bill.
Richard Blyth: On the issue of resources for local planning authorities, the Bill has provisions relating to the support of neighbourhood planning by local planning authorities. We have completed a survey of local planning authorities in north-west England that shows that between 2010 and 2015 there was a fall of 37% in planning policy staff. These are the staff who tend to get asked not only to provide the support for neighbourhood plans, but are under a deadline of completing a local plan by the end of March 2017.
I am a bit concerned that legislation is being used in a way that may not be possible to support in terms of the resources available to local planning authorities. Plan making is not supported by any fee income whatever. Planning applications have a certain element of cost recovery, but plan making is entirely a charge on the central resources of the local authorities, which—particularly unitary authorities—are hugely stretched by requirements relating to education and social care. That is what I would like the Committee to bear in mind when considering neighbourhood plan resourcing.
Richard Asher: Clause 23 proposes to repeal part 4 of the Land Compensation Act 1961. We would oppose that repeal. Part 4 allows a claimant to make a further application up to 10 years after the land acquisition when the use of that land has changed and there has been alternative planning permission or use that was not contemplated when the land was acquired. The circumstances in which that occurs are usually when an acquiring authority has not used the land for the purpose for which it was compulsorily purchased and often there has been a change in planning policy that has allowed consent for alternative uses of the site. In those very specific circumstances, it seems appropriate for a claimant to make an application.
I think this has been brought forward because it has been used very rarely. I am not a lawyer, but the advice I have had from lawyers is that the way part 4 is worded makes it difficult for claimants to make a claim. My appeal would be for that not to be repealed but to be rewritten.
Colin Cottage: I am going to choose as my part of the Bill clause 22 and in particular proposed new section 6D(2) to (4). The concept of simplifying what is understood to be the scheme is absolutely the correct one. In a certain way, it has happened through the courts over recent years and what needs to be guarded against is complicating instead of simplifying the principle.
It is the CPA’s view that proposed new section 6D(2) to (4) is not necessary at all. The reason for that is that everything within those sections could be achieved under proposed new section 6E, where an acquiring authority can advance evidence as to the nature of a larger scheme. All that 6D(2) to (4) does is make specific reference to exactly the kind of arguments that could be put forward in 6E. When you start looking at some of the wording—for example, 6C, about relevant transport projects—rather than simplifying, it all looks horribly complicated and possibly capable of misinterpretation. That could lead to unfairness and certainly could lead to conflict in the courts, so the thing I would like Members to go away with and think about is, is 6D(2) to (4) absolutely necessary? We do not think it is.
Tim Smith: May I offer the Committee a second vote in favour of more resources for local planning authorities, but perhaps with a slightly different point of emphasis that comes from the Bill itself? The advantage of that is that it is very much in accord with the interests of both the public and private sector lawyers that the Law Society represents.
Successive proposals to change legislation have all brought about additional burdens on local planning authorities without a consequent increase in the resourcing available to them. To draw that point to one of the proposals in the Bill that is about conditions, the assumption that underlies the legislative provisions, as explained by the consultation issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government, is that there is an ongoing dialogue between applicant and planning officer about the planning application, including the suite of conditions that will accompany it if the proposal is deemed to be capable of being improved. Very often, that is not the case.
The sheer burden on planning authorities and planning officers to discharge the number of applications they have to deal with means that very little dialogue goes on between applicant and planning authority. I hope it comes across that I say that not critically of planning officers. They have an awful lot to discharge, and to expect that the solution to this problem will be a discussion between applicant and planning officer to approve pre-commencement conditions before they are imposed is to assume that there is plenty of time available to planning officers to engage in that discussion. We simply do not believe that that is the case. I give a second vote in support of what Mr Blyth said, but maybe for a slightly different reason.
The Chair
Thank you very much indeed for your time and for being excellent witnesses. We will now move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Gavin Barwell MP, Steve Evison and Tony Thompson gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from the Department for Communities and Local Government. We have until 4.45 pm for this session, and we have been saving the best for last. Would the witness introduce himself, even though everyone knows who he is?
Gavin Barwell: It is not just me, Mr Bone. I am Gavin Barwell, the Minister for Housing and Planning.
Tony Thompson: I am Tony Thompson, DCLG planning.
The Chair
Q Shadow Minister, do you have any questions?
Gavin Barwell: Mr Bone, before we go into questions, may I make a short statement? It might be helpful for the Committee. With your permission, I would like to make some introductory remarks in relation to amendments on plan making that we will be tabling. As we heard from the Secretary of State on Second Reading, the Government agree with the central thrust of the local plans expert group recommendations. Most of those recommendations can be implemented via policy changes, but some require a change in the law. Where that is the case, we will bring forward amendments to the Bill to make those changes.
Specifically, the amendments will do four things. First, they will place beyond doubt the requirement for all local planning authorities to have a plan, but with greater freedom on the detail in those plans, providing that they address strategic priorities such as housing and infrastructure. We will do that by requiring every local planning authority to have a development plan document—the documents that collectively make up a local plan—that sets out policies to deliver the strategic priorities for the development and use of land in the area. Local planning authorities will have the flexibility to rely on the spatial development strategy, if they wish to do so. Additionally, they will be required to review those documents at intervals determined by the Secretary of State.
Secondly, the amendments will see more collaboration to address issues that require solutions across geographical boundaries, keeping plan making at the lowest level of government possible. We will do that by enabling the Secretary of State to direct two or more authorities to work together to produce a joint development plan document where that would ensure effective local planning in an area, for example, to address housing needs.
Thirdly, the amendments will see plans made at the lowest level of government, keeping things local where possible, by enabling the Secretary of State to invite a county council in a two-tier area to prepare or advise on a local plan where a district council has not done so. Fourthly, the amendments will allow us to take the opportunity to improve the accessibility of plans to local communities and others. We will do that by enabling the Secretary of State to set data standards for certain planning documents.
It has been clear from our discussions today that there is a great deal of concern about speculative development around the country. Clearly, one of the key ways in which we can deal with that is getting plans in place throughout the country. That is what we are determined to do. I will write to all members of the Committee when we table the amendments, putting in writing what I have described briefly to you today. However, I wanted people to have the chance to ask me questions about those amendments, as well as what is in the Bill.
The Chair
Thank you, Minister. That sounds like rather a lot of amendments to the Bill. I have to say to the Government that it would have been far preferable to have had the amendments before the evidence session, so that our witnesses could have been questioned about them. I have had a word with the Clerk, and we will make them available as soon as possible to all Committee members. Perhaps the Opposition have something to say about this—I call the shadow Minister.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Q Thank you, Mr Bone. I accept absolutely what the Chair has said. Nevertheless, I am very impressed by the new Minister’s reading of the Lyons report that Labour produced a couple of years ago, because it is gradually being rolled out.
I want to get a few points of clarification from the Minister about what he has just said. I totally agree about the requirement for local authorities to produce a plan. Will he put a particular time on that? Will plans have to be in place by a particular date? Furthermore, as the Minister knows, the duty to co-operate has simply not worked in practice, so the Opposition very much welcome having a direction to a council on producing a plan, because that is something that has slowed up development. However, I will stop there and get some immediate feedback from the Minister before my follow-up.
Gavin Barwell: If I may respond first to what you said, Mr Bone, I completely understand your sentiments. Obviously, we had a significant change of Ministers in July, so we wanted to take the opportunity to ensure that we could use the Bill as a vehicle for any other changes we might want to make to legislation. We are very conscious of the experience last year—or this year—with the Housing and Planning Act 2016, when a large number of Government amendments were tabled late on in the progress of the Bill. In this Bill, we wanted to ensure that any Government amendments were tabled before Committee consideration began. In an ideal world, obviously, they would have been part of the Bill by the time it was introduced, but I think people will understand why that was not possible. We have sought to ensure that people have as much time as possible to scrutinise the amendments.
In response to the question that the hon. Member for City of Durham asked, on the timing of intervention, the existing situation is slightly confused. There is no single place in statute where the duty to have a plan is clearly identified, but the Government have previously said that they will start to intervene early next year with those authorities that have not yet put planning documents in place.
In the Bill, partly we are providing a clear statutory requirement, but we are also broadening out the ways in which we intervene. At the moment, if we were to intervene next year under the existing framework, all we can do, in essence, is to intervene where a council has not met its own timetable for the process of producing a plan. Ultimately, the recourse is that we step in and produce the plan.
I do not think that is ideal, because I hope that we would all broadly agree that we are localists and want to see local plans driven from the bottom up. My ideal solution would be for every council to do that, but where they do not we must look at options where we could get a couple of councils to work together to produce one plan, or we could look at a county council potentially having a role; that might help.
There were a couple of intakes of breath, possibly from the direction of the Chair, when I mentioned county councils.
The Chair
No, no; I have no views on the matter.
Gavin Barwell: Clearly, these are powers that we do not want to use unless we absolutely have to, and hopefully the existence of the powers will help to focus minds and ensure that we get plans in place. In relation to the designation regime, in terms of the speed with which authorities are taking planning decisions, since the Government took those powers to designate I think we have only had to use them so far on three occasions. So, the existence of the powers has led to authorities raising their game and that is what we hope will be the case in this regard as well.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I suspect that we will come back to this issue in Committee, Mr Bone—
The Chair
Q Order. I assume, Minister, that these will be additional clauses at the end of the Bill.
Gavin Barwell: They will be additional clauses to the Bill, indeed.
The Chair
Q Because obviously where they come in the Bill will determine when we can debate them.
Steve Evison: I understand that they are scheduled to be taken after the clauses that are already in the Bill. So they will be taken then—
The Chair
Q Fine, because obviously we would like all Members to have as much time as possible to look at them before—
Gavin Barwell: Understood. I think we are hoping to table them tomorrow.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Q I want to ask the Minister two further questions. We have heard from a lot of the witnesses about the difficult situation we are in with regard to funding infrastructure now. Infrastructure was in the Bill—or at least bits of stuff about the National Infrastructure Commission were in the Bill and have been taken out. I would just be interested to know whether addressing all the infrastructure issues is on the Minister’s agenda.
My second question is about the consolidation and review of CPO legislation, which also seems to be coming through from a number of witnesses as an issue that really needs to be addressed if we are serious about getting enough land into the system to deliver the homes that we need.
Gavin Barwell: I will take those two issues in turn, Mr Bone. Regarding the National Infrastructure Commission, obviously that already exists in shadow form and the Treasury has confirmed that we will make it an executive agency. A charter has been published, setting out how the commission will work. So, the Government still attach huge importance to the work that it is doing; we just came to the view that we did not need to create it as a statutory body. So that can be taken forward without the need for legislation. However, it has already produced a number of reports. Its work is ongoing. So, absolutely, our commitment to that organisation, but also to the wider piece of work on making sure this country has the infrastructure it needs to support the housing we desperately want to see, remains unchanged.
In relation to the second issue about CPO, I think in the sitting we just had it was really the latter evidence session that concentrated more on the CPO powers rather than the other issues. However, I think there was a general recognition that what is in the Bill is moving things in the right direction. There were some concerns about some points of detail.
We recognise that there is an appetite out there for a more comprehensive reform of CPO law, but our view was that at this point in time, when there is not a clear consensus about what form that comprehensive reform would take, we should concentrate on the elements that clearly are not working well at the moment and try to sort them out so the system is fairer and faster, and then look over time to see whether we can build a consensus about more radical reform.
The Chair
Q Just before we move on, I think Mr Evison ought to introduce himself, and Mr Thompson should also introduce himself, formally for the record.
Steve Evison: I am Steve Evison. I am deputy director for local plans and neighbourhood plans at the Department for Communities and Local Government.
Tony Thompson: Tony Thompson, DCLG planning, deputy head of development management division.
Jim McMahon
Q We have heard a lot—I think it was raised in almost every evidence session today—on the concern about resource in our planning teams. It is not only about the number of people to administer the process and existing applications but about the quality of expertise within teams as well, and reference was made to archaeological support and conservation specialities within those teams, too. This could be a significant new burden for local authorities at a time when they are struggling to keep their heads above water. What plans do the Government have to address that concern?
Gavin Barwell: I am not sure we would necessarily accept that there are huge new burdens in the Bill itself. There are obviously requirements to support councils with neighbourhood planning, and the new burdens doctrine certainly applied when they were introduced in the Localism Act 2011. More than £13 million has been paid out since 2012 to help with this. Under the current arrangements, a council gets £5,000 for each of the first five neighbourhood areas it designates, £5,000 for each of the first five neighbourhood forums it designates and £20,000 for plans when a referendum date has been set after the plan has been through the examination process, so there is financial support there.
Without getting into all that detail, I would very much accept the overall point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make, which is that if we want to build the housing that we desperately need in this country, we need to make sure that our planning departments are adequately resourced. The Government have recently consulted on the level of planning fees, and we will be responding very shortly to the results of that consultation. Without pre-empting that response, I can say that in a lot of the meetings I have had in the first three months in my job, people from different bits of the housing world have said contradictory things to me, but I have had an almost unanimous message from local government and developers themselves on the need to get more resourcing into our planning departments. That is clearly an issue that I am looking at.
The evidence that we heard today identified one of the real challenges we have there: if we did allow fees to rise, how do we ensure that all of that money goes into added value in our planning departments, and is not used to allow local authorities to release funds elsewhere? I entirely understand the pressures local councils are under—I was a councillor myself for 12 years before becoming an MP—but I think, in my current job, if fees were to go up, we would want to make sure that every penny of the extra money raised was going into planning departments, increasing their capacity, both in terms of numbers of people and, as you say, expertise to deal with these issues.
There is also some interesting potential in the competition pilots that the Housing and Planning Act 2016 will provide for. There is now some interest in the local government world. There are councils that are potentially interested in looking at whether they can take their planning department and offer it as a service that would cover a wider area. In some of the evidence we had earlier today, people sometimes said, “You might have a small district council that would only deal with one application of a certain type every year,” and if you were dealing at scale over a wider area, you might develop a greater expertise in some of those applications.
I think money is part of the problem, but we are also thinking, interestingly, about how we could restructure services and about how councils might work together on some of this agenda, which might also lead to some improvement.
Jim McMahon
Q A point was also raised about how the profession is perceived and whether it is really attracting talent and new people who want to come through. The suggestion was made that we should work with local universities to try to bring that through. Have the Government got any plans to raise the status of that? When it works well, it is developers that want to build a great product and planners that want to build great communities, and together they find a way of making it work, and everyone benefits from that.
Gavin Barwell: I am very interested in talking to the profession about that. You are obviously aware that we are publishing a White Paper later in the year. We are thinking about an overall strategy for how we get this country building the homes that the Prime Minister wants to see us building, and a key ingredient of that is ensuring we have enough people with the right skills, both within local councils’ planning departments, more generally in the planning world and in the construction industry—making sure that we have got enough people out there to actually build these homes. The skills agenda—ensuring we have got the right people in the right places with the right skills—is absolutely a cornerstone of the strategy that we need to build.
John Mann
Q I have two questions. The first one is on neighbourhood plans. In my area, we have more than 20 under way. The vast majority of land proposed in them or agreed in them to be allocated for housing would be classified under the previous aborted local plan—the rules were changed by the coalition—as windfall sites. My estimate is that there will be approaching 1,000 units of windfall sites just in Bassetlaw, just from those neighbourhood plans. That is a huge number. Every single one of the urban neighbourhood plans that I would like to promote, for which there is a clear community interest and a definable community that, according to my subjective judgment, would be keen and easily engaged—and there are a lot of them—would also classify entirely as windfall sites, despite the fact that Bassetlaw is required to find around 5,000 housing plots in its local plan. That is a huge number in addition.
Bearing that in mind, first, what additional resource is going to be made available to allow the creation of new neighbourhoods and the required planning work where no existing infrastructure—such as parish councils —is in place? Secondly, you rather strangely suggested that you would have county councils taking over where district councils were failing to deliver. I am not exactly sure what the core competence in planning in county councils would be for that, but will that power also apply to city regions?
Gavin Barwell: I will deal with your second question first; I would like a little clarity on your first question before I answer it.
In terms of city regions, the answer is “definitely”. Some of the devolution deals have already included an appetite to produce a strategic plan for the area. For example, in Greater Manchester—the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton is nodding—rather than the 11 districts in the Greater Manchester area all producing their own local plans, they have made the decision to use the devolution deal to produce a strategic plan for Greater Manchester as a whole. From a Government point of view, that is extremely welcome, because it allows us to cover off all those areas with one plan.
It is not necessarily something that we would want to impose, but if, as part of the devolution process, areas have an appetite for looking at strategic planning across an area like that, there is a lot to commend it. I am looking forward to going to Greater Manchester soon to co-chair the Greater Manchester Land Commission and look at how that plan is progressing. It is potentially a very attractive idea.
John Mann
Q That is not quite the same as intervening powers.
Gavin Barwell: No. We are not taking it as an intervention power. It would be something we would look to negotiate on a case-by-case basis for each devolution deal. I stress that the county council power is not something I would anticipate using regularly, but if you look at the parts of the country in which there has been a struggle to produce local plans, it is often because you have two or three districts where land use is heavily constrained, because large amounts of the land are green belt or protected in some other shape or form. As the hon. Member for City of Durham was saying, the duty to co-operate is therefore not working and the housing need is not being reallocated around the area. Hypothetically, there may be cases in which having a county council look across the county and ask, “Where in the county could the housing need go?” might be a way to deal with it.
I say to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw: I see my job as the Minister very clearly. I do not want to be the person writing plans for local communities. As the Minister, my job is to say to local councils, “It’s your job to produce the vision and aspiration for the area.” I have one role in the process, which is to say, “I’m not going to let you duck the tough choices.” We have, as a country, to meet the need for housing in our country. As the Minister, it is my job to say, “You have to find a way to do it in your local area.” Whether that is several districts working together, county or individual local plans, or an agreement on a devo deal in Greater Manchester, I am open to different ways in which it can be done. I hope we all agree that we have not been building enough housing in this country for a long time, and that we have to find a way to make sure that we have that coverage throughout the country.
On your first question, were you asking about how we make sure we resource the groups that might produce the plans in urban areas of your constituency?
John Mann
Yes.
Gavin Barwell: Okay; understood. A £22.5 million support programme is available and has so far made more than 1,500 payments. All groups can apply for a grant of up to £9,000, but, as I represent an urban constituency, I absolutely recognise that it is more difficult to do this kind of work in more deprived areas—sometimes in more transient parts of the country as well—so additional funding and technical support is available to people in such priority areas. There is a national network of 132 neighbourhood planning champions who provide advocacy and peer-to-peer support. We recently launched an advertising campaign to promote the take-up of neighbourhood planning. That targeted a number of urban areas. I know that both you and Helen Hayes have spoken about this before, and are keen to push it. I am keen to listen to you and to think about whatever else we can do to help. I do not want the policy just to work in rural parishes, although the contribution it makes in those areas is important. It should be something for the whole country.
Steve Evison: May I just add a further point? For instances where the individual local authority has not written its plan, the 2016 Act enabled us to invite a Mayor or the combined authority to write the plan in place of the individual local authority. At the moment, that power is not available to county councils. Through the change, we are ensuring that we have the same options in two-tier areas as we do in areas with Mayors and combined authorities.
Chris Philp
Q I am pleased by the comments you made earlier about the plans to consult on increasing planning fees to get resources into local authorities. Could you lay out, for the Committee’s benefit, the proposed timetable for replying to the consultation? How will you go about enacting that when you have considered the results?
Gavin Barwell: That is a fairly simple one. The consultation has happened and we are waiting to respond to it. The realistic likelihood is that the response will come in the White Paper.
Chris Philp
Q When is the White Paper due?
Gavin Barwell: Later this year, so you will not be waiting long for an answer.
Chris Philp
Q Is your decision implemented by regulations, by a circular or by primary legislation?
Gavin Barwell: By regulations, I am told. That is something that we should be able to make progress on quickly, should we decide to.
Chris Philp
Q Okay. In the first session, we talked about giving planning authorities the ability to charge extra fees, which would be refundable if they failed to meet a certain level of service, such as the delivery of a decision by a certain time. Would that mitigate, in part at least, the concern you raised in your answer to Mr McMahon about money not seeping out through the back door?
Gavin Barwell: Clearly, that provides some protection for applicants. If they are paying more money and do not get a better service, they get a refund, but we are thinking about a wider issue, which is how to come up with a mechanism to ensure that all the money goes through to extra spending in planning departments.
For example, there might be a council department where 60% of the budget is funded through fees, and 40% comes through council tax. The council could take the extra fee income and just remove the money that was funded through council tax. Not a penny more would be spent on planning, but they would have released some money somewhere else for the local authority. Now, I can well understand their desire to do that but, in my job, I want to ensure that if more money comes in, it leads to more money being spent in total.
Chris Philp
Q The Minister is quite right to say that any extra money raised by way of fees should fund incremental extra levels of resourcing, and not simply replace money from general subsidy. To that point, do you agree that we might learn some lessons from the way in which business improvement district funding works? Extra money comes in by way of the business rate supplement but the local authority has to agree the existing level of service provision in writing in advance, and it cannot reduce that. The extra bid funding provides for incremental service levels. Could a similar approach be adopted in this situation? You would agree with the council, before they levied extra fees, that there are 30 people working in the council’s planning department and that the extra fees must lead to incremental hires on a cost basis. Would that be a way of avoiding the problem?
Gavin Barwell: There are a number of mechanisms. I do not want to get into too much detail speculating about them now, but that would certainly be a possibility. A very good point was made in previous evidence sessions that we are partly interested in the speed with which decisions are made on applications, but that is by no means the sole arbiter of how effectively a planning department is doing its job. We also want section 106 agreements to be reached speedily, planning conditions to be discharged speedily and local plans in place. There are a number of strands of work.
Chris Philp
Q I am glad that the Minister mentioned section 106 agreements. As far as I can tell from the Bill, the pre-commencement conditions get folded into the planning application. If I have read correctly, section 106 agreements will still come after planning permission. Am I right about that?
Tony Thompson: They are normally negotiated as part of the process. The expectation is that they would be agreed before the final decision notice is issued.
Chris Philp
Q But sometimes you get section 106 agreements that are not agreed or signed until after planning is granted. Sometimes it can be sequential. It is better that it is simultaneous, as you described, but sometimes, currently, it does happen sequentially.
Tony Thompson: Sometimes we encourage completion of the section 106 before the final decision is issued.
Chris Philp
Q So in that case, might you go further than simply encouraging it, as you do now, and introduce a provision in this Bill to make it a requirement? Rather than simply encouraging, why not compel, if you think it is best practice?
Tony Thompson: The expectation is that you should complete them, but there are sometimes very exceptional circumstances—perhaps a very significant development—where it is exceptionally agreed that the section 106 can be done afterwards. But in those circumstances, the expectation is that when the committee takes the decision to approve and issues that decision, there is a clear understanding of precisely what the section 106 should comprise, even though it has not actually completed the process. As I said, those are the exceptions rather than the rule. We wanted that element of flexibility, rather than a clear point that could not be exceeded.
The Chair
Q Order. I am sorry to interrupt. Would it be possible for you to write to the Committee giving us the numbers of how many are exceptional and how many are not? That would be helpful to the Committee.
Gavin Barwell: I am sure we could do that, Mr Bone.
Chris Philp
Q The Bill provides for the Secretary of State or one of his or her Ministers to proscribe certain kinds of planning conditions—to ban them from being imposed. Can you explain for the Committee’s benefit, Mr Barwell, what kinds of planning condition used currently you have it in mind to proscribe or ban using the new powers?
Gavin Barwell: My hon. Friend is quite right. Clause 7 tries to deal with two different issues. One is what we see as overuse of pre-commencement conditions; the second is taking a fairly wide-ranging power to proscribe certain types of planning conditions. I will give a brief answer and refer him somewhere where there is a lot more detail. Essentially, one thing that we want to stop is the use of conditions that essentially just replicate things that are either in the building regulations or other statements that legally oblige developers already. There are things that do not need to be restated as planning conditions because there is already a legal obligation on the developer, for example, to do them.
We published a consultation paper when we introduced the Bill that sets out in more detail how we would choose to use the regulations. The main point of reassurance that I would give the Committee is that it is clear on the face of the Bill that the power cannot be used in any way contrary to the NPPF. It cannot be used to water down protections clearly set out in the NPPF.
Chris Philp
Q But are there any specific planning conditions currently used that you have it in mind to outlaw, for illustrative purposes?
Tony Thompson: The consultation paper talks, for example, about something that requires the completion of the development. That is an issue about the certainty that could be achieved with that condition. In that particular instance, the expectation is that such a condition should not be imposed.
Chris Philp
Q Thank you. Can Mr Barwell comment on neighbourhood plans versus local plans? Are there any areas where you think it may be possible to give slightly higher weighting to neighbourhood plans than to local plans, provided that the neighbourhood plan is consistent with the overall level of housing supply predicted or required by the local plan, given that they are more local and have a bigger democratic mandate?
Gavin Barwell: It is really important that we do not see it as local plans versus neighbourhood plans. Neighbourhood plans should be consistent with the overall planning policy framework set out in the local plan. I think the issue we have at the moment—as some of our witnesses say, the Bill goes some way toward addressing it, but we also need to consider policy changes that could help—is that you either do not have a local plan, or you have one that does not have a five-year land supply. At that point, the presumption in favour of development in the NPPF applies, and that can sometimes, although not always, lead to neighbourhood plans being overridden.
That is where the issue is. I do not think it is so much about the conflict between the local plan and the neighbourhood plan; it is about when you either do not have a local plan, or you have one that has not met the five-year land supply test. There are some things in the Bill that will help a bit with this, but I think the main thing we need to look at is how that five-year land supply test is working and whether we can provide some protection to local councils where perhaps there is suddenly a problem with one site and that therefore drops off. Overnight you thought you had a five-year land supply plan but you do not. Can we provide some protection where councils think about other options available to get things back up to the required level? Can we also ensure that, at least for a period of time after neighbourhood plans are approved, they afford stronger protection so that where a parish or a community in an urban area has worked really hard to produce its neighbourhood plan and, through no fault of its own, its local council does not have a five-year land supply, it does not find that its neighbourhood plan is immediately undermined by speculative development?
Chris Philp
Q Where there is a large local authority—we were just talking about having a local plan that covers the whole of Manchester, which is a gigantic conurbation—or indeed a large London borough like our own, Croydon, a local community might have a different view on where housing can be built in their neighbourhood from that of the local authority or, in the case of Manchester, the entire metropolis. There might be a conflict between where the local plan thinks housing should be built and the local neighbourhood—the parish or whatever it might be. Provided that the neighbourhood plan has enough houses in total, would you not want to give priority to the views of the local community, particularly given that that is backed by a referendum?
Gavin Barwell: Yes. As long as the neighbourhood plan is consistent with the overall strategic planning for the area in the local plan, the neighbourhood plan can absolutely fill in that level of detail. If a local plan says a particular town within the district will take a certain level of housing growth, the neighbourhood plan can fill in what the community feels are the right sites and the required mix of housing.
Chris Philp
Q I have a final question. One of the bugbears that people developing housing will have told you about are these wretched great crested newts, which apparently are endangered in Europe. The reason they are protected in the UK is due to European regulations, which of course will cease to apply relatively shortly. When the European regulations cease to apply to the United Kingdom, will you be minded as the UK or England and Wales planning Minister to remove or loosen the restrictions that the European Union has hitherto imposed on us?
Gavin Barwell: The first thing to say is that that moment is not yet upon us. We are still within the EU and at the moment all those European laws apply. Clearly, as the Prime Minister has set out, the decision we took as a country on 23 June will lead to some short-term challenges—it will change our role in the world and we are going to build a new future for the country around that—but it also offers some opportunities to look at the laws that we have and ask, “Are these the right laws for the UK?” I am sure that all Members of the House will want to ensure that we have proper environmental protections and proper protections for endangered species, but if we look at a law and say, “Actually the way that law is working in this country is disproportionate or leading to some perverse outcomes,” there will be an opportunity to review it.
The Chair
Order. I am sorry to interrupt you, Minister. I hate to say this, but we are talking a little bit too much about the European Union, which is slightly outside the scope of the Bill. We should not really be banging on about Europe.
Gavin Barwell: Having served as your Whip for nearly two years, Mr Bone, I know you have been waiting for the chance to say that to me.
Kit Malthouse
Q Minister, you will have gathered from my line of questioning that I am concerned about protection for neighbourhood plans. I am pleased to see what is in the Bill, but part of the genesis of the Bill with the previous Minister was, I think, a case in Oakley in my constituency where an appeal was allowed five or six days before the referendum on the neighbourhood plan, notwithstanding that even at that late stage, under existing planning regulations, the plan was meant to have been taken into account. Why will this be any better?
Gavin Barwell: The honest answer is that this will not solve the problem in that very specific case, because as I understand it that appeal was determined days before the examination—
Kit Malthouse
No, before the referendum. It was post-examination.
Gavin Barwell: In that case it would help. This will make it clear in statute that some weight should be given to that emerging neighbourhood plan, because it had been through examination. So the inspector who was determining that particular appeal would be required by statute to give some weight to that emerging local plan.
What I cannot do—this is a complex area and it is important that I am entirely open with Members about the balance here—is give a guarantee. You will know that when any planning committee or inspector—or indeed I as Minister—takes decisions on planning applications, they have to look at all the material considerations. What the local plan says is an important material consideration What the relevant emerging neighbourhood plan says is an important material consideration. The views of the people who live in the area are a relevant material consideration. The national planning policy framework is a relevant consideration, and there may be other ones in particular cases. All those things have to be weighed, and I know from the cases that cross my desk every week that sometimes they are weighed in a way that would support the neighbourhood plan. You cannot guarantee that that will always be the case, but this change in the law would help in that situation because it would give some weight to an emerging plan and would ensure that, immediately a referendum is held, the plan is in place, whereas at the moment there is a period of time that you have to wait for the council to make the plan.
Kit Malthouse
Q Once this is in place, and hopefully it will go through—I do not know whether anybody has ever done any work on the consistency of decisions. Talking to colleagues, it is apparent that decisions about whether neighbourhood plans are given weight are a bit random, which is part of the problem with the rather wide definition of “giving weight.” It does not really mean anything and it seems to be at the whim of the individual inspector rather than a central policy. Once the planning inspector has had a look at the plan, it has been approved and gone through all the checking in Bristol, or wherever it goes, they should be broadly happy. That means it should be predictable that any appeal will not be allowed against the decision of what might be a different inspector, whereas in fact that is not the case. You get two different inspectors and they make different decisions.
Gavin Barwell: I would make a number of observations. I think this goes to the crux of the argument about this issue, and it is one on which we will no doubt spend a lot of time when we go through our line-by-line consideration and on Report.
Where there was a local plan that had a five-year land supply, with a neighbourhood plan beneath that, and a developer attempted a speculative application that was inconsistent with both, I would regard it as highly exceptional—you can never say “never” in planning—that such an application would be approved on appeal if it was turned down by the relevant local authority. Clearly, all the local planning policies would point against that application.
It might be useful for the hon. Gentleman to know—one of the difficulties of my job is that I never know which of my decisions have or have not been made public, so I will anonymise the place I am talking about—that I had three applications on my desk the other day, all in the same council area. The applications were affected by two different neighbourhood plans. The council concerned does not have a local plan with anything like a five-year land supply, so the presumption applies. In one case, I judged that not only was the neighbourhood plan an argument for turning down the appeal but that the application would also have eroded a key strategic gap between two settlements. There were two very strong arguments against, and in favour was the presumption for development, so I turned down the appeal.
In the other cases, although it was contrary to the neighbourhood plan, the land concerned was not green belt, prime agricultural land or anything else that you could give weight to, so I allowed the appeals on the basis of the presumption. That is what we mean when we talk about giving weight to different things. Although it is difficult for us, and I have also felt the frustration that the hon. Gentleman is expressing as a constituency MP and as a local councillor in the past—I know exactly where he is coming from—we have to recognise that the planning system is quasi-judicial. In the same way that you can take a case to a court of law and a judge will rule in a certain way and then you can appeal to the Appeal Court, which might take the same evidence and come to a different judgment, it can happen in the planning system as well. The judgment of different individuals looking at a particular case can be different.
Kit Malthouse
Q I understand that parallel, other than the fact that, obviously, in the judicial system each judgment is informed by the judgment before, whether or not it is taken by a different judge. Part of the problem with the Planning Inspectorate is that that common law aspect does not seem to take place.
Gavin Barwell: The chief executive of the Planning Inspectorate is one of the people I work with. If she were sitting here, she would say to you that one of her key objectives is to try to improve the consistency of decision making. She understands the concern.
Kit Malthouse
Q Would it be possible to find out how many appeals have been allowed—I know it is early days—in areas where there are neighbourhood plans and local plans in place?
Gavin Barwell: Where there are both?
Kit Malthouse
Yes, so we can see whether, as you say, this is exceptional or whether it is happening on a fairly regular basis.
Gavin Barwell: I will try to see whether we can find that out without disproportionate effort.
Kit Malthouse
Q That would be great. The second thing I want to ask about is the local plans. You are absolutely right about them being key. I think it is encouraging that you are going to be pushing for that in local areas. We have heard a lot of evidence today about the local plan, and the critical thing is the certainty of devising and defending a five-year land supply. There are two methods of calculation. Often you get challenged on one if you have used the other, so it might be helpful to have a single definition. I did not hear you talk, in your four things, about making five-year land supplies post-approval more defensible from a highly paid QC. Are you planning on including anything on that in the Bill?
Gavin Barwell: Those are issues more for policy than for legislation, but my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire has correctly put his finger on one of the problems. It is not about not just the five-year land supply but how to objectively assess need, by which I mean how we calculate how many homes we need to build in an area. One of my key jobs over the next few months is to see whether we can find ways of taking conflict out of these processes. Can we find an objective way of calculating that need figure and identifying five-year land supply that gets rid of costly legal battles—a lot of money is currently spent on them—arguing the point with the developer who is trying to overturn a local plan? We need to have a process that attracts much more confidence, so that people know clearly where they stand.
The second issue is the one I have already alluded to, which is that if there is a change in the status of a particular site and a council therefore dips below the five-year land supply, we want to give them a window of grace where they can adjust to that, rather than them literally coming in to work one morning and finding that they are now open to speculative development, when they were not the day before.
Kit Malthouse
Q The final question from me is on whether you might consider including within the Bill a general anti-abuse clause on five-year land supply and the situation we outlined, where you can have a developer who gets permission on one site, fails to develop and challenges on another site on the basis that the five-year land supply has lapsed.
Gavin Barwell
We can certainly talk about those issues. There is a fundamental thing that we need to address in the White Paper. I am sure that one of the difficulties we will have as a Committee is that the Bill is going through Committee at the same time as we are developing some of the policy responses. I will do my best within the constraints I am under to try to keep Members informed about where we are going in policy terms and what we believe needs to be done through legislation and what can be done through changes in policy.
One of the fundamental questions that we have to apply ourselves to is that the changes that the Government have made to the planning system over the past six years have had a profound effect on the number of applications that have been granted. In the year to 30 June, our planning system in England granted permission for 277,000 homes. That is the highest figure since we started collecting the data in 2007, at the height of the boom before the great crash. The planning system in most parts of the country is granting lots of planning permissions, but there is an increasing gap—people cannot live in a planning permission—between the number of planning permissions that we are getting out of the system and the number of homes actually being built. We need to understand the cause of that gap.
My view, a few months into the job, is that there are a number of things here. Planning conditions are a factor, which is why we are trying to deal with them in the Bill, but I would not say to the Committee that they are the sole or even the dominant factor. There are issues around our utility companies and the time it takes them sometimes to put in the basic infrastructure on site that the developer needs before they start building. There are some real issues about developer behaviour, essentially.
I am interested in looking at policy vehicles that can ensure we speed up the rate at which applications get built out. One of the things that I am saying to the Home Builders Federation is, “You give me all the things that you say are slowing you up, and I will look into them. If I think there is a problem, I will deal with the problem, but once I have got through your list, I expect you to raise your game.” I am definitely interested in looking into that area, and perhaps as the Bill goes on we can talk about what the vehicles might be.
Kit Malthouse
That is encouraging. It is certainly the case that it is possible to make more money holding land and trading it than it is developing it. The other area to look at, I suggest, is developer finance, because none of them have got any balance sheets that they can use to expand their operations beyond where they are. I am grateful for the answers, Minister.
Helen Hayes
Q I have two quick questions. Can you address the concerns that Carole Reilly raised about neighbourhood forums and their lack of accountability, lack of infrastructure and resources and lack of clear identifiability to local communities? There were also issues raised—I have raised them on a number of occasions—about the intensity of resource you need genuinely to engage a diverse community in a deprived area.
Gavin Barwell: This is a real challenge and I am very open to talk to the hon. Lady, to the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton, and to others who have an interest in this matter about how we go about doing things. As I said, there is extra funding in deprived areas that a rural parish would not get. There are also people who have expertise in this area and who can engage with groups.
There is a democratic issue; I do not think we can get around that. Clearly, if someone is in a part of the country where there are parish councils, there is an automatic accountability and legitimacy that comes from that. Although we can now have parish councils in Greater London, I think there is only one in the whole of Greater London; we do not tend to have that kind of infrastructure. So there is a challenge in making sure that the plans that come forward have that legitimacy and are genuinely owned by the whole of the community, and not by a particular group of people who have a certain interest.
If we look at the average turnout in referendums on neighbourhood plans, it is running at about a third, which is actually not that different from the kind of turnout that we would see generally in local elections. That is quite an encouraging average figure in terms of trying to ensure that there is some legitimacy—I think the hon. Lady would regard her local council as legitimate on that kind of turnout—but there is certainly more that we can look to do and I am very happy to have a dialogue with her about that.
Helen Hayes
Q Thank you. I have a second question. The issue of permitted development rights continues to be a cause of concern. I appreciate that it is not within the scope of the Bill, but it has a direct bearing on neighbourhood planning, so it is essentially a way in which development can take place that is not allowed for in a local plan and that has not been discussed by the local community, who have not been consulted about it. It is under the radar, without anybody having any say about it at all. I wonder whether the Minister has any plans at all to address the concerns that have been raised about permitted development rights.
Gavin Barwell: I would say two things there. There is some limited scope for local say. The main one that the hon. Lady is probably talking about is the office to “ressy”, or residential, permitted development. There you do have to give a prior approval application to the council. The council can only look at certain limited things such as flooding; there is a list of four or five things that can be looked at. It is not a full planning application, but there is at least a little bit there.
I tried to touch on this in my response to the Second Reading debate, so I understand some of the concerns that people have. You do not get the affordable housing contribution, for example, that you would get if there was a full planning application. However, I think it is demonstrably the case that permitted development has delivered additional homes that we desperately need.
I went on Friday night to see one in central Croydon. It is a building called Green Dragon House that was essentially an old office building with very low levels of occupancy and it has been converted into 119 homes. In my community, those homes are desperately needed and I am not sure—in fact, I am pretty confident that if we had left things as they were, many of the buildings that have been converted would not have come forward. Now, they are not all as good quality as Green Dragon House, so I am perfectly prepared to accept that there are challenges here.
I suppose the point I tried to make in response to Opposition Members on Second Reading is that if you genuinely believe that there is a really urgent need to get us building more housing, you have to look at some measures that you would not take if you did not feel that urgency was there. That is the argument about PD. However, the one thing that this Bill does on it is uncontroversial, I would have thought, which is to say, “Let’s make sure we get good data.” At the moment, all we know is the number of applications that have gone in, but not how many homes they are delivering. So, the one measure in this Bill on this issue is trying to ensure that we collect data on how many units the policy is delivering and then, as we debate our different opinions on this policy, we can at least be informed by what the output is.
Helen Hayes
Q So you do not have any further plans at the moment, either by way of additions or amendments to this Bill, or within the White Paper—?
Gavin Barwell: No. There is an issue that I think we have consulted on, which is around the office to “ressy” thing and whether you should be able to do it potentially through demolition rather than just refurb, but there are no plans to amend this Bill further to change the PD rules.
Jim McMahon
Q During your introduction, you said that part of the reason why the amendments were so late in coming was actually change of positions and looking at the Bill with a fresh pair of eyes, and that was the result. Given the tone of the contribution, I take that at face value, and I appreciate the comments that you have made.
When you were looking at the Bill and at opportunities to enhance it further, did you consider the roles of listed buildings in that? In my constituency, we have a very old mill—apparently one of the oldest mills with a concrete floor, if anyone is interested in those kinds of things—but it is a blight on the local community. Last year, there was the death of an 18-year-old, who fell through the floors, because the mill is so unsafe. The fire service, the council and the police have all put a notice on the building, because it is absolutely liable to cause another death very soon, but its heritage value for the experts in London, who do not have to live in its shadow, maintains that it should stay there. It is scuppering development on the site—a £248 million tram system runs alongside it, with a station there ready for development. Did you consider that the process is stifling the development of what should be attractive places to live?
Gavin Barwell: The simple answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that that is not an issue that I have looked at in particular, but if he wants to write to me to set out his concerns, I would be very happy to take that forward. He knows his community and what the issues are, better than anyone who is adjudicating on such things from a distance. I am very happy to help him to get that issue resolved.
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
Q I want to pick up very quickly on something that Mr Thomson from the CPRE talked about, which was about councils having to chip away at the green belt to deliver the provision. He mentioned that often they do not feel that they are getting the backing of the Secretary of State. I am aware that several local authorities in my area have jointly commissioned a report to grade areas of green belt, based on the extent to which they make all five functions in the NPPF. They are basically suggesting that some areas do not have as much value as others, and they are planning to use the report to recommend parcels that can be used to facilitate building. So there still seems to be a lot of confusion in local councils about how the green belt rules are applied. Is there any provision in the Bill to strengthen that? The former Housing Minister was great and came to my constituency to explain to one of the councils how things needed to be implemented, but it still does not seem to be filtering through, and I am guessing that that could be the case in a lot of councils.
Gavin Barwell: At the moment, there is nothing in the Bill that touches directly on the green belt. What I would say to my hon. Friend is that the national planning policy framework is very clear on this. Basically, there are two issues: one is how an authority deals with an application for development on the green belt. Essentially, with the exception of certain very limited uses, which are defined in the NPPF, development is inappropriate in the green belt. The second issue and the one to which he is alluding, I think, is when you want to change the boundaries of your green belt. The NPPF has a very clear presumption against doing that, too. It should only happen in exceptional circumstances, and one of the features of green belt should be its permanence.
What we asked local authorities to do—again, I think it is very important that these decisions should in most cases be made locally—is to assess objectively the need for housing in their area. When they have done that, they need to look at how they can meet that need. It is certainly possible that there are authorities for whom meeting that need without making use of prime agricultural land, green belt or some other kind of protected land is not possible. It is then a judgment for them about what they should do. They might decide, “We will release some land and make some changes to our local plan in order to meet the need.” However, they might decide, “Actually, we don’t believe that it will be possible to meet this level of need without having too detrimental an effect on these particular sites, therefore we will provide for less than our level of need,” and when an authority does that—the hon. Member for City of Durham has now left the room—it should certainly be having conversations with neighbouring authorities about whether they are able, through the duty to co-operate, to take up some of the slack.
The inspector’s job is to test whether authorities have applied that policy correctly. There are examples of local plans in which an inspector has accepted an authority’s judgment that it is not able to meet the full level of need for those kinds of reasons, and for others the inspector has said, “Actually, no, there are other things that you could have looked at, but didn’t look at. You need to go back and look at them.” Some people think that there is an automatic presumption that the green belt can never be a justification for not meeting the full level of need, but that is not true; nor is it true that it automatically is either, if you see what I mean. The test is there in the NPPF, but the circumstances have to be exceptional.
Craig Tracey
Q As a quick follow-on question—where a constituency like mine comes under pressure, because we are a rural constituency surrounded by big areas we are having to co-operate with, what are the mechanisms for challenging their assessed need? That is where the calculation figures are often seen to be well away from what we would expect.
Gavin Barwell: One of the things I was alluding to for Mr Malthouse was whether we can look at a more objective method of saying what need is. The starting point, it seems to me, is the household projection figures. One of the concerns people raise with that is that we have taken the decision we took on 23 June, so migration levels may well be lower. It is worth saying that what the projection numbers do is look at past trends and roll forward, so they are already assuming a reduction in the level of migration over the time period and they are updated every few years.
The starting point, as I said, is those household projection figures. Then if I were running a council, I would be looking at what the market is telling me. In other words, what is the ratio of house prices to salaries in my area? If that ratio is very high, we have not been building enough houses; so we need to do a bit more than the household projects would suggest, if we are going to try to get that ratio down. To me, those are the two things you would be looking at, but if what is being said is that it would be helpful to have more certainty about what those numbers are, and to have more confidence in them, I agree with that and that is something we are looking to do.
Mrs Villiers
Q Obviously the key concern that has been raised by some of the campaign groups, such as the Campaign to Protect Rural England, is that local authorities are being driven to propose green belt development because they cannot meet their targets and they cannot make the duty to co-operate work. So in order to avoid the risk of having their local plan rejected altogether they are putting forward green-belt or greenfield developments. What is the incentive on a local authority—on the other end of a duty to co-operate —to accept somebody else’s housing targets? I do not see how the duty to co-operate can work effectively if you are saying that local authorities have to somehow persuade their neighbours to accept their housing needs. I would be grateful if you could explain how the duty to co-operate is supposed to work.
Gavin Barwell: There are some local authorities that genuinely want to go for growth, and therefore they are almost happy to take extra housing because they have made a strategic choice that that is what they want to do in their district. Those are probably not the kinds of authorities in the areas my right hon. Friend and I represent or the areas immediately around them, where land is very much at a premium. One of the things we need to look at in the White Paper is what more we can do to provide those kinds of incentives. To me, a lot of that is about much more explicit links between housing numbers and infrastructure. I actually want to get down to the level of having very bespoke conversations with individual authorities saying, “If you were going to take an extra x thousand in your area, what does it need to make it work? What would make it politically acceptable?” and then trying to have those kinds of bespoke deals.
There is also a real role for all of us to provide some political leadership here. What many people imagine is that if we do not build the homes, the people will not come. Actually, evidence in London in recent years shows that that is not true; they do come, and you end up with people living in beds in sheds at the end of gardens and things like that. We do not want to live in a city like that, so Mr Tracey is absolutely right—we need to have confidence in the numbers and we need to believe that they are genuinely what is going to happen in a given area. But then there is a moral duty on us to make sure that we provide housing, once we have confidence in the figures, to meet that level of need.
Sometimes that is going to involve difficult choices. I have tried to avoid being parochial so far, but I will just give a Croydon example. In my constituency—it has been really interesting to see over the nearly 20 years that I have been involved in local politics—essentially an explicit choice has been made to build very high in the centre of Croydon in order to protect our green belt. If someone had come to Croydon 20 years ago and said, “We are going to have seven or eight buildings over 40 storeys in the town centre,” they would have been laughed out of town. Confronted with either not meeting the housing need we have—people can see the housing need all around them—or building on our remaining parks or green belt, people have actually said that this is a better option. It is near where the infrastructure is—the East Croydon station route into London and all those kinds of things.
In some parts of the country there are no easy ways of doing this. It is a question of having an honest debate about what the options are. I certainly believe that in parts of London higher density is part of the solution. Even that is not an easy sell to people because it does change the character of an area, but we need to think—what are the alternatives?
The Chair
Order. I am afraid that time has beaten us in this session as well. I thank the Minister and his team for the full and frank engagement with the Committee, which is really appreciated.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Jackie Doyle-Price.)
Neighbourhood Planning Bill (Third sitting)
Thursday 20th October 2016
(8 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesNeighbourhood Planning Act 2017 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 20 October 2016 - (20 Oct 2016)
The Chair
We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill.
The selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room. It shows how the selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or a similar issue. The Member who has put his or her name to the leading amendment in a group is called to speak first; other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak on all or any of the amendments in that group. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate.
I will work on the assumption that the Minister wishes the Committee to reach a decision on all Government amendments. Please note that decisions on amendments do not take place in the order in which they are debated, but in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper. In other words, debate occurs according to the selection of groupings list, but decisions are taken when we come to the clause that the amendment affects. I hope that is helpful.
I will use my discretion to decide whether to allow a separate stand part debate on individual clauses and schedules following the debates on the relevant amendments.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr McCabe. I hope you will bear with me when I ask some beginner’s questions, but this is the first Committee in which I have been on the Front Bench. The technical consultation on the Bill finished yesterday, but the public consultation does not finish until 2 November. We are having our debates on the Bill in the absence of that feedback from the public, or from the professionals who took part in the technical consultation. Is that usual? If so, how do we ensure that the comments in the consultation are fed back into the process?
The Chair
The Minister will have easily heard your comments. It is normal for the usual channels to have agreed the scheduling of the Committee, but we note the point that has been made, and the Minister has heard it and will do what he can to assist.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr McCabe. if there are any additional documents relevant to the deliberations of the Committee, will the Minister ensure that Committee members are aware of them, so that we do not have to go looking for them on the website of the Department for Communities and Local Government?
The Chair
The Minister will have heard those remarks, and he is nodding to indicate that he will do his best to assist.
Clause 1
Duty to have regard to post-examination neighbourhood development plan
Dr Blackman-Woods
I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end insert—
“and insofar as it is consistent with the relevant local plan.”
This amendment ensures that neighbourhood plans are not considered if they are inconsistent with local plans.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 5, in clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end insert—
“and insofar as it is consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework and the National Planning Practice Guidance.”
This amendment ensures that neighbourhood plans are not considered if they are incompatible with the National Planning Policy Framework or the National Planning Practice Guidance.
Amendment 3, in clause 1, page 1, line 22, at end insert—
“(c) if it has been examined by an independent examiner who is registered with the Royal Town Planning Institute.”
This amendment ensures that the examination of a neighbourhood plan is conducted by an RTPI registered examiner.
New clause 1—Approval of draft-neighbourhood development plans by referendum—
(1) Schedule 4B of the Town and Country Planning Act is amended as follows—
(2) After paragraph (2) insert—
“(3) The outcome of such a referendum shall only be valid if the turnout is equal to or greater than 40%.”
Dr Blackman-Woods
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe.
As the Minister knows from our discussions on Tuesday, we do not see neighbourhood planning and the provisions relating to it as the most controversial aspect of the Bill. Nevertheless, we have a couple of questions embodied in the amendments on which we would like some clarification from the Minister.
Amendment 4 seeks to amend the clause to ensure that the local authority will only have to have regard to neighbourhood plans when they are found to be consistent with the local plan. I am sure that in his response the Minister will say that it is already enshrined in legislation that they have to pay attention to the local plan, but we are seeking clarity on at what stage that needs to happen.
Let me start by saying that we are very supportive of neighbourhood plans and the measures in the Bill to make them more efficient in delivering housing, delivering it where local people want it and having it underpinned by the relevant infrastructure. We feel that planning is always more successful when people feel a part of it, rather than planning being something that is done to them and imposed from above. This point was made powerfully on Tuesday by the National Association of Local Councils, which also reminded the Committee that during the passage of the Bill we probably need to push for greater clarity on the exact role of neighbourhood plans and get some statements about the importance and significance attached to them and, in particular, their relationship to local plans.
The amendment would ensure that neighbourhood plans are only considered if they are in line with the overall strategic aims and visions within a local plan. As we are all no doubt aware, local plans set out a framework for the future development of an area, addressing needs and opportunities relating not only to housing, but to the local economy, community facilities and infrastructure. We are specifically asking the Minister to what extent neighbourhood plans are then being written to address not only the broader strategic aims of the local plan, but what it says about community facilities and infrastructure—that is, if it does. It might not, and if not, is the Minister clear that there is then a key role for the neighbourhood plan to ensure that those less strategic issues are addressed for the locality?
An underlying purpose of the amendment is to try and tease out from the Minister whether he thinks neighbourhood plans could, in fact, be a building block for local plans. There are distinct advantages for planning at a community level for housing supply, if that incorporates real local knowledge and that local knowledge is then put into a wider picture that is able to address local authority-wide needs. Hugh Ellis from the Town and Country Planning Association spoke on Tuesday about the real advantages that could have, saying:
“Neighbourhood plans are great at articulating community aspiration inside the local plan framework. When both work together very powerfully, that can be a very strong framework for a community.”––[Official Report, Neighbourhood Planning Public Bill Committee, 18 October 2016; c. 32, Q50.]
Ruth Reed from RIBA said it would be better for local and neighbourhood plans to be “in sync” to
“ensure coherence and strategy across a local authority to provide housing where it is needed.”––[Official Report, Neighbourhood Planning Public Bill Committee, 18 October 2016; c. 43, Q71.]
Local plans are also only adopted after public consultation and, in my experience, usually very lengthy—in fact, often more than one—public inquiries. As the Minister and all on this Committee will know, they do have considerable weight. It would be very helpful for communities to be able to feed in their vision for development at an early stage in that local plan-making project and process. We also do not want to find ourselves in a situation where strengthened neighbourhood plans are undermining local plans, leading to lots of competing visions of what an area could look like or deliver. Again, we feel that being very clear about the degree to which they have to follow a local plan might help to iron out some of those possible conflicts. As the Local Government Association has pointed out,
“It is important that any proposals do not have the unintended consequence of undermining the ability of a local planning authority to meet the wider strategic objectives set out in an emerging or adopted Local Plan”.
According to the Department’s own figures, about 200 neighbourhood plans that have progressed to the referendum stage have been approved by voters; I suspect the figure is a lot higher now. That shows a really positive reception for neighbourhood planning. I pay tribute to the Minister and his Department for bringing the whole concept forward. However, given the number of neighbourhood plans now being considered—I think it is a few thousand—and the way the Government rightly want to extend them, it seems likely they could end up competing with one another. We are trying to ensure, through the amendment, that that does not happen.
The guidance tells us that it is very important for a neighbourhood plan or order to follow a local plan, but they are not often tested against policies in an emerging plan. I will give an example from my constituency, where we are in precisely this situation, which is partly what prompted my question. A local plan went through a public inquiry and was thrown out by the inspector. The authority was directed to go back to first base in terms of drawing up the local plan, so it is out to consultation at the moment on some of the underpinning objectives, but a number of neighbourhood plans are about to go to referendums. Will those plans simply rely on saved local policies? Will they have to look at the local plan that was thrown out, or will they be tested against the underpinning objectives, which are quite wide-ranging at this stage? It would be interesting to hear from the Minister on that point. There is a need for further clarity, particularly with regard to the stage that the local plan is at.
These are very much probing amendments, as I am sure Committee members have determined. Amendment 5 would mean the local authority need not have regard to the local plan, unless it is consistent with the national planning policy framework and national planning policy guidance. This is a straightforward amendment. We should seek to put best practice at the forefront of neighbourhood planning by requiring that the plans are compatible with the NPPF and any relevant guidance.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Is the hon. Lady aware that paragraph 16 of the NPPF states that neighbourhoods should
“develop plans that support the strategic development needs set out in Local Plans”?
Is that not quite clear?
Dr Blackman-Woods
I am trying to tease out the extent to which the Minister thinks it is important right at the outset for neighbourhood plans to tell us how they are addressing the basic thrust of the NPPF and any relevant policies in it and taking on board guidance that underpins some of those policies. I do not think the issue of guidance is quite so clear. Perhaps it is generally assumed that the NPPF would be followed but not to the degree that planning guidance would have to be taken on board.
Jim McMahon
This is a very important point because the provision must not be seen as a way of paying lip service to local opinion. People spend a lot of time trying to work up neighbourhood plans, which go through a massive amount of consultation, and they go round the area with clipboards, but when it comes down to it they are not treated with seriousness in the process. Having this quality assurance would help that.
Dr Blackman-Woods
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Public confidence in the system is important.
Just to show that I looked, we found that national planning policy guidance includes guidance on the independent examiner’s role, how a neighbourhood plan or order is examined, how the public can make their views known to the independent examiner, who can speak if a public hearing is held and whether the examiner considers the referendum area to be part of their report. However, there is nothing at all—not in that section anyway—about who the independent examiner should be or what qualifications they might be expected to have.
The reason the amendment specifies the RTPI is that it has a mark of quality attached to it, and has been clear about the principles to which examiners should work. There are five core principles. I think this might be helpful, and if the Minister does not want to include it on the face of the Bill, it might be put into regulations.
It is hard to disagree with any of the five core principles, or to suggest a reason why they should not apply to examiners. Those subject to them must act with competence, honesty and integrity; and they must use independent professional judgement. That is particularly important, because we want the examination to be seen as professional. After all, the plans are very important. They should probably have more importance in the planning system. We want to make sure that they will be professionally examined. Examiners must apply due care and diligence; they must act within principles of equality and respect; and obviously, they must exhibit professional behaviour at all times.
That set of core principles seems to me to be very helpful. The RTPI deals with professional planners all the time, and it has provided more detail about what the principles mean with respect to the role of an inspector. I shall not go through them all, because there are too many, but I thought it might be worth looking at a few that seem particularly important.
“Members must take all reasonable steps to maintain their professional competence”.
That seems fairly obvious; we want people who are to examine neighbourhood plans to deal with the planning system as it currently is—not as it was when they trained, which could have been some time ago.
They must also
“take all reasonable steps to ensure that their private, personal, political and financial interests do not conflict with their professional duties.”
Again, that is important. I wonder whether the current system pays attention to any financial, personal, political or other conflict of interest, particularly in relation to examiners. It may, and I hope that the Minister can reassure us on that point, but I think my constituents would want to know that people with a conflict of interest were screened out before the point at which they would get to examine a neighbourhood plan. It is not clear to me at what stage in the current process that happens, or what questions are asked during the appointment process, to ascertain whether there is a conflict of interest.
“Members must not offer or accept inducements, financial or otherwise, to influence a decision or professional point of view”.
That is an issue that councillors are used to having to deal with; but again, it has not been made clear. I do not suggest for a minute that any examiner would have been subject to the taking of financial inducements, or anything of the kind. I just do not know, at this stage, what process there is in place to ensure that that does not happen, or what oversight there is of the examination process. Also, examiners should not disclose to employers or clients what is happening in the neighbourhood plan where it would be to their advantage.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I am not trying to suggest there has been a problem in the past, but we have neighbourhood planning provisions before us in a Bill that seeks to strengthen and streamline the process of neighbourhood planning. It is the Opposition’s job to seek ways of improving the Bill and one way might be to give greater clarity and confidence to the public and all our constituents that neighbourhood plans are being effectively and efficiently examined. That provides more confidence in the process, which we are incredibly supportive of.
Jim McMahon
I actually think—I am sure my hon. Friend will agree—this is a gift for the Minister. Imagine a situation in which there is no quality assurance in place and no mechanism built into the membership organisation to deal with complaints. Where else would the complaints come but across our desks?
Dr Blackman-Woods
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. It drives home the point we are making. We have tried to be incredibly helpful in tabling the amendment. The point has not been raised only by Opposition Members. As I pointed out earlier, it was raised by people who gave evidence to the Committee. It is important as a matter of public record that we are clear about how the plans will be examined and about the qualifications of the examiners. As my hon. Friend said, the RTPI has given a gift to the Minister by saying there is already a code of conduct and already professional guidance in place, so why does not the Minister simply adopt it and then we will all have better reassurances about the qualifications—[Interruption.] I am sure the hon. Member for North West Hampshire can intervene on me if he wishes to do so, and I will seek to answer his question.
If I may, I will move on to new clause 1. Although we have tabled it as a new clause, it is really just a further probing amendment to find out whether the Minister thinks there should be a threshold for the number of electors who will turn up to vote for a neighbourhood plan. Again, I am not trying to make the process of having a neighbourhood plan more difficult, because we are terribly supportive of neighbourhood plans and want as many of them in place as possible.
In fact, because the Minister is extremely good at reading the Lyons report, he will know that we had a whole section in that report about local plan-making and how we might marry up neighbourhood plans with the local plan-making system. That was not to take powers away from local neighbourhoods, but to have these as an initial building block for local plans so that local plans are not something that is seen to be imposed on a local community, but are something that develops organically from looking at a whole range of neighbourhood plans. He knows that the Lyons report also talked about how we could fund that, because if we are going to adopt a system where neighbourhood plans are the building blocks of local plans, resource will clearly need to be put into neighbourhood plans.
If I may again use the example of my constituency, we are now back at the beginning, more or less, of our local plan-making process. I think I am right in saying that process started in 2007; if I was being really generous to the local authority I might say 2008, but really we had preliminary discussions in 2007. Here we are in 2016, I think 11 rounds of consultation later, and we still have no local plan in place. In fact, we would be lucky to get a local plan in place in the next couple of years.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Does she agree with my research that shows that 95% of local plans had to be stopped and recreated after the absurdity of the coalition Government’s decision of March 2013, when they required them all to have to consult adjoining authorities? Ninety-five per cent. have had to be recreated, creating a huge delay and uncertainty in house building and the provision of other amenities.
Dr Blackman-Woods
As always, my hon. Friend makes a very interesting point. We did have a brief exchange with the Minister on Tuesday about the fact that the duty to co-operate has not worked in practice, and the real need for a different set of provisions. I know the Minister is seeking to address that at a later stage in the Bill’s passage, so we look forward to seeing the provisions that will address that aspect of local plan-making and how the duty to co-operate can be made to work more effectively in practice. My hon. Friend has raised a very valid point.
I think we are on our 11th round of consultation, and there will be further rounds before we actually get a local plan in place. Huge resource is then put into the consultation, which has gone on for many years. The huge amount of documentation that goes with each of those public consultations has a resource attached to it. I should have thought that it was possible to have a system of local plan-making that was very streamlined and did not require the huge amount of documentation that it currently does; that would free up resources. One of the things we argued in Lyons was that those resources could then be used to effectively support neighbourhoods and local authorities to use neighbourhood plans as the building block for their local plans.
I am coming to my argument about new clause 1. If these plans are to have considerable weight attached to them, and if they are going to be, as they currently are, part of the local plan once they go through a referendum and a material consideration, should there be a minimum level of buy-in from the local community, in terms of turning out to vote? I am sure the Minister will say that the votes for these neighbourhood plans are extraordinary, that 89% or 90% of the people who turn out regularly vote for the neighbourhood plan, that they understand why it is important to their community and that a lot of them will have turned up to consultation events.
It is heartening that so many of the plans get that percentage of people supporting them. It is actually quite rare for them to be turned down or to have fairly low percentages. At the moment we are at about a 32.4% turnout from the local community. I am sure all of us here think that is actually not bad when compared with the turnout for some local council elections, but if we are talking about a plan that will have a very strong influence on what happens in the neighbourhood area for perhaps 10 or 15 years or even longer, I suggest there might need to be a 40% threshold, but that could be lower or higher.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)
I am interested in the argument the hon. Lady is making. My local authority is going through the process of agreeing its local plan at the moment, so I share her pain. Do the Opposition think the same arguments should apply to local plans? Should the people of Croydon have the chance to vote in a referendum on the local plan that Croydon Council is proposing?
Dr Blackman-Woods
The Minister makes an interesting point. It is something I will mull over and think about. Does the Minister think it is important to have a particular threshold? Again, that point is not being put forward only by the Opposition. It was also put forward by the BPF, which said:
“As neighbourhood plans affect large sectors of the community, a minimum turnout would ensure that what is to become a development plan document as part of the Local Development Framework is agreed and accepted by a sufficient majority—and would also help ensure the implementation of neighbourhood plans.”
That is an important point.
John Mann
I am glad this is a probing new clause. The British Property Federation would say they, wouldn’t they? Is there not a danger that a threshold will shift power to middle-class communities and away from working-class communities, where people work shifts and where there is a more transient population because of private rented accommodation? Turnouts have traditionally and historically been low in all elections in those communities through no fault of the local people. They have a desire to vote, as we saw in the EU referendum, but people are having to work ridiculously long hours to make a living. Indeed, turnover in property is hugely large. Are those not the dangers of having a threshold? Any system must not discriminate against working-class communities.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I am sure my hon. Friend will be delighted to note that an amendment has been tabled for a later discussion in the Committee on how we ensure that disadvantaged communities are not discriminated against.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Dr Blackman-Woods
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in just a moment, after I have dealt with the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw.
We should not abandon the idea of a threshold just because it might be more difficult for some people to attend a polling station or another building to register a vote. We all want to ensure that as many people as possible are engaged in the neighbourhood planning process and, indeed, in voting more generally—but I will stick to neighbourhood plans, to avoid getting a direction from the Chair. Polling over a given period of time, and good use of postal votes or electronic voting are among the many different mechanisms that could be applied locally to ensure that the threshold is reached, and that people really are engaged in the neighbourhood planning process.
Jim McMahon
That is the crux of the issue. The gift of a neighbourhood plan is that it binds a local community together to agree collectively what is best for that community. The benefit of a threshold is that a bar is put in place to say, “You have to be able to demonstrate that the plan has the community support in place.” If one of the arguments is that disadvantaged communities are disfranchised from such processes in a way that middle-class communities are not, a threshold would place a greater onus on ensuring that people are included in the process and in more active ways.
Dr Blackman-Woods
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and one that I was going to come to: a minimum threshold could ensure that additional work had to be put in to get a wider, more representative group coming forward and voting for a plan. I was going to draw the Minister’s attention to the activities of Planning Aid England, which works a great deal with disadvantaged communities, trying to get them engaged in the planning process. If the Minister was keen to put a minimum threshold in place, he might want to think about how Planning Aid could be supported, in particular to work with disadvantaged communities to ensure not only that people turn up to vote for the neighbourhood plan, but that they are fully engaged in the plan-making process itself.
When we discuss the later amendment, we will see that analysis of the plans so far indicates that—this is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw was making earlier—they have a bias towards more middle-class communities.
Oliver Colvile
Thank you, Mr McCabe, for allowing me to serve under your chairmanship. The point that I would make is that if we are going to be doing public consultation—which is incredibly important, and I have made that quite clear—we need to use Planning for Real weekends, so that members of the local community may have the opportunity to come in, physically, and say what they are expecting from the whole thing, although postal and proxy votes can be used, too, and a lot of people do so.
Dr Blackman-Woods
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. As well as Planning Aid, I should have mentioned Planning for Real, which also does amazing work in communities getting people to engage with the neighbourhood planning process. Such work could be continued to encourage people to turn up and vote in the decision whether to adopt the neighbourhood plan.
As I said at the outset of our debate on this group of amendments, they are probing ones, intended to get greater clarity from the Minister about the whole range of issues that we have raised. I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
Kit Malthouse
I realise that the hon. Member for City of Durham is benignly motivated, but I had a horrible feeling that she might have been seized by Stockholm syndrome with regard to the planning industry. She referred quite a lot to what the planning industry had to say, but I think she misunderstands the great advantage of neighbourhood plans. They are organic community creations outside the accepted rules, shibboleths, morals and principles of the planning system. She seems in her amendments to be trying to put barriers and bureaucracy into neighbourhood plans, which they are specifically designed to overcome.
There are already safeguards in the neighbourhood planning process. When a neighbourhood plan is approved by referendum, it must go to the local council where there is democratic oversight; it must be adopted as part of the local plan before it is accepted completely; and it must be examined. By the way, I am not surprised the RTPI was willing selflessly to put itself forward as the monopoly examiners of plans for a fee, adding yet more cost to the process.
It strikes me that the hon. Lady is creating bureaucracy in the system—
Dr Blackman-Woods
May I say at the outset that I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of what I was seeking to do? I was seeking to get further clarity in the Minister’s legislation, not to put prescription in place. As far as I can recall, I did not mention fees for the RTPI.
Kit Malthouse
No, I accept what the hon. Lady says and I apologise. She said these are probing amendments and I was being slightly flippant, but I doubt very much whether a member of the RTPI would do the examination free. The point is that if you restrict it to just them, I imagine the fees might rise slightly. Basic economics is that the smaller the pool of people, the more fees will rise.
I acknowledged that the amendments were probing, but I am not sure what problem the hon. Lady is trying to solve. Thousands of neighbourhood plans have come forward and there are two major issues, which the Bill solves. The first is more assistance from local authorities, because obviously the plans have to conform with the local plan and they are often developed in parallel. Certainly mine were developed in parallel with the local plan. There is quite a lot of iterative process between the two and the Bill allows that. Secondly, if they are going to do this work, there should be protection in the planning system, which is also in the Bill.
Beyond that, I fear the hon. Lady is trying to create with the amendments—I accept they are probing—a sort of recreation of the whole planning system on a local scale, instead of realising that the process is organic and should be exactly that without as much restriction as the formal planning and plan development process has, notwithstanding the fact that there will be supervision by the local council.
Jim McMahon
I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman would want to water down the integrity of this process. If it is to have any credibility in the system, it must be tested in the system. We do not want a neighbourhood plan that does not stand that test and is treated in a second-rate way.
I also cannot understand the point about levying a fee. People do not generally work for free in their profession. Someone will want to be paid as part of that process. All that my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham is trying to do in the amendment, which is open to debate, is to make sure that a standard is applied and it provides that standard. If this is not accepted, what is the alternative to provide that surety?
Kit Malthouse
This may be a philosophical difference between us. I am naturally inclined to deregulation, whereas this is obviously an attempt to impose regulation on the neighbourhood planning process. In my experience, regulation generally gets in the way of speed and efficiency, and frankly of people even bothering to get involved.
In my neighbourhood there has been huge enthusiasm, wide acceptance and a recognition that there are two issues—first, more assistance from the local authority and secondly, more regard from the planning system as it is. It would be a mistake for us to try in the Bill to reproduce the same level of planning regulation that exists at local authority level for what is, frankly, often a group of volunteers who are trying to put together an imaginative plan for their neighbourhood. They should be left with as little restriction as possible to do that as far as they can, and when they realise their plan needs to be in conformity with the local plan and it has to go to democratic approval, to modify it accordingly. If we are to have acceptance, we must do it that way. Once we start putting rules and regulations and hurdles in their way, I am afraid the enthusiasm will drop away.
I would not support a 40% threshold. As the hon. Member for Bassetlaw said, there lots of reasons why not, but we do not apply that for any other election in this country, including referendums and elections for police and crime commissioners. There is no other election or exercise of the democratic process in this country where we do that and I do not think we should start now.
John Mann
It is always a pleasure—actually it is the first time, but it always will be a pleasure—to be given the opportunity by the Whips to serve under your chairing, Mr McCabe. I thank the Whips, although I am not sure that those on the Labour Front Bench will necessarily thank them, for putting me on this Bill Committee.
I will first deal with the question of thresholds. It is a good idea but I would suggest that the wrong threshold has been suggested, so I am glad that the new clause is a probing one. When I was first elected as a councillor, I got 86% of the vote on a 40% turnout. That means that I got a higher share of the electorate than the majority of MPs elected in the last general election. Given that, who would be the more statistically valid representative?
The interesting question is whether a threshold should be based on the vote. Should someone on a low turnout get through on 50% to 49%? That would suggest that there is quite a split in the community. There would be a coherent case for suggesting that the neighbourhood development plan needs to have a threshold of a majority for it to be seen to be coherent across a community. I am not aware of anywhere, certainly not in my area, where there is that sort of division, but such situations could exist.
The Secretary of State said that too many people
“object to houses being built next to us”
and that we are going to have to change that attitude. He was, rightly, very outspoken in Bentley in Redditch in 2015 against the proposals for 2,800 houses there, as he was in Hagley in 2012. He, like me, has supported the local people against the planning system and the way it works, but that does not coincide with his commentary at his party’s conference.
In Croydon, one local Member of Parliament talked of the overwhelming opposition to housing in Shirley, with the Save Shirley campaign. He said that the proposals to build there were “a pile of nonsense.” Clearly, there were divisions in Croydon between people who wanted to build in one place and those who wanted to build in another. Some people did not want the development in one place; others did not want it in another.
The Opposition have proposed a threshold but, in the Croydon example, a threshold of how many people vote for a neighbourhood development plan or, indeed, for a local plan would be a good idea. Otherwise, those supporting the residents of Shirley might lose out. They might be very angry at losing out and vent their anger against their local MP.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
If the hon. Gentleman is casting aspersions on my constituency neighbour for his Save Shirley campaign, may I point out his outstanding record of supporting building in the town centre?
What the hon. Member for Bassetlaw proposes by way of a threshold effectively gives weight to the opinions of people who do not bother to vote. Does he not agree that giving weight to the opinions of those who cannot even be bothered to vote in any election, including the one we are discussing, would not be appropriate?
John Mann
I am merely throwing into the mix for consideration the suggestion that the Government may wish to come back with an amendment, in the spirit proposed by Her Majesty’s Opposition, involving a threshold determined not by the percentage of the electorate, but by a percentage threshold of the majority in the vote. That would help to avoid a conflict situation and lead to more local negotiation in places such as Shirley.
There are lots of places like Shirley. Ministers do intervene. They are intervening in Bradford, for example. The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) was delighted, when the Minister was intervening there, to object to house building. There will always be people who object to house building next to them, and there is nothing wrong with that. If there is a bad planning application, I can fill a public hall at any time. I get hundreds and hundreds of people there very regularly. Indeed, I have a meeting tomorrow.
The Chair
Mr Mann, may I gently suggest that you come a bit closer to the subject under discussion?
John Mann
I am suitably admonished, Mr McCabe, but this is a way of getting directly into the amendments. Having spoken to new clause 1 very precisely, I am now speaking to amendments 4 and 5 very precisely, because these amendments explicitly probe the issue of conflict between the local plan and the neighbourhood plan. In other words, one set of people want to do one thing, but another set may want to do something else.
Dr Blackman-Woods
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case in support of neighbourhood planning. Does he agree that the success of neighbourhood planning, which Labour Members welcome and applaud, is precisely what makes it such a good building block for local plans?
John Mann
It is absolutely a building block. We will come at a later stage to how we deal with less affluent communities, which is important, but when it comes to all neighbourhood plans, there is a great opportunity here for the Minister. He will need to come back with a bit more, otherwise the certainty is not there. One likes certainty in life. We know where we stand with a local plan. We would know where we stand with a neighbourhood plan. So a neighbourhood plan voted through where there is house building built in ought to be the certainty for the foreseeable future, which, in planning terms, seems to be 15 years. Such certainty seems reasonable enough to me. If the Minister could deliver on that, when I go back to my local communities he will find that there is even more enthusiasm. I will be able to get the urban communities saying, “This is a great idea, and by the way we will have more housing. We will change this and we will change that. We will create more open spaces. We will want space for our community facilities.”
Large numbers will participate in the planning debate and decision making, given the chance. The Minister has the proof already. Let us unleash more of this local empowerment. He will then be a very popular Minister.
Jim McMahon
This has been a fascinating debate. We are all localists. We all come from our communities—that is why we are here in the first place—and the spirit of the Bill embraces that. We are fine-tuning the Bill to ensure it works in practice. We do not want to set people up to be disappointed. We do not want them to be given this power, to be told that after years of having things done to them they are suddenly empowered, and then to go through the process of having an application submitted only for it to be completely against what they want. That is really important. In the local context of Greater Manchester, we have got the spatial framework. Within that process there is a call for sites, so developers and landowners put sites forward as part of the mix.
A member of the public has the local plan that has been agreed, but now they also have in consultation a strategic plan with sites that have been put forward by developers and landowners, and not necessarily with the agreement of the local authority. However, that causes a lot of tension because some of the sites are controversial. Landowners do not always take into account local opinion before they submit sites to get the development value that could be achieved afterwards. In an odd way, that could be the thing that inspires the local community to come together. Instead of having something done to us, let us get together and design what we want our community to be. We could think further about design quality, open space provision and how a community works more generally.
I will certainly be a champion for this type of planning in my local community. Let us be honest: in deprived, working-class communities, people have for decades and generations been told, “This is what you are getting, whether you like it or not.” I see this legislation as a route for empowering people to have far more control over their lives and communities, so it is welcome. However, let us not lose an opportunity to make sure that this is a really decent piece of legislation and a really decent process that people can feel empowered by. When a planning application goes through the system and is tested—when it is submitted and goes for approval—it is important that it has enough weight to ensure that the professional planners, and those sitting on the planning committee if it goes for determination, treat it with the respect it deserves. That is in the spirit of today’s amendment and the amendments we will discuss at a later date.
I want to return to the point I made earlier about the consultation process. If we say that we want to put the community at the heart of the process and have a community voice to make people feel more empowered, it seems odd that the public consultation on this issue does not close until 2 November, because here we are determining the legislation that will by and large have been debated before that date. Can the Minister tell us why that has not been sequenced in the right way? How can we ensure that the responses to the consultation are fed in? If significant issues come up in that process, what mechanism does Parliament have to make sure that those are picked up at the appropriate time?
Gavin Barwell
It is a pleasure to serve for the first time under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. With your permission, I will start by responding briefly to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton so that I can provide some reassurance. I have worked very hard to try to ensure that Parliament has as much of the material relating to the Bill as possible, and as early as possible in the process. There was an earlier consultation on neighbourhood planning this year, our response to which was published at the same time as the Bill. This is a technical consultation about how we are going to implement some of these provisions.
The assurance we have given the House, and the business managers more widely, is that when the Bill gets to the Lords stages we intend to have the draft regulations or policy statements published. I agree with the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton that in an ideal world all this would be ready when a Bill first comes to Parliament, but if we look historically we see that is the case for virtually no Bills. I am keen to learn the lessons of the Housing and Planning Act, which received Royal Assent earlier this year, and get the material out as early as possible and give people as much opportunity as possible to scrutinise the measures.
Jim McMahon
Just to clarify, there are two separate consultations. There is a technical consultation that closed on 19 October, and there is a wider public consultation on the pre-condition element that closes in November. I would not necessarily consider the second one to be just a technical consultation. I would not want it to be lost in the mix and not treated with importance, because residents and community organisations will respond to it expecting it to be treated appropriately.
Gavin Barwell
The intention behind that consultation paper was to be helpful to Parliament and wider stakeholders interested in these issues. When we announced the Bill in the Queen’s Speech and set out the broad measures that were going to be in it, there was concern about what the impact of these reforms to planning conditions might have. Our feeling was that publishing a consultation paper setting out exactly how the Secretary of State might use these powers, if the Bill receives Royal Assent, would be helpful. The intention was to try to assist.
I am grateful to all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, which has raised important areas about neighbourhood plans, their relationship with local plans and national planning policy, the examination process and the extent of the democratic mandate they receive through a referendum. Before addressing each amendment, I would like to make a few general comments.
As the Committee will know, the role that communities play in planning has been revolutionised, at least in certain parts of the country, by the neighbourhood planning process. More than 200 communities have recognised the opportunity to shape the development of their area. The numbers speak for themselves. Nearly 2,000 communities have started the process, as the hon. Member for City of Durham said, in areas that cover nearly 10 million people in England, and 240 referendums have been held, all of which have been successful. The Government are hugely proud of neighbourhood planning and of the communities that have taken up the opportunities we have provided for them. We have been clear that we want an effective system that will inspire communities, as the hon. Member for Bassetlaw said, and give them confidence that their views matter, while delivering the growth and additional housing we need.
Clause 1 helps to achieve that. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw that it is not a solution on its own and that more action will be needed. The White Paper will set out some accompanying policy changes that will try to address the issue. The clause inserts a new paragraph and new subsections (3B) and (3C) into section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It will require decision makers to have regard to post-examination neighbourhood plans where the decision has been made by the local planning authority, or in certain cases the Secretary of the State, that the plan should go to a referendum. We might call that the Malthouse clause, because it originates from an issue with the neighbourhood plan in Oakley and Deane, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire. Essentially, an appeal was granted just before the referendum was going to be held.
Gavin Barwell
The plan had therefore been through the examination. My hon. Friend’s lobbying for his community led the Government to reflect and then bring forward this clause.
The key point is the one made by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw: in communities that produce neighbourhood plans, people give a lot of time and effort to produce them, and therefore we need to ensure that work is recognised in the system at the earliest possible opportunity. We are making it clear in legislation—not just through planning guidance—that regard should be given to advanced neighbourhood plans, so communities can have confidence that their plans will get proper consideration in planning decisions, where the plan is material to the application.
Turning to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for City of Durham, I hope that I can reassure all hon. Members that the Bill—this includes the Government amendments on local plans, which I have written to Committee members about this morning—does not alter the local plan-led system, which I am sure we all support. We have been clear from the start that the neighbourhood’s ambition should be aligned with the strategic needs and priorities of the wider local area, but that outside those strategic elements neighbourhood plans are able to shape and direct sustainable development in their area.
One of the tests that an advanced plan will have met, once it has gone through its examination, is whether its policies are in general conformity with the strategic policies of the relevant local plan. That will have been tested both by the independent person appointed to examine the plan and by the local planning authority. That is set out in schedule 4B to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Dr Blackman-Woods
The clarity that the Minister provided is helpful. Can he tell us where the provisions for examiners have been applied in legislation to those examining a neighbourhood plan, as opposed to a local plan?
Gavin Barwell
I am sorry; I did not make myself clear enough. Those provisions are in relation to people examining a neighbourhood plan.
The hon. Lady raised a couple of points that are worthy of clarification, including the important point on equalities, which she was quite right to mention. The public sector equality duty does not sit on the examiner. It sits on the council appointing the examiner to ensure that it is confident that it appoints someone who will fulfil that duty.
I recognise that the amendment is purely a probing one, but I want to deal with the point picked up on by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire about the particular group of people that the hon. Member for City of Durham suggested should do the work. The Government’s understanding is that many local planning authorities have used the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors’ neighbourhood planning independent examiner referral service to source an examiner. That seems to be standard practice. That service offers examiners that it has assessed as suitably qualified to carry out examinations. The RICS maintains that members of the panel are continually monitored to ensure that they maintain performance and standards.
Although I am a huge fan of the RTPI, the amendment is neither necessary nor sufficient. In other words, there are some experienced planners who would do a perfectly good job and are not registered with the RTPI. There might also be a newly qualified planner who is registered but may not have particular experience in neighbourhood planning and, therefore, might not be the ideal person. I completely understand the thrust of what she seeks reassurance on, and I share her view, but the relevant safeguards are in schedule 4B to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
To a degree, we should trust councils. They have a clear interest in ensuring that the neighbourhood plan is properly examined, because they share the hon. Lady’s concern that it should be in conformity with the strategic policies of their local plan. Therefore, I do not think that we, sitting here, need overly to pre-judge that councils are not capable of ensuring that we get the right people to do what I accept is important work.
I turn to new clause 1. As I said earlier in the week, neighbourhood planning referendums have an average turnout of 33%, which is not too dissimilar to the average turnout in local elections. At the moment, support needs to be gained purely from 50% of those who vote in the referendum. That is a fairly consistent principle that we apply across our democratic system. Although new clause 1 was tabled to probe, it may be useful for the Committee to know what its effect would be. Of the approximately 240 referendums that have taken place to date, about 170 would not have passed the test proposed by the hon. Member for City of Durham. I want to make three more quick points.
Gavin Barwell
I am slightly conscious of the time. It might be helpful to the Committee if we finished consideration of these amendments before 1 o’clock.
The hon. Member for Bassetlaw made an important point about the effect of a threshold on more deprived communities, where turnout tends to be lower. I think there was a consensus in the oral evidence sessions that neighbourhood planning has been too concentrated in certain parts of the country. We must be wary of that because we want to ensure that everyone is benefiting.
It is also important to note that for local plans, which arguably have a much bigger impact on communities, there is no requirement to hold a referendum. I think the people of Croydon would be delighted if they had a chance to have a referendum on the Croydon local plan. In questioning the exact wording of the new clause, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw said that we should look at having a threshold for how many people vote in favour—the proportion of the electorate that had voted yes. I am wary of that for the reasons mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire, but it might reassure the hon. Gentleman a little to hear that the average yes vote in the 240-odd referendums that have taken place so far is 89%. That shows what is happening where people are proposing referendums. Nevertheless, he is quite right to say that there could be, theoretically, a situation in which that is not the case.
John Mann
This is an important point. So far, the referendums have been for clearly defined communities. In urban areas, where communities are less defined, there is more opportunity for the creation of communities that might not totally work and that might not be fully accepted. The issues we are discussing could become more significant in an urban area where, by definition, the community is not defined. One could see how that might work out, particularly for those trying to protect areas against development. I am sure that there are already lots of examples in London.
Gavin Barwell
The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly legitimate point. In relation to the first three amendments, I hope I have given clear reassurances that the necessary protection is there. In relation to new clause 1, the arguments about thresholds for elections will go on for all kinds of different elections. On balance, I do not see any reason to apply a test that is different from elsewhere in relation to the particular referendums we are discussing. In practice, thus far, the issue has not arisen, but we can certainly keep matters under review.
Chris Philp
Given what the Minister just said about referendums for local plans, will he consider amending the Bill to make provision for such referendums? That would certainly have my support.
Gavin Barwell
Given my personal circumstances, I wonder whether I have too much of a personal interest in such matters. There is an issue, in that we would probably argue that in relation to most local council policies, councils have a democratic mandate from their elections. The same could be argued of parish councils with regard to neighbourhood plans, but neighbourhood plans can also be proposed by neighbourhood forums, which do not have that democratic mandate. That is probably why referendums are needed. I was trying to tease out the shadow Minister on why the Opposition were making such a suggestion here but not for local plans.
I hope I have provided reassurance on the first three amendments. On new clause 1, I do not see the need to treat the referendums we are discussing differently from others. With that, I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw the amendment.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I have listened carefully to what the Minister had to say. Our probing amendments 4 and 5 were helpful in getting clarity about the degree to which local plans and their provisions should be taken on board and what scope there is for neighbourhood plans to put their mark on the plan-making process. We also got additional information from the Minister about the degree to which the plans have to follow the national planning policy framework, but perhaps not about the attached guidance. I shall leave the Minister to ponder that; we may return to it later in proceedings.
The point of amendment 3 was that, in addition to what is in schedule 4B to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, it might be helpful to think about applying a code of conduct for examiners. That could be a Royal Town Planning Institute code or a Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors code. If the Minister does not like that amendment, I am quite happy for him to come back with another of his own. I shall go away and look again at schedule 4B to see whether it does what we think is absolutely necessary in maintaining public confidence, but I shall leave it for the time being.
Finally, the Opposition are seeking to raise the Government’s ambitions for the percentage of people who will get actively involved in neighbourhood plans. If the Minister wants to come back with other measures that demonstrate that he does in fact have high ambitions for the number of people involved, that would be a good thing. With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Jackie Doyle-Price.)
Neighbourhood Planning Bill (Fourth sitting)
Thursday 20th October 2016
(8 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesNeighbourhood Planning Act 2017 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 20 October 2016 - (20 Oct 2016)
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 2, page 2, line 16, at the end insert—
“(3A) To support Neighbourhood Plans, the Secretary of State should set out the weight that should be given to approved development plans at key stages in the planning process.”
This amendment gives weight to Neighbourhood Plans at key stages along the process and not just at the post-referendum stage.
I stress at the outset that this is very much a probing amendment to try to determine whether we need greater clarity, either in the Bill or somewhere else, about what weight, if any, should be given to a neighbourhood plan before a referendum has been held, and before the plan is adopted by the local authority and becomes part of its local plan documents. Given the number of witnesses who mentioned the lack of clarity, it is important that we get additional clarity from the Minister.
The Minister will know that various stakeholders said on Tuesday that this is a key concern. The Local Government Association has previously said:
“It is important that any proposals do not have the unintended consequence of undermining the ability of a local planning authority to meet the wider strategic objectives”.
I suppose the LGA was trying to clarify at what stage attention needs to be paid to the neighbourhood plan. If the neighbourhood plan does something outwith the local plan objectives, when does the local planning authority need to intervene to point that out to the neighbourhood planning forum or parish council?
Similarly, the British Property Federation said:
“Clarity must be provided about the level of weight attributed to neighbourhood plans at every stage of their preparation (for example, whether a draft plan’s general ‘direction of travel’ would be considered in the determination of a planning application)… The relationship between the statutory development plan-making framework and such material considerations must be clear for all stakeholders, in order to allow greater certainty in the development decision-taking process”.
Matt Thomson from the Campaign to Protect Rural England put it well when he said:
“The question reflects one of the key problems that we have been facing with the operation of the planning system for decades. That is…where you have tiers of nested planning policy documents, there is always a question of which has precedence over the other. It should not necessarily be just a question of the one that is produced most recently holding the most weight in a planning application environment.”––[Official Report, Neighbourhood Planning Public Bill Committee, 18 October 2016; c. 51, Q92.]
A number of our witnesses were dealing with a situation—I am sure that it will be well known to a number of members of the Committee—in which there is a controversial planning application that would not be allowed by a neighbourhood plan. When other sites for development have been designated but the plan has not yet been adopted, what weight should the local planning authority give to the general direction of travel in that neighbourhood plan?
I have met many parish councils and neighbourhood planning forums over the years who find that to be a frustrating aspect of the neighbourhood planning system. They might have been through extensive work locally. They might have done all the preliminary stages, including looking at the economy and the wider social environment, and doing character and neighbourhood assessments. I have seen many forums identify bits of land that nobody else knows about but that they believe are important to bring forward for development. They put a huge amount of work into the plan. Just before they have a draft plan but after they have identified sites, they find that their whole direction of travel is knocked aside because a significant site that they do not want to be developed, or that they do not want to be developed in the way described in a particular application, is not only considered but approved. That causes major headaches.
In some cases, the forums or parish councils almost have to start again with land use allocation or in the identification of sites. Furthermore, that situation undermines faith in the process. People say, “We did all this work, identified all the sites and did what the Government wanted us to do. We have put the plan in, but it has not been voted on. Nobody, particularly the local authority, seems to be paying any attention to it.”
It is about certainty not only for the people who put the plan together, but for developers. If a developer knows that a plan that is about to be submitted for a referendum has a lot of weight attached to it, they might not seek planning permission for a site that is not in the neighbourhood plan, or for an inappropriate use of the site. It is about the Government giving certainty not only to communities, but to developers, so that everybody is clearer at an earlier stage in the process what weight should be attached to the neighbourhood plan.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)
Clause 2 builds on clause 1 to ensure that neighbourhood plans come into force sooner as part of the development plan for their area. It inserts a new subsection 3A into section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to provide for a neighbourhood plan to become part of the development plan for that area when it is approved in the relevant referendum.
Without that change, there is a risk that neighbourhood plans might not be given sufficient consideration by decision makers in the period between the community expressing its support for the relevant plan at a referendum and the formal decision by the local planning authority to make the plan. When the neighbourhood plan provision was originally introduced, there was no fixed time period between those events. The Housing and Planning Act 2016 established an eight-week limit. The clause essentially says that the relevant neighbourhood plan will be part of the development plan for the area immediately after a successful referendum.
The hon. Lady made two or three points and it is important to disentangle them. For some of the time she spoke about precedence, which was raised repeatedly in the evidence we received. I hope I satisfied the Committee on that point earlier when I quoted paragraph 185 of the national planning policy framework, which states:
“Once a neighbourhood plan has demonstrated its general conformity with the strategic policies of the Local Plan and is brought into force, the policies it contains take precedence over existing non-strategic policies in the Local Plan”.
I do not think I can make it any clearer than that. Neighbourhood plans must be consistent with the relevant local plans, in terms of the strategic framework, but once they come into force they take precedence over the relevant local plan on detailed non-strategic issues.
The hon. Lady raised, and the hon. Member for Bassetlaw expressed powerfully, the wider concern that people can put a lot of work into producing a neighbourhood plan and then find that decisions about applications in their area that are contrary to their neighbourhood plan are being approved, either by their council or by the Planning Inspectorate on appeal. Clearly that is enormously frustrating. I am not sure whether I can guarantee that it will never happen, but we should certainly seek to minimise it. I argued in response to the hon. Gentleman that clause 1 will help—I think he accepted that—but I accepted that it is not a complete answer. I promised that in the White Paper coming later this year there will be further policy measures that will go a long way towards satisfying him.
The amendment would introduce a third term—this is where my problem comes—that is about weight. I will try to clarify the position, because this is a complex area. First, let me say to the hon. Lady by way of reassurance that the Government’s policy is clear that decision takers may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans. The national planning policy framework sets out with some clarity the matters they should consider. I will read an excerpt from it, because it will help the Committee:
“From the day of publication, decision-takers may also give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to: the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given); the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given); and the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).”
In relation to a neighbourhood plan, that would imply that the greater the consistency with the strategic policies of the relevant local plan, the greater the weight that could be given.
We need to remember that the essence of our planning system, particularly when considering individual applications for development, requires choices to be made. We should not seek to alter the long-established principle that it is for the decision maker in each case to determine precisely what weight should be attributed to different material considerations. Let us take the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw and imagine a hypothetical situation in which a local planning authority does not have a local plan with a five-year land supply and is well below that. There is a neighbourhood plan in place that sets out where the community thinks appropriate development should go. A decision maker would then have to look at this.
The presumption in favour of sustainable development would apply because the five-year land supply is not there, so that would be one material consideration. The neighbourhood plan would be a material consideration pointing in the opposite direction, presuming the application was for a site that was not identified in the neighbourhood plan. There may be other material considerations—the views of local people will clearly be one. The site in question may be green belt or prime agricultural land, and there may be policies in the NPPF that would be material considerations. We have to accept that, in the way our planning system works, it is for the decision maker—whether that is a council planning officer, the planning committee of the relevant council, a planning inspector or, in some of the largest applications, a Minister—to look at the different weights to be applied to those material considerations.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I have listened to what the Minister has to say, and I am not sure that his comments really addressed the very real concerns expressed both by those putting together neighbourhood plans and by those who might have to abide by them, in terms of the planning applications they wish to make. We can have a discussion about the degree of exactitude we might put into guidance about the weight at different stages of the neighbourhood planning process, but I would have thought that it is perfectly possible for some rough idea to be put into guidance or subsequent regulations so people sitting on a planning committee understand the sort of weight they should attach in certain conditions and how the neighbourhood plan should be weighed against other considerations.
It is clear—there are lots of examples of this from across the country—that many planning committees are unsure how to give weight to a neighbourhood plan if it has not gone through a referendum and been adopted. In fact—I am sure the Minister has heard of many groups that have had this experience—neighbourhood plans are often completely ignored by planning committees, which might not even be aware that a plan has been undertaken in a particular area.
If the Minister does not want to put guidance in place, I urge him to think about how local planning authorities can be a bit clearer about what they can and cannot do with a neighbourhood plan at different stages in the process. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Modification of neighbourhood development order or plan
Dr Blackman-Woods
I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 3, page 2, line 25, at end insert
“after consultation with the local area involved.”
This amendment ensures that any changes to a neighbourhood development order or plan are first subject to consultation with the local area involved.
The amendment seeks to amend proposed new subsection 4A, which states:
“A local planning authority may at any time by order modify a neighbourhood development order they have made if they consider that the modification does not materially affect any planning permission granted by the order.”
The Minister might say that a modification to a neighbourhood development order or plan would not in any circumstances be made without the local community that put the plan or order in place being aware of it. Again, I seek clarity from the Minister. It would help our understanding of what the clause is trying to achieve if he would explain the circumstances in which he thinks a modification would be undertaken by a local planning authority. Does he see any circumstances in which it would wish to make such a modification without having a period of consultation with the local community or at least checking whether they were not unhappy with the proposed modification?
That is an important test of the Government’s commitment to localism, of which there will be a number this afternoon. As we have already mentioned, a lot of people put a great deal of effort and work into producing neighbourhood plans and, indeed, applying for and getting neighbourhood development orders. They would be really concerned if, at some whim of the local authority, their plan or development order could be modified, and indeed they might not know anything about that modification. I have sat in meetings in which people spend an afternoon on a neighbourhood planning forum arguing over the content of one paragraph in the neighbourhood plan to ensure that they get it absolutely right and that it reflects what they think is the consensus of opinion. People could spend a great deal of time putting together an evidence base and then, for some reason that the clause is not entirely clear about, seemingly the plan could be modified without them knowing anything at all about the modification or the reasons underpinning it.
It could be that we are quite wrong about that and that somewhere else it is clear that the local authority must consult and ensure that the local community is on board. While I am talking about the amount of effort that local communities put into getting the plans and orders together, they are also often done at considerable cost in time and resources. Locality makes it clear in its “Neighbourhood Plans Roadmap Guide” that
“There will be costs associated with preparing a neighbourhood plan. Estimates vary widely; from less than ten thousand pounds to several times this amount”.
I certainly know that some have cost in excess of £50,000.
The point is that that is a considerable resource for local communities. Clearly, they will get some of that from the Government’s support for neighbourhood planning forums and neighbourhood plans, but in a number of circumstances they will have had to raise additional sums of money. They would not want to go through the whole process of raising the money and getting their plan in place only to find that, five modifications down the line, some central tenets of the plan no longer hold.
We also know that putting a neighbourhood plan together can take a long time. The average time communities appear to spend is somewhere between 18 and 24 months. I know that the Government are seeking to reduce that time with a process that is much easier and quicker and that this legislation is part of that. Nevertheless, even after the Bill is enacted it is still likely to take communities a considerable amount of time—easily a year—to get all the documentation together and go through the various stages of the process. It will also take a lot of person hours because, as I said earlier, the groups get together and have to do substantial amounts of work in order to get their various assessments and policies together.
We are all committed to neighbourhood planning and to making neighbourhood plans work, and we would not want the clause to worry neighbourhood planning forums or parish councils that, having done all of that work on their plans, carrying out the referendum and getting the plan adopted, it could simply be modified out of existence by the local planning authority. That could perhaps happen because the direction of the local plan changes, or because the authority is thinking about changing it and it does not like what is in the neighbourhood plan.
I am not entirely certain about the circumstances in which the clause would be used, so it would be helpful to hear about that from the Minister. Will he outline the circumstances in which he thinks the provisions in clause 3 will be used, and how extensive he thinks the use of those provisions will be? What assurances can he give to neighbourhood planning forums and parish councils that their neighbourhood plans will not be modified out of existence without them knowing anything about it?
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
I declare an interest: I am a shareholder in a small communications company that I set up, coincidentally, with a partner who was a Labour councillor in the London Borough of Enfield. We worked very closely together on a number of planning applications and gave advice to developers on how they could get planning permission, which I have always felt very strongly is about good community consultation. That is listed in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I have spent about 15 or 20 years working on these kinds of issues. I am going to give some examples of where I think, with good community consultation and by involving the local community, we achieved an awful lot. The first is Sainsbury’s in Nine Elms, which is now being developed. We did an enormous amount of public consultation. We were advised by the leader of the Labour-controlled council to talk to the local community, which we did. We had public exhibitions, Planning for Real weekends and everything like that. I am delighted to say that we would have got the application through within six weeks of when it was needed. The only problem was that my client failed to talk to the retailers about their planning application, so it was a story of the property department at Sainsbury’s not talking to the retailers; that was an issue.
The second example, which I was very much involved in, is what is currently known as “Tesco tower”, which is down on Cromwell Road near the M4 out of London. We looked with our client at developing a block of flats on top of it. It got very close at one stage. We even got to the stage of being minded to approve, but the leadership of the local authority decided that they were not happy with it because they had received a lot of concerns from local communities, which ended up stopping it. What then happened was that the director of planning in the Royal Borough, who is now working in my hon. Friend the Minister’s Department, decided that he was going to do a masterplan, in which the local community was going to be very much involved.
In all those issues, the really big story was the massing and the height of developments that were taking place. On the Hoe, which is a conservation area in my constituency of Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, an application was recently agreed for Pearson House. It did not have the support of the local community at all. It was thought to be too high, the massing was not right and it did not have any land around the outside either. Unfortunately, the council approved it. I argue that it might have ended up setting a precedent for other activities within the conservation area, so this is very important.
My concern about the amendment, if I am honest, is that it might cut across the strategic interest in the rest of the local authority, and I think that needs to be looked at.
Dr Blackman-Woods
The amendment would not prevent the local planning authority from making a modification; it merely suggests that it should consult the community before doing so.
Oliver Colvile
I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that. The point I am making is that it is vital that a neighbourhood plan, with all the hard work that people do, reflects what the height and the massing should be.
Gavin Barwell
As the neighbourhood planning system matures, we need to ensure that it will be suitably flexible to respond to changes in community aspirations. It is now almost five years since the first neighbourhood plans were prepared. As we have heard, well over 200 are now in force and more than 240 have been approved in referendums. We are aware that some of the early pioneers of the system want to update their plans.
Currently, the process for updating a neighbourhood plan is the same as the process for preparing a brand new one, regardless of the scale or significance of the changes proposed. The clause on changing the area that a plan covers, and the clauses that we shall come on to, are designed to address that fundamental problem. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw is nodding. He has lots of plans in his area, so clearly he has some experience of this.
The Government therefore believe that it is important to introduce a more proportionate way of revising plans to ensure that they remain up to date. Clause 3 will achieve that by introducing two new modification processes. I think that the confusion may have arisen—it is possible, at any rate; I cannot read the mind of the hon. Member for City of Durham—because there are two different processes. I will explain them, in the hope that that will provide some reassurance.
First, a process is being introduced to allow a local authority to make minor modifications to a neighbourhood plan or an order at any time, in the same way as an authority can currently correct errors. Clause 3 does that by amending section 61M of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. On the key point that the hon. Member for City of Durham raised, I can absolutely reassure her that a local planning authority will need the consent of the relevant neighbourhood planning group to make the modification. That is clearly an important point. Her concern was that people would put a lot of work into producing their neighbourhood plans and then councils could modify them in some way without proper consultation. I can reassure her that that would require the consent of the relevant neighbourhood planning group, whether a parish council or a neighbourhood forum.
Secondly, any proposed modification that uses that minor change procedure cannot materially affect any of the policies in the neighbourhood plan or, if we are talking about a neighbourhood development order, the planning permission granted. Although there is no consultation requirement, the local planning authority must publicise what it has done, so people will be aware that the decision has been taken.
That is an important change, because currently even the most minor modifications, such as amending the wording of supporting text to clarify what a policy means, cannot be made without going through the same process to produce a new plan, including holding a referendum, which clearly involves a significant cost at a time when I think we are all aware of the pressures on local authorities. We strongly believe that that is overly burdensome.
However, the clause also provides a means by which more significant modifications may be made to a neighbourhood plan, through a streamlined procedure. It does that by inserting new subsections into sections 38A and 38C of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, along with a new schedule A2. The new schedule sets out in more detail the process to be followed in bringing forward draft proposals to modify a plan.
The streamlined procedure has a stronger expectation that the independent examination of the revised proposals, which we have been discussing, will be paper-based, with hearings only in exceptional circumstances. Additionally, there is no referendum. So the examiners’ recommendations will in most cases be binding. We have the minor modification procedure, the completely new plan procedure and an intermediate one, which may be used where the proposed modifications are not so significant or substantial as to change the fundamental nature of the plan but none the less are more than simple, minor modifications.
Crucially, with regard to safeguards, the local planning authority and the independent examiner will need to agree that that is the case in order for a draft plan to proceed through the streamlined procedure. In this case, we are taking powers to regulate the process. We are consulting on that, but I can say to the hon. Member for City of Durham that in the intermediate procedure our intention is that the local authority must publicise what it is doing and consult in the same way that it would for a new neighbourhood plan.
To sum up, in the case of the most minor modifications, it is the Government’s contention that a full consultation of the kind we would have for the streamlined or new plan procedure is not necessary, but there is the safeguard that the relevant body that drew up the plan must give its consent to what is being done. However, if we are looking for more significant changes, although not those that would trigger a new referendum, it is important that there is some consultation.
I hope that I have provided the reassurance that the hon. Lady’s probing amendment was looking for, and that my explanation has been useful in helping Members understand the two procedures and when they would be used.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Having listened to the Minister, I think that the probing amendment did its job effectively. There is now much greater clarity on exactly what the provisions of the clause mean. On the minor modification process, I take the Minister’s point about a simple drafting error that can be corrected easily and perhaps without going out to full consultation, but I would still expect a process for notifying the neighbourhood planning forum or the parish council that the modification has been made or is about to be made.
Gavin Barwell
It goes further than that. The relevant neighbourhood planning body has to give its consent even for the most minor modifications, and then the wider public are notified.
Dr Blackman-Woods
That is a helpful clarification. In the second set of circumstances, I take the Minister’s point that this is perhaps an intermediate measure in order to allow modifications that are a bit larger to take place and that the community would clearly be involved in that. Given the Minister’s helpful clarifications, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1
New Schedule A2 to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
Question proposed, That the schedule be the First schedule to the Bill.
Gavin Barwell
I will not detain the Committee on the schedule, which sets out in detail the process to be followed when proposing to modify a plan. In order to respond to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for City of Durham, I have described that process already, so I commend the schedule to the Committee.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I fully accept what the Minister says.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 1 accordingly agreed to.
Clause 4
Changes to neighbourhood areas etc
Dr Blackman-Woods
I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 4, page 4, line 3, at end insert
“providing the subsequent area is not smaller than a parish or town council area or local authority ward.”
This amendment ensures that the size of a neighbourhood area is not smaller than a parish or town council area or local authority ward.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 8, in clause 4, page 4, line 11, at end insert—
“(6E) Modifications made to a neighbourhood area must be subject to consultation with local people.”
This amendment ensures that neighbourhood areas are only changed after the consultation with local community and that changes are driven by what the community wants.
Dr Blackman-Woods
This is a probing amendment, to test the Government’s thinking, if indeed there is any, on the appropriate size of a neighbourhood area—[Laughter.] Sorry, I did not quite mean that. The clause allows a change to be made to a neighbourhood area and outlines the process for doing that.
Some developers who are concerned about this clause have brought to our attention the question of whether there is a minimum size for a neighbourhood area. The concern raised is about a situation where three streets in a particular area have their own neighbourhood plan, while another three streets next to them have a different neighbourhood plan. Those two plans might not speak to each other or be travelling in the same direction with regard to some of the detail, yet they will both be given sufficient weight.
This is an attempt to tease out from the Minister whether he thinks there is any value in setting a limit, such as a given number of electors. The amendment says that a neighbourhood area should not be smaller than a parish or town council area or local authority ward. I am not particularly tied to the exact wording of the amendment, but we want to find out: if it is not a local authority ward or a parish area, what is it?
Gavin Barwell
I understand that this is a probing amendment, but are there any examples of existing neighbourhood plans that the Opposition feel cover too small an area?
Dr Blackman-Woods
I am not aware of any. We are trying to ensure that the provisions in this legislation will not lead to neighbourhood areas that are very, very small indeed. Of course the Minister will say, “Well, it’s up to the local authority to decide whether it is an appropriate area,” but the authority might come under particular pressure to agree a specific area or think it is in its interest to promote a very small area, because it will not have so many people to deal with in terms of neighbourhood planning.
We know that the whole of neighbourhood planning legislation leaves it very much up to the community to set the boundaries and to say what brings that neighbourhood together, why they think it is important that the boundaries are set where they are and what the spatial dimension is to the plan. Usually it is very obvious, because they are using village boundaries or some sort of settlement boundary, or there is something that binds that particular community together. They also have to talk, and are usually very good at looking at the community networks and informal networks that might underpin those. The physical characteristics of the neighbourhood will also come into play.
The community will decide whether it is a business area. They will talk about the natural features. There is a huge list of things that the community will look at when putting the initial application together, in terms of determining why the boundaries are really important and what binds the neighbourhood together. That is a very good thing, and I know it has led to some really interesting discussions in communities—I am sure the Minister has seen this—about what is important to them in their neighbourhood and what binds them together. That can facilitate the next stage of development: what they want their community to look like in 15 years and what they need to put into the neighbourhood plan to achieve that.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
Mr McCabe, I trust it is in order to make comments appropriate to clause stand part, as well as to the amendment.
John Mann
Thank you, Mr McCabe. That is helpful, because the amendment probes the critical issue—this is not a criticism of the Government—of the real potential for inventiveness for neighbourhood planning in urban areas and occasionally in rural areas. I will give some illustrations. So far, the model has been community orientated and based on existing structures. In my area, we have 22 plans under way. Only two parishes do not have one and I am going to those parishes to encourage them to move down this path quickly.
Parish councils and villages have been beneficiaries from successive Governments. They get more lottery money for village halls and village sports facilities because they are defined areas and it is much easier to make an argument. There is a danger that neighbourhood planning and neighbourhood development plans will reinforce that further. One could argue that the inventive parish councils will, for example, build in areas for future recreational development that might not already exist. That would be a smart move. In other words, the parish council might say, “This piece of land will be for a future playground for children we don’t yet have.”
Without doubt, having got that through, bids for money would be more successful, as one would be part-way through the planning process, even for larger structures that might require detailed planning consent—of course, it could also apply to change of use of land—such as village halls and that kind of facility. We have precisely that situation in Ranskill, a parish in my area, where the community is expanding. It is quite a big village—I am meeting people from there in the next 48 hours—but it does not have a village hall. The people of Ranskill are more than happy to have more housing, if it is in the right place, and to use planning gain to fund what they have long wanted and not managed to achieve. They would see this as rather assisting them, if it goes the right way. Other issues, which we dealt with previously, are clouding that, with developers jumping the gun.
John Mann
I will, but it might be more helpful if I make a little progress first—the hon. Gentleman could make an even more succinct point later. I will come back to him, but I will first expand on what I am saying about opportunities with two examples.
I will start with a rural example—not an abstract example, but the example of a mountain: Blencathra in the lake district. Plenty of effort is being made to save Blencathra mountain for the nation. There are many byways, roads and properties around Blencathra. In my view, it would make perfect sense, should local people wish it, to designate the mountain and its surrounds as the neighbourhood.
Given the size and nature of mountains, that neighbourhood would probably cross constituency, council and parish boundaries—parishes do not go around mountains, but take segments of them. However, for housing, the amenity, facilities, walking routes and highways, the key determining factor is their relationship to the mountain. That would be the case for many other examples in the lake district. Neighbourhood planning on Blencathra would do something fairly revolutionary, because it would take the whole of the amenity under the democratic control of the people living there, because they are the ones defining things. That would be very powerful indeed.
Secondly, at the priory church in Worksop, working with the Prince’s Foundation for Building Community, I have proposed that the area defined historically by the priory church as its immediate parish—not the current parish boundaries, which are all over the place, because churches like to increase their congregations, but the original boundary—should be the boundary of the neighbourhood plan. That is how we are proceeding. Even better, part of that boundary has been created in more modern times—300 years ago—by the canal, so it is a natural boundary. We have a grand, huge church, once the largest in the world, which defined the buildings around the community, and we now have the ability to reset the church building for the community, the surrounding housing and future housing development. We are also taking the worst bit of the Chesterfield canal and reopening it.
What should be done is fairly obvious. The Prince’s Foundation has done the masterplan, which has been created, and the community is engaged—what the community is interested in are things such as antisocial behaviour, but from a planning point of view that means where pubs are, their opening hours, or where people walk, drive and park. They are very happy for housing to go on brownfield sites—blighted spaces—of which there are two. They would be very happy to have a car park on one of those, which is a former gasworks site, where housing probably could not go. These are all great opportunities.
There is no controversy about that with the population; they are after other things. That is a community of 200 or 300 houses. It is tiny, but its impact on the centre of Worksop and the amenity for tens of thousands of people is huge, because the other part of the community is bounded by what one would describe as the park, although that is not the term we use in Worksop. I would like to turn it into a park and give it more space; indeed, one of the conclusions of the neighbourhood planning might be that we define a proper park boundary.
This is hugely exciting stuff for the residents, who are both tenants and home occupiers. If they are occupiers, their property values will go up, so they will be quite happy. Antisocial behaviour undoubtedly will go down because their quality of life will go up. New housing will be at a premium, because it will be near a canal and a park in a beautiful, well-designed area. Everybody is a winner. It is a classic case of where neighbourhood planning would open up an area in which the local authority has never once proposed housing, because of land ownership and because there has been no minor master planning.
Oliver Colvile
I am a rather unique Conservative Member, in that I represent a totally inner-city seat outside London, as the hon. Gentleman may know. I only have the Ponderosa pony sanctuary—a rather muddy meadow—in my constituency. Does he not think there is an argument for urban conurbations such as mine to also have their own parish councils? It should not just be left to rural communities.
John Mann
There is such an argument, but in a small community with 200 or 300 houses, a parish council may be too grandiose. In that example, I would like to see the church managing and leading the development and consultation process, because that is the fixed community entity. I could give other examples in my area where the church building can be redefined as the church at the core of the community, precisely because the building was built as a community venue. Of the great cathedrals, Lincoln would be a great example, but the best of all is St Paul’s. If this was available 30 or 40 years ago, one could imagine that the buildings around the great St Paul’s cathedral would be more in tune with it, as opposed to what has been built haphazardly and chaotically around it. That is where smaller areas could be very empowered. I will give another example [Interruption.] The Whips are always keen to put Members on Committees and then try to restrict important debate.
This is fundamental to the Minister’s thinking and to his civil servants’ thinking. Planning is being seen in terms of housing and structures, with an additional side of highways, which have a major and fundamental role. The Prince’s Foundation work was done by Ben Bolgar, the top person there, and Fred Taggart, who are two brilliant planners—real planners, not just planners for real. They looked at where people historically moved and walked, which is what defines a community.
The walkways and jitties that are a problem could be closed off. That could be specified in a very localised plan: “We don’t want a walkway here. Close that off and get rid of it, because there’s antisocial behaviour. We want people to walk this way, drive that way and park here rather than there.” One gets into real localism, which never in a local plan would be possible. One could not in a local plan specify, “This little jitty will be closed down and we’ll create a walkway here. This bit should be grassed to allow more access to the canal.” That is far too much minutiae.
Gavin Barwell
Let me start by saying the hon. Gentleman knows how to push his agenda effectively with officials and with the Minister. I thank the hon. Member for City of Durham for tabling these probing amendments to clause 4. Before I address the amendments I will make some general remarks about clause 4, which aims to ensure that neighbourhood planning is suitably flexible to respond to changes in community aspirations.
Currently, there is complete agreement that it is not possible to modify a neighbourhood area if that would result in a neighbourhood plan or an order covering more than one neighbourhood area or more than one plan in one area. The practical effect of that is that, once a neighbourhood plan is in place, it may not be possible to make a new neighbourhood plan for an amended area without first entirely revoking the existing plan. That would leave that community without the plan it had worked so hard to produce until the new one came into force. Clause 4 amends sections 61F, 61G and 61J of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and sections 38A, 38B and 38C of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to change the procedure for modifying the boundary of a neighbourhood area.
Clause 4 will, for example, allow parish councils that had previously worked together to produce a multi-parish neighbourhood plan to apply for the neighbourhood area to be amended so that they can prepare a plan just for their individual parishes in the future. Equally, it would allow neighbouring forums that had previously prepared their own plans to apply for the area to be amended, so that they could come together to write a plan for both of those areas.
I reassure the hon. Member for City of Durham that I fully understand her concern in relation to both amendments. The Government have considered whether a designated neighbourhood area should follow ward boundaries. We sought views and consulted on that question as part of a technical consultation on our planning reforms in July 2014. The answer to that consultation was, almost unanimously, no, they should not. We, and nearly everybody who responded, believe that it is necessary, first that there is flexibility for communities to ensure that the area plan reflects the aspirations of that community, and secondly that the local planning authority has a positive and constructive dialogue, in order to arrive at a final decision for the area.
I represent a constituency within a London borough. Mr McCabe, you are probably the best example of this: you represent a constituency in the City of Birmingham. I think I am right in saying that your authority has the largest wards of any local authority in England, and some of those wards will cover more than one community. I can certainly think of examples from my own constituency. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw earlier mentioned the Shirley ward. Most of that ward includes an area in which most people would think of themselves as living in Spring Park, but there is also a separate development that used to be a large children’s home run by Lambeth Council—where, sadly, some shocking abuse took place—called Shirley Oaks. That is a separate and distinct community. If the people of Shirley Oaks wanted to produce a neighbourhood plan for their area, we should not be legislating to say that they cannot do that.
The hon. Member for Bassetlaw made his case powerfully from his own experience. So far in this Committee, I find myself agreeing with him on a number of points. If his objective was to stop being appointed to future Bill Committees, he is probably doing very well, but we can tell from the passion with which he speaks that he really believes in what he says. It is great to hear about the number of neighbourhood plans in his area. He has put it on the record that he is on his way to the two remaining parishes that do not have one, and nothing could do more to drive progress than the prospect of his imminent arrival to push the case. He raises a powerful point.
Gavin Barwell
I was gently teasing the hon. Gentleman. I wish more Members of this House had done what he has. He has clearly put in a huge amount of work in his constituency to encourage people to take up the reform from the Localism Act 2011. It is fantastic that he has done so and it is great to have him on the Committee as such a powerful champion of the process.
There is a really gritty issue here, which is that when asked, “Where do you live? What community are you part of?” people do not necessarily say what the local council might expect them to. In some cases—for example, if people are part of a village with a distinct identity—the village will be the right unit of identity. However, in urban areas—the hon. Member for Bassetlaw has given some interesting examples of rural areas—there may be other creative ways of thinking and bringing people together.
I very much share the hon. Gentleman’s view, which is that we should not prescribe in legislation the maximum or minimum size of the unit. We should let a thousand flowers bloom and see what people think of the appropriate units. Earlier, I asked the hon. Member for City of Durham for examples of neighbourhood areas that cover too small an area, and I do not think there is any evidence that things are happening at such a micro level as to cause a problem. She is quite rightly probing and asking the questions, but it is clear that the view of the Committee is that we should allow for the current flexibility.
On amendment 8, which is on the consultation arrangements required when a neighbourhood area is changed, I am sure we can all agree that consultation with the wider community is crucial. I assure hon. Members that there is already provision for that to happen where a designated neighbourhood area is amended and a neighbourhood plan is already in force. It is currently the case that where all or part of a neighbourhood area has already been designated, the local planning authority must publish and consult on any modifications to that area for at least six weeks. If the hon. Member for City of Durham would like to add to her reading list, that is in regulation 6(c) of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012. That should keep her busy this evening. Exactly the same regulations will apply to the new provisions.
The clause will ensure that, as neighbourhood planning continues to mature, the system is suitably flexible to respond to changes in people’s aspirations when it comes to the nature of the geographic area covered by the plan. It will also ensure—the hon. Member for City of Durham was quite right to raise the point—that any proposed changes are properly consulted on, and that the public have the chance to feed into the process. I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment, and I hope that clause 4 stands part of the Bill.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I have listened carefully to the Minister, and he has given us the reassurances we sought. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Assistance in connection with neighbourhood planning
Dr Blackman-Woods
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 5, page 4, line 40, leave out “as follows” and insert
“in accordance with subsections (2) to (4)”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 9, in clause 5, page 5, line 9, at end insert—
“(c) reasonable payments made by local authorities for the purpose set out in paragraph (a) and (b) shall be recovered from the Secretary of State’s department.”
This amendment allows for the full recovery of costs of assisting with the development of a neighbourhood plan to be recovered to the local authority.
Amendment 2, in clause 5, page 5, line 19, after subsection (3) insert—
“(4) Section 120 of the Localism Act 2011 (Financial assistance in relation to neighbourhood planning) is amended as follows—
(a) at the end of subsection (2)(a) leave out ‘, and’ and insert ‘subject to the condition that such assistance is prioritised for bodies or persons in deprived communities, and’,
(b) after subsection (3)(b), insert—
‘(ba) a deprived community is defined as being any area which is among the 20 per cent most deprived Lower Layer Super Output Areas according to the most recently published English Indices of Deprivation,
(bb) prioritised financial assistance is defined to mean that no less than 50 per cent of the total value of the financial assistance provided under this section is provided to deprived communities.’”
Amendment 10, in clause 5, page 5, line 19, at the end insert—
“(4) To support Neighbourhood Plans, all councils should have a Local Development Plan in place by December 2017.”
This amendment ensures that Local Plans are in place so Neighbourhood Plans can be made in line with the strategic aims of Local Plans.
New clause 2—Incentives to create neighbourhood development plans—
(1) Areas with an adopted neighbourhood development plan in place should benefit from a locally agreed share in the New Homes Bonus.
(2) Areas with an adopted neighbourhood development plan should have access to enhanced Community Infrastructure Levy payments, and all councils shall have a Community Infrastructure Levy scheme in place by 2017.
This new clause would create incentives to encourage communities to produce neighbourhood development plans.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I want to speak to amendments 1 and 2 and the other amendments in the group. I will start with amendment 9, which seeks to ensure that there is full recovery of costs for assisting with the development of the neighbourhood plan, with the costs recovered by the local authority. One thing came through clearly from the evidence the Committee received on Tuesday: many voices were all saying—indeed the Minister acknowledged this—that planning departments are massively under-resourced.
I was keen to table the amendment because we are anxious that neighbourhood planning is properly resourced. That is really important. However, we are mindful of the huge demands placed on our local authorities at the moment, especially at a time of cuts. I hope the Minister feels able to adopt the amendment, or at least that he will make it clear to the Committee how the additional cost of supporting neighbourhood planning forums and parish councils in drawing up their neighbourhood plans will be met.
The Minister will have heard the Royal Town Planning Institute, Local Government Association, Town and Country Planning Association and British Property Federation all point to the fact that, because of the success of neighbourhood plans, there are now greater expectations in our local communities that they will not only be able to draw up neighbourhood plans but have the resources to do so in a meaningful way that allows them to include much of the community and produce a quality document that really reflects what the community wants to achieve. They therefore want it to reflect the high aspirations of the community.
We do not want to see any area being held back because it does not get the resources it needs. The local authority is only able to give a small amount of money to support the exercise, so we want to hear from the Minister a reiteration of what he said in Committee on Tuesday—recognition that resourcing of planning departments is an issue. What can he do to assist local authorities in meeting their obligations under the clause to support neighbourhood plans?
The Minister will know that the situation for planning departments has got so much worse since 2010. More than half think that under-resourcing will present a significant challenge to their ability to undertake their functions in the next year. On Tuesday, Richard Blyth from RTPI told the Committee:
“We have completed a survey of local planning authorities in north-west England that shows that between 2010 and 2015 there was a fall of 37% in planning policy staff. These are the staff who tend to get asked not only to provide the support for neighbourhood plans, but are under a deadline of completing a local plan by the end of March 2017.”
He went on to say:
“I am a bit concerned that legislation is being used in a way that may not be possible to support in terms of the resources available to local planning authorities.”––[Official Report, Neighbourhood Planning Public Bill Committee, 18 October 2016; c. 66, Q118.]
We know the reason for that: it is because many of our councils are facing huge cuts. We heard from Locality, again on Tuesday, that,
“local planning authorities have been stripped of funding and they have reduced huge amounts”––[Official Report, Neighbourhood Planning Public Bill Committee, 18 October 2016; c. 51, Q92.]
of their very highly skilled staff—often losing them to the private sector, which is able to provide them with not only higher salaries but, in the current environment, more secure jobs.
John Mann
It is not just middle-class areas that have created such plans. The biggest one in my area is for Harworth, which until fairly recently was one of the last working collieries in the country. It has a huge working-class community. Its neighbourhood plan has been adopted by referendum and agreed by the district council, and it involves 1,500 new allocated housing spaces and vast amounts of new land allocated for employment. The community, knowing and demanding what it wants, has got on with it. So it is feasible to do that, and to do it quickly and in all communities.
I have two questions for the Minister. First, the reason why Harworth has been able to create a plan is that it has a part-time town clerk, so it had a bureaucratic system in place. In other areas in my constituency and in neighbouring constituencies, lots of places do not need to be creating bureaucratic structures. The last thing that most of my communities want is more paid public servants who do not live in the area , but would be going in and telling them what to do. All they want is power, so how will we stop bureaucracies building up on the back of neighbourhood planning?
Secondly, and complementary to the first question, instead of simply doling out money, which would suggest employment and other contracts, requiring institutions to deal with that, what are the prospects for the secondment of expertise? I have suggested that the Canal and River Trust could second a planner to assist the process in my area. The ability to second people in with the technical expertise to assist communities, with no pretence that those people are living or staying in the community, would empower neighbourhoods and have a dramatic positive impact, allowing other former mining communities in my area to repeat what Harworth has done.
Oliver Colvile
May I make one small point to the hon. Gentleman? I have a university in my constituency that has a planning school. Perhaps something to encourage is co-opting some of those students to help people seeking to develop neighbourhood plans.
John Mann
We would be more than happy to have students and professors from Plymouth, although I suspect Sheffield might be a more realistic scenario, but on exactly the same logic—the hon. Gentleman makes a good point.
I put it to the Minister that secondment rather than cash could rapidly lead to positive results. Those communities are far more likely to say, “We want employment land. We want more housing. We want the petrol stations and supermarkets we do not have.” In my experience, working-class communities are far less nimby than middle-class communities. They want what middle-class communities have taken for granted—albeit they prefer to drive a little distance to get to them—and they will demand them on their doorstep. This is great untapped potential for the country and empowerment is the issue. Does the Minister agree, and how will he help?
Gavin Barwell
I thank hon. Members for tabling the amendments, which provide an opportunity to discuss the important matters of the advice, assistance and resources available to communities and local planning authorities in supporting their take-up of neighbourhood planning. Before I respond to individual amendments and if you agree, Mr McCabe, I will say a few words about why we are introducing the measures in clause 5.
We believe that the clause will ensure that when communities consider whether to prepare a neighbourhood plan or order, they can make the decision with a full range of advice and assistance available to them. We believe that will assist in building the positive and constructive relationship between a local planning authority and the relevant local authority that is necessary to make neighbourhood planning work.
Amendment 1 simply facilitates amendment 2, which I will consider shortly. I will start with amendment 9, as the hon. Member for City of Durham did. I appreciate the desire to ensure that adequate resources are available to the relevant local council. We believe the amendment is unnecessary because local planning authorities can already claim funding for their duties in relation to neighbourhood planning. We will obviously continue to review the costs incurred by councils in delivering neighbourhood plans and these will change as the take-up of neighbourhood planning increases and local authorities, local communities and others become more familiar with the process.
It is probably worth putting on the record what the current arrangements are. Local authorities receive £5,000 for each of the first five neighbourhood areas they designate and £5,000 for each of the first five neighbourhood forums they designate. They then receive £20,000 for every single neighbourhood plan when a referendum date has been set. The idea is that there is some initial pump-priming for the first five to 10 times they deal with the process, but also a set amount of money because of the costs involved in examination and then in holding a referendum.
The hon. Lady made a wider point about resourcing planning departments and was keen that I reiterate what I said in the evidence session. I am happy to do that. I recognise absolutely that there is an issue. Reflecting back on the evidence that was given to us, I respectfully suggest to her that I did not hear a lot of evidence that the Government were not properly funding the specific burden of organising neighbourhood planning. I heard a lot of evidence that in more general terms planning departments are underfunded and the Government need to look at the level of planning fees being charged.
Dr Blackman-Woods
The Minister is absolutely right, but people made the point about resourcing because of the specific obligation in the Bill for local authorities to support neighbourhood plans.
Gavin Barwell
I respectfully argue that the sums of money that local councils are having to spend on neighbourhood planning constitute a very small share of their overall planning departments. The fundamental issue, which I absolutely take on board, is the level of fees that planning departments are able to charge to cover their costs. I said during the evidence session—I am happy to repeat it now—that it has struck me during the three months I have been doing this job that whereas on many issues conflicting opinions are expressed to me by different people in the housing and planning world, on this issue there is unanimity. Developers and council planning departments alike say that there is an issue.
John Mann
There is not unanimity everywhere because land prices and build prices are dramatically different in different parts of the country. We see that even more starkly with prefabricated housing. The proportionate cost for someone who sells a house for £600,000 in London, which would be a tiny one, or £600,000 in an area like mine, which would be rather a large house, is very different. There is a danger that if the planning fees for cheap, affordable housing are too high, that will discourage self-build and small developers.
Gavin Barwell
We can always rely on the hon. Gentleman to shatter unanimity when it is in danger of breaking out. He makes a fair point. The cost of building, say, five new homes in his constituency will be lower than the cost of building five new homes in the City of Westminster. He is quite right to sound the alarm that we should not allow fees to go too high, but I suspect that if I spoke even to developers and the planning department in his own patch, they would say there is still an issue in terms of financing.
The hon. Gentleman did not say this, but the point is relevant. We tend to hear from developers, and we have to bear in mind that these fees are also paid by householders when they make applications to extend their properties or something like that. The voices we tend to hear are those of the large developers, but these fees are paid by others. None the less, the hon. Lady asked me to reiterate that I accept there is a problem, and I absolutely do. The Government have consulted on this issue, and the White Paper will contain our response. I think I have given a pretty good steer as to where I want to go.
I want to make a slightly partisan but important point. While I entirely accept the pressures that planning departments and, indeed, councils in general are under, it is important to note that despite the difficult period they have been through, they have had huge successes in driving up performance. I will give the Committee some figures. When the coalition Government came to power, 17% of councils had a local plan. As of this September, the figure was 72%. In the second quarter of this year, in the most recent figures available, 83% of major planning applications were decided within the time limit, which is the highest ever performance on record. In the year up to 30 June, our planning system gave planning permission for 277,000 homes. That is the highest ever figure on record.
I pay tribute to local authority planning departments. Despite the financial restrictions they have been under, they have raised their game significantly. I gently tease the Labour leader of my local council about this, because he flip-flops between press releases saying that the Government have financially crippled him and ones that boast about how well the council is performing. While I do not in any way underestimate the difficulties local councils have had, when this period is looked back on, it will be seen as one where public services have raised their game, despite the restrictions on resources.
Gavin Barwell
I have goaded the hon. Gentleman, so I have to allow him to intervene.
John Mann
The Minister cannot get away with that, because we all know that technology and the Planning Portal have totally transformed the speed of planning, very effectively. It is technology and the portal that have done this, not the Government. We do not care, but they should not take credit for things that they have not done.
Gavin Barwell
It is a range of things. Technology certainly plays a part. I also observe that the designation regime introduced by the coalition Government has played a part. I do not want to go on too long, because this is not directly relevant to the point we are considering. However, I genuinely believe that when we look back on this period—this is not all down to the Government, if that makes it easier for the hon. Gentleman to accept—we will say that despite the financial restrictions public services were under, public servants have done an amazing job of improving the services they provide. That is the point I wanted to make.
I welcome the intent of amendment 2, but I cannot agree that it is necessary. I hope I can reassure Committee members that even in these times of tight public finances, we are supporting neighbourhood planning groups. We have made £22.5 million available to do that. More than 1,500 payments have been made to date. Since 1 April this year, all groups can apply for a grant of up to £9,000. We are providing additional support to priority areas, which include more deprived areas and those with the highest housing growth. Communities that fall within those priority groups can apply for up to £15,000 and can also access technical planning support.
I agree with the hon. Member for Bassetlaw—this is becoming a worrying trend for both of us—that this is not just about money. It is also about having good advice and assistance. We have a national network at the moment of 132 neighbourhood planning champions, who are there to provide exactly that kind of advice and assistance. While I understand what the amendment is trying to do, which is quite rightly to say that thus far neighbourhood planning has been adopted mainly in more rural parts of the country and that we need to ensure that it is also well used in urban and more deprived and more transient communities—there is no argument there—I am not sure whether saying 50% of the money has to go to such areas is right, because by definition it is a demand-led budget.
I want to encourage people from all around the country to set up groups and ensure that funding is there to support them. If it helps the hon. Member for City of Durham, I assure her that if we ever get to a point where the budget is running out because there are so many applications, I will be the first person knocking on the Treasury’s door to ensure that there is extra support. However, I think if we passed a law to say that 50% must go to these places and 50% to those, we could run the risk that some people would run out of money when the other pot had not been used. That does not seem to be a logical way to deal with the issue.
I completely understand the aspiration behind amendment 10. We agree that in order to provide clarity to neighbourhood planning groups about the context within which they prepare their plans all areas should have a local plan. In the evidence session and on numerous other occasions I have spoken strongly about the importance I attach to having local plans in place. If the Committee will permit me for a minute, let me reiterate the main point. The planning applications that tend to come across my desk are nearly all speculative applications where essentially the local planning authority has not had a local plan in place with a five-year land supply. Developers have then come in and picked the sites that they want to build on—those are not the aspirations of the local community but where the developers want to see development go—and things escalate and end up on my desk. I want to remove all that unnecessary conflict from our planning system and the way to do that is to ensure that we have complete coverage in place.
I appreciate that again this is a probing amendment so I will not be too critical, but, rather than accepting an amendment that asserts that something should happen by this timescale, we have tabled a series of amendments that seek to advance that agenda. I also want to make plan making much quicker and make it much easier for planning authorities to update their plans.
The hon. Member for Bassetlaw has previously spoken about—he mentioned it today—his frustration at the delay when the coalition Government changed the national planning framework. Actually, I think we were quite right to do that because we needed to ensure that when one council does not meet its housing need, those houses do not disappear from the system but are spread out in surrounding authorities. He is, however, quite right to say that because the process is so slow at the moment, that imposes a big delay when that happens. Therefore it is important both to make sure that we have plans in place and try to make the process quicker so that when they need updating—because either Government policy changes or the facts on the ground change—that can be done much more quickly.
I do not want to labour the point, because I know the amendment is a probing one, but its wording mentions just having a plan in place. We would all probably agree that we actually need an up-to-date plan that takes account of the latest household projections and an accurate assessment of housing needs. A lot of authorities currently have a plan, but not a plan that is based in any way on the latest information about what the area requires. I hope that I have reassured the hon. Member for City of Durham on the underlying issue, even if we disagree on the amendment.
Finally, I turn to the interesting issue in new clause 2, which I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising. We are looking at the matter in general terms at the moment. We have always been clear that we would like to see the new homes bonus benefiting communities that support development, such as those that produce neighbourhood plans, and we strongly encourage local authorities to allocate funding from the new homes bonus in that way. Indeed, it is already possible for councils and areas where a neighbourhood plan is in place to reach agreement in exactly the way she suggests in her new clause.
With regard to the second part of the new clause and the community infrastructure levy, communities where a neighbourhood plan or order is in force receive 25% of the CIL arising from development in their area, whereas the figure for communities without a neighbourhood plan is only 15%, so there is already a key incentive. Three questions are posed by the new clause. First, should we actually legislate to require something similar in relation to the new homes bonus? Secondly, should we raise those percentages in relation to CIL? Thirdly, should we force everybody to have a CIL? I will take those in turn.
On the first question, that is an interesting idea. I hope that the hon. Lady will allow me to reflect on that some more in the White Paper. The Prime Minister is very interested in ensuring that communities that go for growth are properly rewarded, so that people feel that if their community accepts more housing, their quality of life improves, rather than them finding it harder to get a GP appointment or to get a child into the local school, or finding their train more overcrowded. I am not sure that we should legislate in the way she suggests, but I am very interested in the underlying grain of the idea.
On CIL percentages, there is a balance that we need to be wary of. We can take Bassetlaw as an example of a particular area with a local plan and think about what we want to do with the money that the state captures out of land uplift. We certainly want to do things in that local community, but we might also need to make sure that major bits of infrastructure across the district happen. If we put too much into one local area, we will lose the money that might pay for the new junction on the dual carriageway, or a spur off the main roundabout, or whatever the right project is. There is a tension that we need to recognise.
We probably also need to recognise that it is not necessarily in the interests of every single local authority to have a community infrastructure levy. One could at least think of circumstances in which land values were sufficiently low and development therefore marginal in terms of viability. Introducing a CIL might then push crucial regeneration projects, which would otherwise have been viable, and make them non-viable. I am not sure that forcing every local council to introduce a CIL, if they judge that to do so would not be in the best interests of their area, is the right thing to do.
In summary, the hon. Lady is quite right to raise all those questions. They are at the heart of the debate about what we need to do to ensure that communities are incentivised to go for growth, but I hope that I have pointed out some of the points of detail as to why we do not want to accept the amendment.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I have heard what the Minister has said, and we obviously look forward to seeing what he has to say in the White Paper about resourcing planning departments. We will closely monitor the budget for neighbourhood planning to ensure that it goes to all areas that need it. I look forward to seeing what he comes back with regarding the new homes bonus and CIL. It is important that he keeps what is happening with deprived areas on his agenda, so that everything is done to support their bringing forward a neighbourhood plan. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 5, page 5, line 6, at end insert—
“(2BA) Such statements of community involvement must include a right for members of the community to be heard.”
This amendment would give local people and communities a statutory right to be heard.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 14, in clause 5, page 5, line 6, at end insert—
“(2BA) Such statements of community involvement shall include measures to enable local parish councils to be set up in a streamlined and speedy manner.”
This amendment would make it easier for new parish and town councils to be formed.
Dr Blackman-Woods
The amendment is straightforward. We all know that the National Association of Local Councils has been calling for this for some time. It said in evidence:
“We are calling for a right to be heard, or a right of appeal, so that where decisions are taken contrary to a neighbourhood plan and a local plan, people may have some reference to the Secretary of State or Minister to take a final view”.––[Official Report, Neighbourhood Planning Public Bill Committee, 18 October 2016; c. 44, Q73.]
That, in essence, is what the amendment asks for. I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
Amendment 14 seeks to make it easier for a community to set up a local parish council. We know that areas that have a parish council are much more likely to bring forward a neighbourhood plan. One way of facilitating neighbourhood plans is to ensure that it is easier to bring forward parish councils. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Gavin Barwell
Amendment 13 raises some interesting questions. Communities already have a right to be heard in the planning system in lots of ways. I can run through some of them. Local people have the chance to have their say as local plans and neighbourhood plans are developed, when individual planning applications come forward and if a planning application is turned down and there is an appeal, and they can call for applications to be called in by Ministers. I think that the amendment is probing, because its wording is generic and does not define what the right to be heard is, although I guess that is essentially what the hon. Lady was referring to.
The Government’s view is that there is no need to change the law in this regard. Most of the concerns of the NALC and others—the hon. Member for Bassetlaw has expressed them powerfully—are partially addressed by clause 1, and the policy changes in the White Paper that we want to make will also help significantly in that regard. The other powers talked about here—for example, the power to ask me to call applications in—already exist. I am reluctant to use those powers too frequently, because my starting point is that the planning system should be locally driven. However, if there are planning applications that I think raise issues of national importance about the way national policy is playing out on the ground, I am happy to call them in. In the three months that I have been doing this job, I have called in a couple of applications where I felt a decision had been taken that was contrary to a neighbourhood plan and I wanted to look at the issues myself. I think that the fundamental issues that the amendment probes are already in the system or will be addressed by the policy changes in the White Paper.
Amendment 14 was the amendment that most interested me. I do not agree with putting it into law, but I agree with the fundamental idea behind it. I think that the hon. Member for City of Durham is saying that we may want to tell people in a statement of community involvement how to go about setting up a parish council, because that is clearly one of the ways in which they could drive a neighbourhood plan. If I was writing a statement of community involvement, I would absolutely think it appropriate to put that in it, but I am not sure that we want to get into the business of writing into statute what the content of statements of community involvement should be. Indeed, when we come to clause 6, I will address why the Government do not want to get into the business of saying what is a good or bad statement of community involvement. We have to trust local councils to set that information out. If the hon. Lady is reassured by me saying that that is the kind of information that I would expect to see in such statements, I am happy to put that on the record.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Yes, I did find that reassuring. With amendment 14, we were seeking to ensure that communities knew how to set up a parish council and that that process was made as easy as possible. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Jackie Doyle-Price.)
Neighbourhood Planning Bill (Fifth sitting)
Tuesday 25th October 2016
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesNeighbourhood Planning Act 2017 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 25 October 2016 - (25 Oct 2016)
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 6, page 5, line 27, at end insert
“in cases where the local authorities’ statement of community involvement was regarded as inadequate.”
This amendment allows the Secretary of State only to require planning authorities to review their statement of community involvement if they have failed to produce one.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. Clause 6 will enable the Secretary of State to make regulations to prescribe how and when a statement of community involvement is reviewed by a local authority. Amendment 12 would mean that the regulations only apply where there is some evidence that what a local authority is currently doing with regard to its statement of community involvement is inadequate. We want to do that for two reasons.
First, we are not sure what problem the Government are trying to fix with the clause. It would be helpful if the Minister outlined whether there is widespread evidence of local authorities not doing a statement of community involvement or not doing it properly. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, we have some concerns about the Bill being a continuation of previous Bills on housing and planning that contain lots of centralising measures, giving the Secretary of State lots more power to get directly involved in what local authorities are doing. Of course, if I wanted to, I could say that this is part of what is actually an anti-localist strategy, not a localist one.
This might seem an innocuous little clause, but it sanctions a major interference from the Secretary of State in the everyday affairs of local authorities. However, if there is good reason for that—for example, if local authorities simply are not doing the job properly—we would want to look at it. We would need to look at why local authorities are not producing their statements of community involvement or why those statements are in some way inadequate.
From our discussions in this Committee and the evidence we have taken, we know that local authority planning departments are incredibly under-resourced. The British Property Federation’s annual planning survey last year had 300 responses from planning departments. Some 86% of local planning authority respondents believed that under-resourcing of their departments was their most significant challenge and was really impeding them achieving the aims they had set themselves.
I will outline a scenario for the Minister. A local authority might have great ambitions in its statement of community involvement to be as inclusive as possible and to ensure that there is a regular review process in which local people feel they can be directly involved. However, if the local authority does not have the resources within its planning budget to achieve those aims and that great vision of local community involvement in planning, what is the statement there to do? These are the really stark choices that a lot of local authorities are having to face. Do they take money from the social care budget? Do they take money from their gritting budget, as we are about to go into winter? Where are they to get the additional resources from in order to have an up-to-date statement of community involvement and to make it really inclusive?
I am sure that is what the Minister wants the clause to achieve. He may correct me if I am wrong, but my reading of it is that rather than just having a statement of community involvement that sits there on the shelf with a tick box, as he will know, on the local plan documents—“We have done our statement of community involvement and been out there and talked to some community groups; that is done and we do not need to revisit it until we are doing some major revision to the plan or a new plan”—I am sure that the Minister wants this to be a much more living document with direct involvement from local people, and that he wants people to know how they can get directly involved and what the timetable is for reviewing it. That is the sort of engagement and involvement that we all want from our planning system, but that will not be achieved simply by putting a clause in the Bill. In particular, that will not be achieved by putting a clause in the Bill that simply puts more burdens on local authority planning departments, without ensuring that there is adequate resourcing for whatever the additional burden is.
It would also be helpful to hear whether the Minister has any idea what the Secretary of State is likely to prescribe in terms of the statement of community involvement and the timings of when it has to be subject to review. We have not yet heard from the Minister on this point and it would be useful to know how much of a burden is being placed on local authorities. I say “a burden” because at the moment I cannot see any way that they will be able to fund this.
That is not to suggest for a minute that Opposition members of the Committee do not think statements of community involvement are important. I am sure the Minister heard me say on Thursday that in drawing up a local plan, local authorities should start with the neighbourhood. They should start with the community and find out what people want. My experience is that, generally speaking, people are very good at knowing what their communities should look like for 20 or 25 years going forward, and if they are included in some of the Planning for Real exercises, or with Planning Aid, that can be a very helpful exercise for the local authority.
It is really important that communities are directly involved in drawing up their local plans. In fact, the Opposition are arguing that that should really be where local planning starts. We want local authorities to be able to have a very strong community involvement plan, but we also want to ensure that they have the resources to do a really good piece of work and for it to be very meaningful, not only for the community but for the local authority as well. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)
Mr Bone, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again. If this meets with your approval, I would be happy to talk to both the amendment and clause stand part.
Gavin Barwell
The clause will ensure that no community can be left in any doubt about the ways in which they can participate in wider plan-making in their area. It will do that in two ways. First, it will introduce a requirement for local planning authorities to set out, in their statements of community involvement, their policies for involving communities and other interested parties in the exercise of their functions. Secondly, it will enable the Secretary of State to require authorities to review those statements. It will then be at an authority’s discretion as to whether it is necessary to update it; if an authority is content that its statement does not need updating, it will need to publicise its reasons for not doing so.
Let me now try to address the points that the hon. Member for City of Durham raised about amendment 12. I hope we can all agree that in order for statements of community involvement to be effective, it is essential that they are reviewed and kept up to date. The hon. Lady asked for evidence that there is a problem, which is a perfectly reasonable question. During the summer, my Department undertook a review of local planning authorities’ statements of community involvement, and found that a third were last updated before 2012—shortly after the introduction of the Localism Act 2011 and neighbourhood planning—and that 10% were 10 or more years old.
Clearly, a number of councils have not reviewed the statements since the entire world of neighbourhood planning came into being. I hope we can all agree on the importance of the communities that we have the privilege to represent having up-to-date information on how their local planning authority will support their ambitions. That is why it is necessary to legislate in this way.
The Bill will enable the Secretary of State to introduce regulations that require local planning authorities to review their statements at prescribed times. On 7 September, we issued a consultation in which we proposed that statements be updated every five years. We chose that figure because, as members of the Committee are aware, that is the existing expectation for local plans. Therefore, it makes sense to align those two things. The consultation closed on 19 October. It also sought views on proposals for an initial deadline of 12 months following Royal Assent for an initial review. The consultation provided an opportunity for authorities to comment on the implications for resourcing. I hope that reassures the hon. Lady in that regard.
There is consensus in the Committee that the issue needs to be addressed, but I felt that the hon. Lady overdid the case a little bit. I entirely accept that there is pressure on local authority planning departments and I went a long way to try to show what the Government’s thinking might be on that. However—this goes to the point I made to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw in the previous sitting—despite the difficult period that local government has gone through over the past five or six years, local authority planning departments have generally done an amazing job in raising their performance in updating local plans and dealing with major applications on time. Perhaps I have more confidence than the hon. Member for City of Durham in local authority planning departments’ ability to review a statement of community involvement in their existing budgets.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I would not want anyone to get the impression that we think that local planning authorities are not doing a very good job with limited resources. Nevertheless, my point was that statements of community involvement put particular expectations into the community because they see what involvement they are supposed to have. In some instances, that has a huge resourcing implication. Does the Minister accept that?
Gavin Barwell
I do accept that in so far as our constituents’ heavy involvement in the planning system—in the preparation of local plans and the consideration of planning applications—can, in instances, create more work for planning officers dealing with particular situations. However, it might also save money in the long run because if a local plan enjoys broad support among a local community, a lot of the contention that can creep into our planning system down the line should be removed. I certainly regard—as I hope all Members of the House do—putting an effort into engaging our constituents in how the planning process works as a worthwhile investment that will pay dividends in the long run.
Let me explain one concern I have about the amendment. Whereas the Bill currently says that the statements should be reviewed—potentially on a five-yearly basis, if we proceed with what we have set out in the consultation—and does not seek to make judgments about the quality or otherwise of the plans, the amendment would ask the Government to make a judgment on whether they are happy with the plans put forward by an authority. That seems to be a more centralist measure than the Government’s one. The Government are merely saying, “Councils can come up with their own statements. All we ask is that they are updated regularly.” However, the amendment would ask us to make a judgment on the quality or otherwise of the statements.
In response to other points made by the hon. Lady, if I may say so—I do not want to start the proceedings on an off note after Thursday’s consensual sitting—I thought it was something of an exaggeration to suggest that the power is a major interference in local government. It is simply asking councils to check that this important statement of how communities can get involved in the planning system is kept up to date. I do not think most people would regard that as a draconian, centralist measure.
I thought we had reached a consensus on this. We have a new shadow housing Minister and I have spent time reading some of the things he has said in recent months and years. One thing that really interested me in an interview he gave was that he acknowledged that the planning system had become far too centralised under the previous Labour Government, and he recognised that as a mistake. That may even be seen as welcoming the move towards the more locally, plan-driven system that we have seen under this Government.
Those who know me will know that my natural inclination is not to seek division. I quite like the fact that on several of the statutory instruments we have discussed, the Opposition have supported some of the things that the Government are doing. It is good if we can build consensus around these things.
Let me reassure the Committee that my starting point is that we should have a planning system that is locally driven through the development of neighbourhood and local plans. I see my role as purely intervening on occasion to ensure that things are kept up to date or compliant with the overall strategic national policy.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I have not had the opportunity to see the responses to the consultation paper, so it is not clear to us why 10% of councils have not updated their statement of community involvement for such a long time. That is a fairly low percentage but it would be useful to know what reasons were given in the responses to the consultation and when we might see the responses.
Gavin Barwell
I confess that I have not had the chance to read every single one of the consultation responses yet, either. I will certainly ensure that we publish a summary of those consultation responses as quickly as possible. The intention regarding the regulations is certainly to make them available as the Bill goes through its parliamentary process, so there will be plenty of opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise those regulations.
The hon. Lady focused on the 10% that are significantly out of date. I will check, but I think I said about a third since 2012. That is when the provisions from the Localism Act began to come into force. It is quite a substantial minority whose statements are not sufficiently up to date.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
I do not think it is right for us to assume the reason that those could be delayed, because planning authorities may have their own reasons for that. It is probably more likely that this is just a very pragmatic sequencing decision that has been made, where land supply and local plan reviews are taking place. It would be reasonable for a local authority to say in that context that neighbourhood plans would be sequenced in order to meet that timetable. It is far less likely that they just decided it was not important.
Gavin Barwell
I do not make any assumptions. I am sure it is not deliberate malice, if the hon. Gentleman would like that reassurance. None the less, given that there appears to be a strong consensus across the House that neighbourhood planning is a good thing, I hope we can all agree that it is disappointing if there is a significant minority of councils whose statements of community involvement do not explain to residents how they go about setting up a neighbourhood plan.
The hon. Member for City of Durham asked for evidence as to why we might want to require people to update regularly: that is the evidence. Whether the hon. Gentleman finds that compelling is up to him.
I will make one final point, very gently tweaking the hon. Lady’s hair. She talked of the need not to put pressure on local authorities’ resources and all those issues. I remind her of an amendment we considered earlier, where the Opposition sought to put more specific detail into the statements of community involvement, saying exactly how to set up a parish council.
To a degree, the two amendments point in different directions. On Thursday, the argument was that we should be more prescriptive about what goes into these statements. I think I said there was a strong case that such information should be covered but I was not convinced that we should include it in statute. Today it is argued, in support of an amendment, that it is a terrible major centralising measure that they should be reviewed every five years.
I would gently say to the hon. Lady that there is good evidence that these statements have not all been kept up to date, and that it is reasonable to require them to be reviewed, ideally every five years. However, as a national Government we should not get into the business of prescribing exactly what is in them or assessing whether we think they are good or bad statements. We should simply ask councils to keep them up to date. For that reason, I urge the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.
The Chair
Order. To be clear, we are now debating not only the amendment but clause stand part—we are doing both at the same time. I also remind Members that they are not restricted to speaking once; they may speak as many times as they like, if they catch my eye.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Thank you, Mr Bone.
The Minister made a point about consistency. The amendments that were tabled on Thursday—along with, indeed, amendment 12, although perhaps not so much the latter—are clearly probing amendments. It is the Opposition’s job in Committee to test the Government’s thinking. It is not what we are doing that is the subject of the Committee’s scrutiny, but what the Minister is doing. Our amendments are merely about trying to get on the record further information from the Minister about what underpins some of the clauses in the Bill.
I was going to say that our discussion of clause 6 had been very helpful in getting on to the public record the Minister’s thinking and the limits of the Secretary of State’s involvement. I am sure that once the Minister has the chance to catch sight of the responses to the consultation, he will want to shape the regulations that will underpin the clause in the light of what has been said throughout the consultation process. Again, that was a useful exchange to have and it gave us a useful bit of information.
The Minister is welcome to go on discussing whether every single amendment we table in the Committee is mutually consistent, but I remind him that that is not the point of the amendments. Their point is to elicit from him further information. Because of the extra information I got from him this morning, I—along with, I am sure, my Opposition colleagues—would like to look at the outcome of the consultation and see whether the Government’s response is indeed proportionate to the problem. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Restrictions on power to impose planning conditions
Dr Blackman-Woods
I beg to move amendment 15, in clause 7, page 6, line 7, at end insert—
“(1A) Regulations made under subsection (1) must make provisions for local planning authorities to make exceptions to conditions relating to matters set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (1).”
This amendment would ensure that there is a local voice and judgement taking into account local circumstances and impact.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 18, in clause 7, page 6, line 12, leave out subsection (2)(a).
This amendment would ensure that “acceptable in planning terms” does not mean that conditions can be overlooked because they are unacceptable for other reasons.
Amendment 16, in clause 7, page 6, line 20, at end insert
“which must include consultation with local authorities.”
This amendment would ensure that local authorities are consulted on the draft regulations.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Amendment 15 speaks for itself, and relates to the conditions set by the Secretary of State under proposed section 100ZA(1), which states that,
“(a) conditions of a prescribed description may not be imposed in any circumstances on a grant of planning permission for the development of land in England,
(b) conditions of a prescribed description may be imposed on any such grant only in circumstances of a prescribed description, or
(c) no conditions may be imposed on any such grant in circumstances of a prescribed description.”
Those powers are given to the Secretary of State so that he or she will be able to add or take away conditions that are set by a local authority for a specific planning application.
I stress at the outset that this is very much a probing amendment. It seeks to elicit from the Minister whether there are any circumstances in which it might be necessary for local authorities to have an exception from a direction made by the Secretary of State requiring them to add or remove a particular condition. It would give councils flexibility to apply conditions that have been restricted by the Secretary of State, where they deem that necessary to address local circumstances.
The Local Government Association and councils have raised concerns that the imposition of certain conditions by the Secretary of State could reduce the ability of local planning authorities to include conditions necessary to address issues specific to a local area or an individual development that might not be clear to the Secretary of State.
Friends of the Earth has said that the provisions in subsection (1)(a), (b) and (c) of proposed section 100ZA are probably a step too far. It comes back to the point raised in amendment 12: the provisions give the Secretary of State substantial additional powers to interfere directly in conditions that might be set or deemed appropriate by the local authority.
I hope that the Minister can take us through some examples, because the Opposition are struggling to come up with a set of circumstances in which a Secretary of State would want to interfere in such a way, and to take the risk of something going badly wrong with the development because a condition that the local authority thought was important, but that the Secretary of State did not, turns out to have been very much necessary. I will discuss a couple of examples to see whether the Minister has thought about whether any exceptions should be made.
Let us imagine that a local authority wants a flood mitigation scheme in an area that traditionally has not flooded. Due to other developments elsewhere in the area, the local authority thinks that such a scheme might be needed for the longer term benefit of the site and its occupants. There might not be a good evidence base for such a scheme but, because the other developments are about to take place, there could be an impact on the site in future. The local authority might therefore take a cautious approach because it does not want future occupants to be flooded, or even to be at a higher risk of flooding. However, because there is no evidence base, that need might not be immediately apparent to the Secretary of State, who might water down or diminish the local authority’s ambitions.
The Chair
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady in mid flow. Minister, you well know that you are not supposed to pass documents to officials.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Similarly, there might not be a particularly strong evidence base for additional traffic management works, but they might need to be undertaken if there are a number of developments in the area. Again, I suspect that would have to be carefully explained to the Secretary of State so that he did not remove a condition that developers could reasonably argue is not entirely relevant to their site, because it would be relevant when the other sites are added. The amendment probes whether there might be exceptions, because the clause does not specify.
I am also curious—the Minister will need to enlighten me on this—because we know that local authorities must set their conditions in line with what is already in the national planning policy framework. I am sure that the Minister will be pleased to know that I have looked at every clause in the NPPF that mentions conditions, whether planning conditions or other sorts of conditions. Actually, the provisions in clause 7(2) are already clearly outlined in the NPPF, and tight guidance is given to local authorities—we might look at this later—on the evidence they need in order to adhere to planning guidance. The NPPF tells local authorities clearly what they have to do in terms of planning conditions, and the planning guidance gives even more information, very helpful, on what they should do, but somehow the Secretary of State will decide whether they are abiding by the guidance—if that is the process he or she will go through—or abiding by the NPPF.
I am just not completely confident that by giving the Secretary of State the exact same guidance and policy, somehow everything will become okay with the application of conditions, particularly because local authorities work within a local context, whereas the Secretary of State does not. What reassurances can the Minister give us that that will work in practice? I think he will agree that this time significant additional powers are going to the Secretary of State. When will they be triggered and in what way?
I ask that because in our evidence sessions I asked both the Home Builders Federation and the British Property Federation what evidence they had that conditions were being applied in an unnecessary and whimsical fashion, or that local authorities were routinely setting conditions, particularly pre-commencement conditions. I have to say that they did not break it down into pre-commencement conditions and conditions that relate to the ongoing development itself. Nevertheless, let us look at what they said and assume that it was at least partly about pre-commencement conditions. They said that they had evidence that builders were experiencing problems with pre-commencement conditions but could not give any examples. That is what I find worrying about the premise underpinning the clause, particularly the additional powers given to the Secretary of State in proposed section 100ZA(1).
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Has the hon. Lady spoken to some of the small developers in her constituency? I have certainly spoken to some in mine, and they, too, cite pre-commencement conditions as critical to their ability to get a speedy resolution to planning applications.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I was just about to come to the Federation of Master Builders, which looks after smaller builders; I was dealing with the HBF first because it tends to deal with the volume builders. We heard in oral evidence the opinion of some of the volume house builders, although we did not get from the HBF any examples of what types of conditions were proving problematic.
Dr Blackman-Woods
May I finish responding to the previous intervention? To answer the hon. Gentleman’s second point, I talk to the small home builders—in fact, builders generally—in my constituency a lot. When we are looking at evidence, we have to look at it really carefully. Builders will often say to me, “We have to do a bat survey”—it is usually a bat survey, but occasionally a newt survey. Sometimes I ask them how long it takes and they say, “Well, it depends on the time of year, so it can be a bit problematic.” Generally, though, something has been done locally that they can tap into. Bats are usually the worst, but if we can find a way to deal with that without it being too onerous, perhaps such a drastic clause would not be necessary.
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Lady mentions bat surveys. In September, one of my constituents was required to carry out a bat survey on a building that was due to be demolished. When it came to granting planning permission in December, the planning officer decided that there were no bats around in September so they would have to wait until May to do the survey again. Having carried it out once, they had to wait until the bats came back to see whether any bats were there in the first place. The hon. Lady asked for specific examples. A small developer was asked for a landscaping scheme before he was allowed to start building the houses, and that was not in a conservation area. These things clearly are an issue. We cannot just reject out of hand the fact that they are causing problems.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I would like to reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are not dismissing those examples out of hand. My first point is that we are struggling to find examples. My second point is that, when we find examples, we have to decide whether they should be dealt with under a particular clause, such as clause 7, or whether we should find some other way of minimising the impact on the conditions set by the local authority.
The only example that the FMB was able to give us was of landscaping. However, landscaping is often what makes what might be a non-acceptable development acceptable to the local community. Communities want to know at the outset what a development will look like in the end, as the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton must know from his constituents—I know it from mine. If a building has an unsightly façade or a high wall, or if there is something that people are unhappy with, they will ask at the earliest stage, “What sort of screening will there be so that we don’t have to look at that ugly edifice?” Far from landscaping being a good example for the hon. Gentleman, it actually helps our case. He and builders might think that pre-commencement conditions are unnecessary, but our constituents think that they are really important.
Gavin Barwell
It is undoubtedly the case that our constituents are interested in what schemes will look like. Does the hon. Lady at least accept that requiring a developer to set out all that detail before a single shovel goes into the ground slows down house building? She might think that that is a price worth paying, but does she accept that point?
Dr Blackman-Woods
The Minister will have to bring forward evidence to show that it will slow down house building. If landscaping makes acceptable to a local community a development that it would otherwise find unacceptable, it might no longer object to an application, in which case the condition could speed up development, rather than slowing it down.
Jim McMahon
I refer the Committee to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—I should have mentioned earlier that I am a member of Oldham Council.
I struggle with the idea that asking developers to produce a landscaping plan is onerous. We are not talking about amateurs. When developers employ an architect to design a scheme, it is not that difficult to overlay it with a landscaping plan. The point has been made that, for a lot of people, that plan is the difference between whether a development is acceptable or not. That is not just because it can provide good screening but, importantly, because it forms part of the character of the locality.
We should all be trying to promote good development and good design in good context. Removing the conditions would not really help towards that. I can think of loads of planning schemes where really good landscaping design has added value. It has been good for the community, for the developer—which was able to get a premium on those properties—and for the people who live in the development, and it does not actually take that much time.
I struggle because—I wonder whether my hon. Friend agrees with me—we are just talking about planning. If developers are professionals, they will get their ducks lined up—or their bats—and ensure that they have the surveys in place. If they are refurbishing an old barn or building, they know that those things are needed and should just crack on and get them done.
Dr Blackman-Woods
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point that is pertinent to our discussion.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
The hon. Lady is very kind to give way, and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. In response to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton, if one requires developers to do all the surveys before the application, and the application is then declined by the local authority, the developer will incur significant costs to no purpose. That may prove prohibitive, particularly for smaller developers. What is her view on that?
Dr Blackman-Woods
I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that local authorities approve nine out of 10 planning applications. It would be a rare event for such a detailed plan to come forward to a local authority without the developer knowing that it was breaching local planning policy. That is what must be happening if the application is rejected. That is not a very usual occurrence these days.
If the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton and the Minister are serious about speeding up development, they might want to look at the outcome of the FMB’s house builders survey 2016. One would assume, from reading the Bill, that the major problem in bringing forward development was pre-commencement planning conditions. However, when the small house builders were asked what was the biggest problem, they said it was the lack of available and viable land. That was the most commonly cited barrier to increasing output. We have to look right at the back of the survey, to a few specific questions on planning, to find any mention of planning conditions, and even then they were not the biggest problem; the biggest problem was the inadequate resourcing of planning departments. I hate to say that again and reinforce the message, but we are not the ones saying it; it is the small house builders.
Land is the biggest problem by far, and pre-commencement conditions do not come anywhere near that. Within planning itself, the biggest problem is the resourcing of planning departments—and that comment came only after prompting. They do not mention the setting of planning conditions at all; what they mention is sign-off of planning conditions. That seems to be a very different issue that they are raising. They are not raising an issue about the nature of pre-commencement planning conditions, or whether those conditions are appropriate. What they say in the text is that they could be signed off more quickly and that might help. Why are they not signed off more quickly? It is because of a lack of resourcing for local authority planning departments.
That was the only survey brought to our attention. I searched and found no other evidence, apart from the opinions of some of the larger volume builders. Giving such additional powers to the Secretary of State with no solid evidence base does not seem a very sensible way forward.
Some clauses in the Bill do not have the worrying aspects attached to them that this one does. If the effect of clause 7 is to restrict conditions that are set on developers, that could have a real impact on the community—not only on those who will ultimately occupy that development but on the neighbourhood. That is why we are so concerned about clause 7. We do not think it is necessary; we have not seen the evidence base. If the Bill is to contain such drastic measures, which could have real impacts on the areas that we all serve and represent, we need to hear something from the Minister.
Amendment 18 seeks to amend clause 7 so that if a condition cannot be enforced by the Secretary of State to make the development acceptable in planning terms, it makes the development unacceptable in other ways. Proposed section 100ZA(2) states:
“Regulations under subsection (1) may make provision only if (and in so far as) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the provision is appropriate for the purposes of ensuring that any condition imposed on a grant of planning permission for the development of land in England is...necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms”.
Gavin Barwell
Many of the things that might be covered by social, economic or environmental concerns are absolutely central to the planning system. I want to check that the hon. Lady is not suggesting that councils should be able to consider things that are not material planning considerations when dealing with planning applications.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I am happy to answer the Minister’s question, but I am trying to find out what the Minister thinks about this particular subsection. Has he thought through a set of circumstances in which adding or removing a restriction or adding or removing a condition would make something acceptable in planning terms, but might have unforeseen consequences somewhere else? I am just giving the Minister an example because there could be environmental concerns. I suppose there are a lot of examples when we think about it. The removal of trees might be allowed under this clause, because that would be acceptable in planning terms, although I am not sure why it would be acceptable. There might be ongoing environmental or even social issues arising from that.
If we come back to the traffic measures, there is the issue of the roundabout. Traffic measures could be applied to make a development acceptable, and there could be absolutely dreadful issues for the local community in terms of air quality because of the requirement to make the development acceptable in planning terms. So the amendment is very much probing like amendment 15. We are trying to find out what this is all about in actuality. How will it work in practice? What sort of conditions might be set or removed by the Secretary of State? What is the impact of the decisions made by the Secretary of State and how will proposed section 100ZA(2)(a), (b) and (c) work in practice?
I will now move on to discuss amendment 16, which is innocuous and quite helpful. It simply asks for some consultation with local authorities when regulations are being drawn up. I actually thought this might be a helpful amendment for the Minister because, as we have already explained, we clearly have some difficulty understanding and finding an evidence base to support what is in clause 7.
If these regulations are to do the job that the Government want them to do—transfer powers to the Secretary of State, so that he or she can apply conditions or take conditions away—presumably they want the regulations to work in practice. These regulations really impact on the work of local authority planning departments, and local authority planning officers will be the people to know whether this clause is going to produce anything helpful or not in practice. It seems entirely reasonable that there would be a particular role for local authorities to contribute to the drawing up of the regulations, so that they are proportionate, and that the way in which the Secretary of State can interfere should be proportionate to the problem that the Government have identified.
I say that because nobody else seems to have identified pre-commencement conditions as a problem, but clearly the Minister thinks they are and some of his colleagues seem to think they are. All that we ask is that a very sensible approach is taken to local authorities, and that rather than simply having a set of regulations imposed upon them, which may or may not work in practice, they are involved in the process. Then, hopefully, we will get something commensurate to the problem and not a whole-scale transference of powers to the Secretary of State. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I have listened to evidence from both the development industry and local authorities both as a member of this Committee and as a member of the Communities and Local Government Committee. Although there are some examples, which have been much quoted, of the excessive use of pre-commencement planning conditions, the evidence is really not very strong. There are many reasons why the measures proposed in clause 7 are, in fact, an attempt to treat the symptom of a problem rather than the cause of that problem itself.
When asked, and when I have questioned them, all the witnesses—pretty much without exception—who have spoken about pre-commencement planning conditions have acknowledged, and in some cases spoken extensively about, the constraints on local authority planning departments. As we know, planning is the second most cut area of local authority services since 2010. It is an area that has, for good reason, lost out in the competition for local authority resources between it and statutory services such as children and adult social services, which affect some of the most vulnerable in our communities. To my mind, that is because the funding of planning, and in particular development management, is not on an appropriate footing.
I was very disappointed and frustrated that the previous Housing and Planning Minister simply ignored this issue during the debate on the Housing and Planning Act 2016, and did not acknowledge that we needed well-functioning, properly resourced planning departments to facilitate the building of the new homes that we need. It is absolutely not right that planning should be competing with services that are needed by the most vulnerable in our communities, and therefore we need a different way of funding planning departments.
Kevin Hollinrake
How will extensive pre-commencement conditions that are difficult to discharge help with that process? Local authorities will choose where to resource their departments. The pre-commencement conditions simply increase the burden on planning officers.
Helen Hayes
If the hon. Gentleman bears with me, I will explain exactly how that part of the argument hangs together.
There is evidence that officers are currently using pre-commencement conditions because they are simply unable to resolve every aspect of the planning application before the deadline for making a decision. In some cases, they are unable to look in detail at all the documents submitted as part of a planning application. In some cases, they are unable to spend the time negotiating and discussing with the applicant the type of detail that might be necessary. There is no question but that that is clearly not acceptable practice. Some have referred to that as lazy conditioning, but I would argue that it is, in fact, more commonly a symptom of the problem of under-resourcing, rather than deliberately poor practice.
When faced with the threat of appeal on the grounds of non-determination, local authorities and individual officers will look to use conditions as a way of making a timely decision to avoid losing control of every aspect of that planning application to the Planning Inspectorate. That is an entirely rational way for authorities to behave, rather than taking the risk of losing an appeal on the grounds of non-determination.
Gavin Barwell
I very much welcome the hon. Lady’s speech, because she is admitting that there is a problem and that the pre-commencement conditions are being abused. She believes that the reason for that abuse is that local authorities are under-resourced. That is exactly what she just said. Would not the right solution be to stop that abuse? That will do one of two things. It will show either that it is all about resourcing—the proportion of applications approved in time will drop dramatically—or that there is a problem. Either way, it will stop the abuse and reveal the true problem.
Helen Hayes
I am arguing, first, that the scale of the problem is not nearly as great as the Government say, and secondly, that where there is a problem it is a symptom of the lack of resourcing in planning departments—the primary cause of that problem—not a problem in its own right. Therefore, the Government should be directing their energy towards the resourcing of local planning departments. I have argued many times that local authorities should be able to recover the full cost of resourcing and development management services through the fees they charge for those services. That proposal has broad support from the development industry, local planning departments and the organisations that represent local government in London and across the country. It would be a far better place to start the debate than clause 7.
As we have heard from many witnesses, there are circumstances where pre-commencement conditions are welcomed by developers, and where there is flexibility to agree some details when finance has been secured on the basis of a planning application, or when more is known about the site due to site investigations that take place in the earlier stages of a scheme. Last week, I sat down with several representatives of the local community and a developer who is bringing forward a very sensitive scheme in my constituency. The planning permission for the site in question was a detailed consent secured by a previous landowner who used that consent to sell the site on; that was a controversial issue in its own right.
Last week we met the developer, which did not take part in the planning application process for the site that it has now inherited. In that case, there are pre-commencement conditions on materials and archaeology. It is entirely right and proper that the developer has the opportunity to consider those conditions and make proposals to the local authority for those conditions to be discharged before development commences.
Chris Philp
In the hon. Lady’s example, did not the new owner have ample opportunity to consider those pre-commencement conditions before the purchase of the site? If they did not like the conditions, they could simply have not purchased the site.
Helen Hayes
That is a rather blunt and not nuanced enough understanding of how such things work in practice. Last week, the developer met with the community —a vociferous community who feel very strongly about the site. That conversation will enable the developer to inform the discussions and plans for some important detailed aspects of the scheme. That is entirely the right order of things. It would not have been appropriate for the developer to speak to the community ahead of securing the purchase of the site; the developer would not have had a relationship with the community that allowed such a conversation. The way that things are progressing is entirely right and timely; it is not leading to any delay in bringing forward the site in question.
Dr Blackman-Woods
My hon. Friend is making a series of important points, which are helping us to understand pre-commencement conditions more thoroughly. Does she agree that the provisions in the clause will in fact make communities much more anxious about possible development in their area? The local authority may set conditions that will make a particular planning application acceptable and then find some way down the line that those conditions have been removed by the Secretary of State.
Helen Hayes
My hon. Friend is exactly right. It is so important that the voices of local communities are heard, particularly given the volume of development that is needed to deliver the new homes that we need in this country. Conditions are one way that a local authority can broker and establish a relationship between applicant and community and the genuine and material concerns that our constituents all have about development can be taken into account and addressed. Communities will find ways for their voices to be heard. If the planning system excludes those voices and makes those negotiations much more difficult, those voices will be heard in other ways: there will be an increase in applications for judicial review of planning applications and much more in the way of petitions, protests and attempts to frustrate development. It is right that the concerns of local communities are heard and addressed through the planning system.
I further take issue with the clause and support the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham because it simply does not reflect or encourage good practice. It is widely acknowledged—the Committee has heard evidence from experts across the sector about this—that best practice involves applicants and planning authorities, having undertaken appropriate public engagement and consultation, coming together to agree what is necessary for an application to meet policy requirements in relation to a given site.
Members on the Government side of the Committee have made the point that there is cost and risk for applicants in taking applications through the planning process. That risk is mitigated and minimised when applicants fully understand and take into account the policy context and do everything possible to ensure that their applications are policy-compliant. To suggest that local authorities are in the business of refusing planning applications on a whim in a policy vacuum misrepresents what actually happens. In the case that a local authority makes a flawed decision, it is open to the applicant to appeal, and such appeals will succeed.
Kevin Hollinrake
Is the hon. Lady not arguing for the clause? She talks about best practice and engaging with the applicant and the planning authority to agree the way forward rather than unilaterally sticking in some pre-commencement conditions without discussing those with the applicant. Is that not exactly what the clause will do?
Helen Hayes
It is my view that a clause that requires an exchange of letters and makes agreement to the principle of pre-commencement conditions the preserve of the applicant rather than the local authority does the opposite. It does not encourage best practice; it encourages a much more litigious and formalised approach to negotiation, which does not allow for genuine engagement between applicant and planning authority. It would be far better to resource planning authorities properly to undertake those detailed discussions with applicants, so that they can agree and discuss the issues that are important to local communities and ensure they are properly addressed, with as many as possible being within the planning permission itself rather than within pre-commencement conditions. However, there is a role for pre-commencement conditions and it is a very important one.
Finally, we should remind ourselves of what pre-commencement conditions seek to achieve and why they are important. Conditions cover many aspects of application, such as the choice of materials, which is sometimes belittled as a trivial matter but is in fact so important in determining the impact that a new development will have on a community in the long term. Once something is built, it is there certainly for the rest of our lifetimes and perhaps those of future generations. What a development looks like, the impact it has and how sensitively considered the materials are plays a really important role in how acceptable it is to the local community.
Conditions also cover issues such as sewerage capacity, which influences whether residents will have serious problems, sometimes in their own homes, in the long term. They are a key means by which local authorities can safeguard the interests of local communities and ensure the quality of new development. Of course, they should not be overused or misused, but where that occurs it is a symptom of the lack of resources rather than wilful misuse or poor practice.
I argue that the setting of conditions should be the preserve of democratically elected local authorities, not contingent on the agreement of the applicant. Local authorities must be properly resourced to undertake pre-planning discussions, to review properly the content of applications and to agree as much as possible within the framework of the planning permission itself, in order to minimise the use of conditions. The clause is simply misdirected. It is trying to treat the symptom of a problem, rather than the cause. I hope the Government will therefore reconsider it.
Mrs Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
It is a pleasure to take part in this Committee under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I have what amounts more to an intervention than a full speech. I spoke about this clause on Second Reading and received some useful reassurance from the Minister, but now we have the more relaxed circumstances and timings of a Committee, I would like to reiterate broadly the importance that many of my constituents place on matters relating to the protection of habitats—that includes bats and newts—and landscape and flooding.
It would be helpful if the Minister expanded on his remarks on Second Reading to explain how it will still be legitimate for the planning process to consider such matters and how there will still be opportunities for local authorities to require research to be done into them, so that planning permission can be granted on the basis of full awareness of the facts. While the clause as drafted will help streamline the planning process, it must leave planning authorities with the ability not only to take matters such as habitats into account, but to require developers to provide the appropriate surveys and research. Will the Minister explain at what stage that is still open to the planning authorities? I am sure my constituents would be very grateful for that.
Gavin Barwell
I should say at the outset that the three amendments we are debating do not deal with the pre-commencement and application issue. We have rather drifted into a clause stand part debate, but I will try to respond to all the points colleagues have made.
This is probably the moment in the Bill when there is the strongest disagreement between the two sides of the Committee. Let me start on a consensual note. The hon. Member for City of Durham asked me to accept that this was a wide-ranging power, compared with the one in the previous clause, and I do accept that. The Government have sought, in drafting the legislation and in some of the other things we have done, to provide as much reassurance as possible.
We have put two provisions in the Bill that it might be helpful to clarify at the outset. The clause does two things: it gives the Secretary of State the power to prescribe certain types of planning condition, and separately it requires that pre-commencement planning conditions may only be made with the agreement of the applicant. So there are two different issues, and the amendments we are considering deal with the first part of the clause. We will come to the amendments that deal with pre-commencement later. It might be helpful to the Committee to put that on the record.
On the Secretary of State taking the power to prescribe certain types of conditions, I can offer three pieces of reassurance to the Committee. First, the Bill makes it very clear that the Secretary of State may use that power only to back up what is in the NPPF—the basic tests are written into proposed section 100ZA(2), which is inserted in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 by the clause. One of the amendments deals with those four tests, which I will come to later. Secondly, proposed section 100ZA(3) makes it clear that the Secretary of State, before making any regulations, will have to carry out a specific consultation on them, so each time the Secretary of State seeks to use the powers under proposed section 100ZA(1), there will have to be a public consultation. That is written into the Bill to provide reassurance about how the power is to be used. Thirdly, when we published the Bill, we also published a consultation paper setting out how we believed that we would want to use the powers, were Parliament to grant them to the Secretary of State. I will refer to that consultation paper later on in what I have to say.
The point of principle is the point of difference, so let us start with evidence. I would argue that there is a lot of evidence to show that there is a problem, but first I point out that the Opposition have fallen into one of the traps that has bedevilled the housing debate in this country for 30 or 40 years—a trap into which many of the people who have come into my office over the past three months have also fallen—and that is to set out an either/or choice.
For the first two months that I was doing this job, I asked everyone, “Why do we not build enough houses in this country?” People would reply, “It’s all the planning system’s fault,” or, “It’s all down to the major developers, who are banking huge chunks of land. If they released those, we wouldn’t have a problem.” Some people came into my office and said, “Do you know what? It is impossible for people nowadays to own their own home. We should just give up on home ownership and put all the focus of housing policy on renting,” but others say, “There has been too much focus on renting. People want to own their own home. Everything should be about helping people to own their own home.” I believe such choices to be completely false.
Gavin Barwell
If the hon. Lady allows me to expand the argument, I will be happy to allow her to intervene.
The reasons why we do not build enough homes in this country are complicated. Lots of things work, but if the answer were simple my predecessors would have solved the problem. There is no silver bullet and no one thing that will solve the problem, which instead will require a complex web of policy interventions.
Gavin Barwell
To say that there is a problem with local authority resourcing of planning departments, which I think everyone on the Committee has accepted, and that therefore that is the sole problem and we do not need to worry about anything else, is to miss the point completely. There are a lot of reasons why there are problems in our system. We need to take action to deal with all those things, not simply say, “This is the main problem, so we should solely deal with that and forget about the rest.” I will now happily take the interventions.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I want to challenge the Minister’s characterisation of what the Opposition think about why in this country we are not building as many houses as we should. I know the Minister knows that that characterisation is not fair, because he has read the Lyons review; I know that because he and his predecessor have been cherry-picking bits out of it and bringing them forward in Government policy. It was a wide-ranging review, which looked at a whole set of different reasons why we do not build enough houses—everything from land availability to the failure of the duty to co-operate, to the inadequacy of the local plan-making system, and so on. I hope he and the rest of the Committee will understand that the Opposition do indeed know that the problem is multifaceted. This morning, however, we are simply arguing about this group of amendments, and saying that we do not think that pre-commencement planning conditions are the major issue that he sets them out to be.
Gavin Barwell
If it is helpful and the interventions are on the same subject, I will take both before responding.
Helen Hayes
I want to make two quick points in response to the Minister’s remarks. There might be multiple causes of the issue that the clause seeks to address in relation to the use of pre-commencement planning conditions, but as my hon. Friend has argued, we do not believe there is evidence that this is a primary cause of the problem. We believe the primary cause is the under-resourcing of planning departments, and Government Members acknowledge the extent of that problem. Will the Minister explain why there is nothing in the Bill that addresses that problem?
My second point relates to the remarks made by the Minister about housing. I welcome his acknowledgment that renting and the affordability of housing are part of the problem. His predecessor took an entirely binary approach to housing: he put all of the Government’s resource into home ownership and did not recognise that nuance at all. If the Minister is thinking of changing direction, that would be welcome.
Gavin Barwell
On the latter point, if the hon. Lady were to look back at some of the things I have said over the period that I have been Housing Minister, she would find that those signals have been loud and clear. A White Paper is coming shortly. I do not want to add any more on that point, but on the resourcing point, other members of the Committee will say that I was pretty clear about where I stood last Thursday. On the question about why there is nothing in the Bill, some things do not need legislation to fix them. There is a White Paper coming out. I have to be careful, but the Government have consulted on the issue of whether we need to get more resourcing into local authority planning departments. The results of the consultation were clear, and the Government will reflect on them.
I was glad to hear the comments of the hon. Member for City of Durham. I will come to the evidence on this point, which is where we should concentrate our debate, but I would observe that the modern Labour party, which is a rather different creature from the one in the late 1990s when I was getting involved in politics, seems to find it easier to recognise problems when the private sector is involved and is more reluctant to recognise problems when the public sector is responsible.
Let us turn to the question of evidence. Knight Frank’s house building report 2016 refers to
“the need to address the increasingly onerous levels of pre-commencement conditions applied in some planning permissions and the length of time taken to sign them off.”
Crest Nicholson’s half-yearly report 2016 states:
“Speeding up the clearance of pre-start planning conditions and securing sufficient labour resources to deliver growth plans”
remain the two challenges to delivery.
The Persimmon annual report states:
“Whilst planning-related pre-start conditions continue to increase the time taken to bring new outlets to market, we are pleased to have...opened 60 of the 120 new outlets planned”.
I referred on Second Reading to a survey done by the National House-Building Council in 2014, which showed that a third of small and medium-sized builders identified planning conditions as the largest constraint to delivery. Specifically, the two questions were about the time taken to clear conditions and the extent of the conditions.
Gavin Barwell
The hon. Lady asked for evidence; I am giving it. The time to clear conditions was mentioned by 34% of respondents and the extent of conditions was mentioned by 29%.
The District Councils Network—local government, not developers—stated, in its submission to the Committee:
“The DCN has acknowledged that the discharge of planning conditions can be a factor in slow decision making and supports the government in seeking to address conditions.”
The hon. Member for City of Durham referred to a survey, but did not give the issue the prominence that it has in the survey. The planning system was identified as the second biggest challenge to small builders—tied with finance and behind the availability of land. The Government will be addressing all three issues. Among those commenting on planning difficulties, the signing of conditions was the second most cited challenge, behind the resourcing of planning departments, and the Government will be addressing both of those things.
The speech by the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood was commendable. She acknowledged the abuse of pre-commencement conditions. Her explanation for it was not that local authorities were being lazy, but that there was a resourcing issue. I think the words she used were that people just did not have time to read planning applications, so they slapped pre-commencement conditions down. That clearly is not right, so the Government are absolutely justified in taking action in that area as well as looking to address the resourcing issues that she rightly identified.
Helen Hayes
The example I referred to was one that we heard in evidence to the Committee. It was an example of a landscape strategy having conditions despite having been submitted with the planning application. That practice is of course completely unacceptable, but it is, along with many other things, a symptom of the lack of resourcing.
More than half of the evidence that the Minister has just provided related to concerns about the signing off and discharge of pre-commencement planning conditions, not the setting of conditions themselves. If that is, indeed, a problem, as it would seem to be from the Minister’s evidence, I ask once again why the Bill is dealing with the symptom of a problem rather than the cause. Why does it contain nothing to deal with the issue of the discharging of planning conditions, and instead deal only with the setting of pre-commencement planning conditions?
Gavin Barwell
I have tried to answer that question already. Some of those things do not require legislation. There are problems in our house building system that require policy changes, and others that require legislative changes. We want to pursue a range of solutions encompassing both those options.
I want to pick up on three specific examples that we were given of pre-commencement conditions, one of which may help to provide my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet with the reassurance she sought. I thought that the three examples delineated very well the difference between the two sides of the Committee on this issue. One example related to archaeological concerns. Clearly it is entirely appropriate to address those through a pre-commencement condition. If there are concerns that the moment someone gets on site and starts to do ground works they will destroy a key archaeological site, the issue has to be dealt with by a pre-commencement procedure.
The other examples concerned the use of materials and landscaping. I, and I am sure all members of the Committee, would accept that those issues are legitimate ones that communities would want to address through the planning process. However, I do not accept that they must be dealt with before a single thing can be done on site, as the development begins to get under way. There is no reason why they cannot be dealt with during the process.
The hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton made an interesting intervention in which he said that it is all very simple if—I will take care not to use unparliamentary language—one gets one’s ducks lined up. He said that people need to do all the work at the outset, come to the planning committee with everything sorted out, and then away they go. However, not only does that expose applicants to extra expense before they get planning permission, as my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South, said, but it delays the process. The point that I am trying to get the hon. Member for City of Durham to accept is that, particularly with a large application, a huge amount of work must be done to get to the point where the applicant has satisfied all the legitimate concerns a community might have about it.
If, as I passionately feel, there is a desperate need to get us building more houses as quickly as possible in this country, surely anyone who has ever had any experience of managing a large project will think it is better to deal up front with the things that must be dealt with up front and then, while work is beginning on site, deal with some of the other issues that need to be dealt with. If we want housing to be built more quickly, we must allow developers to proceed in that way and not say that they must get every single thing sorted out before they can even turn up on site and begin vital work.
Dr Blackman-Woods
The Minister is in danger of presenting a bit of a caricature. It is not a question of absolutely everything being presented up front; it is a question of what is needed to be able to assure a planning committee and the community that a development is acceptable. If the Minister is serious about speeding up development, we know that the major problem with pre-commencement conditions is signing them off, so if he wants to address that it must be by further resourcing of planning departments, not by the removal of conditions.
Gavin Barwell
Again, the hon. Lady falls into the either/or trap. Both those things are problems. It is a problem both that the conditions are overused and that when they are legitimately used it can often take too long to sign them off. We are going to deal with both problems.
Gavin Barwell
I will give way once more; then I want to look at the specific example of flooding, talk about the consultation document and discuss the amendments.
Chris Philp
I have a genuine question on which I should be grateful for the Minister’s thoughts. If we proceed as per the clause as drafted, and the applicant has to agree in writing to the pre-commencement conditions, what if the applicant—the developer—unreasonably refuses to agree to any of the pre-commencement conditions, in order to frustrate them? What would happen in that circumstance?
Gavin Barwell
I am sure that my hon. Friend never asks anything but genuine questions. The answer is very clear. In those circumstances, the local authority would be able to refuse permission for the development. If the pre-commencement condition that the applicant sought to resist was an entirely legitimate one of the kind we have already discussed, and if the applicant appealed, the Planning Inspectorate would turn down their appeal.
Chris Philp
Just to be clear, any condition that a local authority feels strongly about has to be imposed as part of the main planning condition. It has to accept that anything that it does not put into the main planning condition, it cannot subsequently impose.
Gavin Barwell
Pre-commencement conditions must be agreed with the applicant. If the applicant is not willing to agree to a legitimate condition, without which the authority does not feel the application would be acceptable, the application should be refused. The authority absolutely has the right to refuse such an application. I put it on record that I expect the Planning Inspectorate to back up the decisions of local councils when it judges that such a condition is perfectly reasonable to make a development acceptable. I hope that any developer silly enough to play those games will quickly learn that lesson through the appeals process.
What we want is good practice; my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton made that point powerfully. We want applicants and councils to sit down together and work out what legitimate pre-commencement issues are. We have no problem at all with such issues being used for pre-commencement conditions, but we want to stop them being abused.
The hon. Member for City of Durham used the instructive example of flooding. The test seems to me to be one of reasonableness. She used the phrase “There may not be evidence”. Local authorities are in difficult circumstances if there is no evidence to back up what they seek to do. However, if there is evidence of genuine concerns, that is clearly a legitimate and material planning consideration.
Dr Blackman-Woods
My point was not that there would be no evidence; it was that there might not be evidence about that specific site at that time, but that a wider reading of what a local authority was doing would produce evidence of the need to put in flood allevation some way down the line.
Gavin Barwell
I cannot sit in judgment on how a particular case might be considered, but I refer the hon. Lady to page 12 of the consultation paper, which sets out some examples from current planning guidance, which the Act will put into secondary legislation, of conditions that should not be used. It might be helpful to the Committee if I run through those examples. The first is:
“Conditions which unreasonably impact on the deliverability of a development”,
such as those
“which place…disproportionate financial burdens”.
The test is one of reasonableness. An inspector would look at whether the evidence that the local authority had presented was reasonable with respect to the use of those conditions. If the hon. Lady is asking me to make it clear that we would not rule out any consideration of flooding matters in planning considerations, I confirm that we absolutely would not. There are often applications in which it is entirely legitimate to do what she suggests.
The second example given in the guidance is:
“Conditions reserving outline application details”—
in other words, where an authority tries to specify things for an outline planning application that could very well be dealt with in a full application further down the line. The third example is:
“Conditions requiring the development to be carried out in its entirety”.
The fourth example is conditions that duplicate a requirement for
“compliance with other regulatory requirements”,
such as by just repeating something that is already in the building regulations and is therefore covered. The fifth example is:
“Conditions requiring land to be given up”.
The sixth is:
“Positively worded conditions requiring payment of money”,
as opposed to a section 106 agreement, which says that an application could become viable if a developer deals with certain issues. Those are the clear examples that we have tried to give in the consultation paper of the kinds of things we have in mind.
Having tried to address some wider remarks from Committee members, I turn to the three amendments tabled by the hon. Member for City of Durham. We believe that amendment 15 runs contrary to the purposes of the Bill, as it would clearly allow local authorities to get around regulations approved by this House to prohibit certain kinds of planning conditions. I hope my earlier remarks about reassurances in the Bill to limit the way in which the Secretary of State can use the power, and the requirement on each occasion for a public consultation, have reassured the hon. Lady about how the powers will be used.
Dr Blackman-Woods
That was a very helpful and, in some ways, enlightening response from the Minister. Unfortunately, we ended up having evidence presented to us that was not evidence and examples that were not examples, but instead a typology of circumstances in which the clause may or may not be applied. That is in a consultation document that sits outwith the Bill at this point.
Kevin Hollinrake
What does the hon. Lady regard as evidence? The submissions of developers, district councils, small and large builders—are they not evidence? Does she not recognise them as such?
Dr Blackman-Woods
The only example that has been given to us in the Committee, apart from the ones I speculated on myself, was landscaping. I think we dealt with why landscaping is so vital to know about at an early stage in the process.
Jim McMahon
A lot of examples have been used—we have had this debate often, and we have gone around the houses on bats and newts and, at one point, hedgehogs. That is all fine and well, but we really wanted to get to facts and numbers. How many planning applications have been frustrated or delayed significantly because of these conditions? We do not have those facts. We have people giving evidence of their experience and opinion, which is important, but is not the same as the hard numbers we have asked for.
Dr Blackman-Woods
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the various surveys that the Minister mentioned, which I was about to come to.
Chris Philp
I was about to draw the hon. Lady’s attention to the extensive list of submissions that the Minister read out in his speech a few minutes ago. Perhaps I might add my own experience. As I mentioned in my declaration of interests, prior to being elected I ran a business that provided finance for construction projects. The whole array of pre-commencement conditions are often very detailed. For example, they frequently stipulate precisely what kind of brick must be used and it often takes a very long time to get discharged. The pre-commencement conditions are often more detailed than one would reasonably expect.
With respect to the shadow Minister, I do think there is an issue here and that the Minister is trying to address it in a balanced and reasonable way.
Dr Blackman-Woods
In which case, what I would say is that we need the evidence in front of us. What examples are there? In how many sets of circumstances? How and why are the conditions inappropriate? In a conservation area, for example, the type of brick would be an important pre-commencement condition.
The evidence from Knight Frank was an assertion that there was a problem because we had no details and no number of applications—nothing. The Crest Nicholson example was a problem with signing off pre-commencement conditions and we on the Labour Benches have already said we recognise that is a problem. The signing off of pre-commencement conditions is a very different issue from the setting of conditions, and the clause is about the setting of planning conditions.
In the NHBC survey, the primary problem identified was again the time taken to discharge the conditions, not the conditions themselves. That was also the primary concern in the District Councils Network survey. We are not saying there is no evidence out there of problems signing off pre-commencement conditions—
Gavin Barwell
It is becoming increasingly frustrating that the Opposition do not seem to want to listen to evidence presented to them. Let me repeat two points so that the hon. Lady cannot skip over them. In the NHBC survey 34% referred to the time to clear conditions—she is quite right about that—and 29% referred to the extent of those conditions. She skipped over the quote from Persimmon that,
“planning-related pre-start conditions continue to increase the time taken to bring new outlets”—
not a word I like, so new homes—
“to market”.
What does she have to say about the very clear evidence?
Dr Blackman-Woods
I think the Minister and I have a really different understanding of what evidence means. I was coming to the District Councils Network and Persimmon because they mentioned, as did other people who gave evidence to the Committee, that there is an assertion that there is a problem, but we do not have hard and fast evidence of it. That is the point we have been trying to make to the Minister. He has not brought forward the hard evidence and we have not had good examples. We have been struggling to come up with examples and the Minister has certainly not presented any. We are not convinced that the clause is necessary.
For some of the reasons given by the Minister, I will not press the amendment to a vote, particularly as I take at face value his assurance about amendment 16 and that there will be consultation with local authorities. I am surprised that he did not take the opportunity in proposed section 100ZA(3) to add, “including local authorities”. If he is going to include “public consultation” in the Bill, he may as well include “consultation with local authorities.” Not doing so seems rather odd, especially as he has acknowledged so strongly that he wishes to consult local authorities in drawing up the regulations. Why not take the opportunity to amendment that subsection and put “local authorities” in the Bill? I am not sure why he does not want to do that, but at least something has been read into the record that perhaps will give some reassurance to local authorities that these regulations will not be as drastic or unworkable as they may be if local authorities were not involved in drawing them up. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I beg to move amendment 19, in clause 7, page 6, line 18, at end insert—
“including in terms of sustainable development and public interest.”
This amendment would ensure that there is a sustainable development test in conditions and that they are acceptable to local people.
The Minister often takes our probing amendments in a way that seeks to shine light on the Opposition’s view, but I stress that we have tabled those amendments to test the Government’s view, because, alas, the Government are putting forward the Bill, not the Opposition.
Amendment 19 would ensure that where regulations are brought forward by the Secretary of State, he would have to comply with an additional measure to those set out in proposed section 100ZA(2), to get around the problem that amendment 18 in some senses addressed. We understand that the list of measures in that subsection follows what is in the NPPF and the planning guidance, but it may be missing some important aspects of a development and the pre-conditions that apply to it.
The subsection says that when the Secretary of State is making regulations, he has to consider things such as whether whatever he is asking local authorities to do or not to do will
“make the development acceptable in planning terms”,
and whether it is
“relevant…to planning considerations”
and
“reasonable in all other respects.”
Given the way in which sustainable development apparently underpins the NPPF, the amendment would require the Secretary of State also to look at whether the regulations would make the development more acceptable in terms of sustainable development and the public interest.
I am sure the Minister will want to know that several bodies—not just the Opposition—are concerned that something could accidentally slip through the provisions in proposed section 100ZA(2) that may be unhelpful to wider sustainable development considerations, and in particular contrary to the wider placemaking objectives that a local authority may want to pursue. The amendment seeks to ensure that in setting or removing any conditions, the Secretary of State ensures that they contribute to the sustainable economic development of the community, protect and enhance the natural and historical environment, and contribute—the Minister has covered this to a degree, but we will test him again—to mitigation of and adaptation to climate change, in line with the objectives of the Climate Change Act 2008, which I will come to.
The amendment is important because the NPPF makes it clear that development should be sustainable. Paragraph 5 says:
“International and national bodies have set out broad principles of sustainable development. Resolution 42/187 of the United Nations General Assembly defined sustainable development as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The UK Sustainable Development Strategy Securing the Future set out five ‘guiding principles’ of sustainable development: living within the planet’s environmental limits; ensuring a strong, healthy and just society; achieving a sustainable economy; promoting good governance; and using sound science responsibly.”
Neighbourhood Planning Bill (Sixth sitting)
Tuesday 25th October 2016
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesNeighbourhood Planning Act 2017 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 25 October 2016 - (25 Oct 2016)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. The Minister will be relieved to know that I was not quite in the middle but towards the end of moving amendment 19. I was extolling the virtues of adding to clause 7 a provision that would ensure that the Secretary of State had to take account of the need to promote development that is both sustainable and in the public interest.
To recap, I went through the provisions in the national planning policy framework and in planning guidance relating to sustainable development. Of course, we are also asked to look at the key provisions of the Climate Change Act 2008, which I will only do in a cursory way. Those provisions rely heavily on reducing carbon and on further adaptation measures that help with addressing climate change issues. I am sure the Minister is very familiar with the provisions of that Act and the need to ensure that, where possible, all development addresses those provisions and therefore helps us to combat climate change.
That deals with the first part of the amendment, which is about sustainable development. The amendment also asks that the Secretary of State have some consideration of the public interest, which is much more difficult to deal with than sustainable development, in terms of having a straightforward definition of exactly what we are talking about. For sustainable development we have the NPPF, the guidance and the Climate Change Act. The definition of “public interest” is much harder to agree on.
“Public interest” is a term with a long history. It says something about transforming the interests of many people into some notion of a common good. I am sure that we all think that is a central task of the whole political process. Thomas Aquinas maintained the common good to be the end of government and law, which is interesting—we might want to ponder that for a moment or two, as a bit of light relief. We also know that John Locke put
“peace, safety, and public good of the people”
as the ends of the political system. That is quite a nice thing for us to reflect on as well. One says that the public interest is central to our task this afternoon, and the other says that it should be nothing to do with us at all. I use that only to show that there is probably no absolute and complete understanding of what public interest is.
Rousseau, as always, has come up with something that helps us. He took the common good to be the object of the general will and purpose of government. That might help the Secretary of State in this regard, because it says clearly that the common good should be an outcome of legislation and of what we are all doing in this room. I therefore take it as read that there will be no problem putting those words on the face of the Bill.
Of course, it is not quite that straightforward. In practice, the public interest is often subject to differing views. People can decide that a public or common good can be met in a variety of ways. It is therefore not always exactly clear in practice what is meant by the public interest, but we are happy to leave it to the Secretary of State to come forward with a clear definition, if he so wishes.
Standard dictionaries manage to come up with a generally held view of the public interest as
“the welfare or well-being of the general public”
and of
“appeal or relevance to the general populace”.
That Random House dictionary definition is incredibly helpful, because that is what we would want planning developments to be. We would want them to promote the welfare or wellbeing of the general public, and we would want them to have an appeal to, and be considered relevant to, the general populace. We would like that sort of consideration, particularly the relevance of a development’s appeal to the local population, to be quite high up on the Secretary of State’s list of issues and interests when determining which conditions he will or will not allow.
We have had a wide-ranging look at the amendment, so I really look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe.
I thank the hon. Member for City of Durham for tabling amendment 19, which brings us back to less divisive territory and raises the important issue of having to take planning decisions both in the public interest and with the aim of achieving sustainable development. As she explained, it would add to the list of constraints on the Secretary of State’s regulation-making power in proposed section 100ZA(2) by explicitly requiring the Secretary of State to take account of sustainable development and the public interest when deciding whether it is appropriate to prohibit certain classes of planning conditions. Although the matters that the hon. Lady has raised are of the greatest importance in the planning system, I shall argue that the amendment is not necessary, in much the same way as amendment 16 was not necessary.
Subsection (2)(a) and (b) of proposed section 100ZA already provide assurance that the Secretary of State will be able to prohibit conditions only in so far as it is necessary to ensure that conditions will
“make the development acceptable in planning terms”
and are
“relevant to…planning considerations generally”.
That includes the need to consider the presumption in favour of sustainable development, which is at the heart of planning policy, plan making and decision taking. Local views are also already central to the planning system.
I thought that the hon. Lady made my point for me quite powerfully by quoting voluminously from the NPPF. Nevertheless, I shall briefly pick out a couple of other quotes. The then Secretary of State’s forward to the NPPF starts with the words:
“The purpose of planning is to help achieve sustainable development.”
Further on in the document, at paragraph 14, it states:
“At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking.”
I do not think that anybody who has spent even a moment reading the document could doubt the extent to which it is based on the principle of sustainable development.
I assure Members that clause 7 will in no shape or form restrict the ability of local planning authorities to seek to impose planning conditions that are necessary to achieving sustainable development, in line with national policy. The proposals will not change the way that conditions can be used to maintain existing protections for important matters such as heritage, the natural environment and measures to mitigate flood risk.
On taking account of the public interest—I greatly enjoyed the quotes that the hon. Lady read out—and ensuring that planning decisions and conditions are acceptable to local people, the Government continue to ensure that the planning system is built on the principle of community involvement. The system gives communities statutory rights to become involved in the preparation of the local plan for their area, bring forward proposals for neighbourhood plans, make representations on individual planning applications and make comments on planning appeals should applicants object to decisions made by local planning authorities. Account is also taken of the views of local people if an application comes to my desk, as happens infrequently.
I have no problem with the language in the hon. Lady’s amendment; the principles of public interest and sustainable development sit at the heart of the planning system. I simply say that it is not necessary to add that language to subsection (2)(d), because that language goes much wider than that one subsection; it runs right through the NPPF, which is referred to elsewhere.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said. We are probably all just a little disappointed that we are not going to hear the outcome of the Secretary of State’s deliberations on what exactly is meant by the public interest and that that will not be put in the Bill. The purpose of the amendment was really to elicit from the Minister how important he felt upholding the principle of sustainable development was, and to get that read into the record.
The national planning policy framework document is widely accepted as a very good piece of work, but that does not mean that it will always be there. In the future there may be a significantly amended NPPF in which sustainable development is not so obvious. I quoted from it today to show that it is there at the moment. We want to ensure that decisions made under the provisions in the Bill are made with sustainable development and the public interest in mind. Given the Minister’s reassurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I beg to move amendment 17, in clause 7, page 6, line 20, at end insert—
“(1A) Regulations made under subsection (1) must make provision for an appeal process.”
This amendment would ensure that provision is made for an appeals process.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 20, in clause 7, page 6, line 24, at end insert—
“where agreement cannot be reached a mediation system should be prescribed.”
This amendment would allow for there to be a mechanism to resolve disputes.
Amendment 21, in clause 7, page 6, line 26, at end insert—
“(5A) The Secretary of State should provide guidance for appeal routes where an agreement cannot be reached on pre-commencement conditions, along with guidance on pre-completion and pre-occupation conditions.”
This amendment would ensure that there is clarity on appeal routes, pre-completion and pre-occupation conditions.
Dr Blackman-Woods
The amendments in this group deal with the need that may arise from clause 7 for appeal systems or mediation arrangements. The Minister did not like our amendment 15, which sought to provide a series of exceptions whereby local authorities may not have to follow the conditions directed by the Secretary of State. Amendment 17 seeks to put in place an appeals process for local authorities so that if they strongly disagree with regulations that the Secretary of State is trying to introduce through conditions that he or she has already applied, they can appeal against that decision. I understand that that puts us in a constitutionally difficult situation, because it is of course the Secretary of State who ultimately adjudicates on appeals, but I am sure it is not beyond the wit of all of us here to come up with an independent arbitration system whereby local authorities at least feel that they can put their case to an independent body or an individual and have them adjudicate on whether the Secretary of State has acted properly and reasonably.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. May I refer you to my declaration of interest as a member of Oldham Council?
Clearly, I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham, who added real weight to what the Secretary of State and the Minister are trying to achieve. The Bill allows the Secretary of State to make regulations that prescribe the circumstances in which certain conditions may or may not be imposed, but we believe that it is important for the planning authorities to be consulted.
There has been some conflict in the discussion that has taken place about the spirit in which the guidance has been written so far, because a lot relates to how matters of heritage, the natural environment, green spaces and flood mitigation will be accommodated. A lot of the pre-planning conditions that have been raised to date have dismissed such issues—we have talked about bat surveys, newts, drainage conditions and landscaping, all exactly the types of issues that fall into those categories. It is important that we are absolutely clear, not just for us, but for the public who will have to navigate what is already a very complex system for people not used to it, so that they know what to expect.
An appeals process makes complete sense. Any idea of natural justice allows people who are unhappy with a decision to go somewhere—where can be up for debate—and to have their argument heard again. That is right, and why worry about it? In this whole debate, in all our sittings, we have seemed to talk down what are quite small matters—to be honest, when we talk about them in Parliament they can be very small issues. The colour, type or texture of bricks are perhaps not issues that we should be discussing in this House, but they are very important for someone in a sensitive area with deep history and heritage when there is a development taking place next door.
If something is not agreed pre-commencement and then goes to appeal, is it right that someone who lives hundreds of miles away from the development should be able to express a very different view about the importance of that feature of the application? Local people want to know that, in the spirit of the neighbourhood plans, which we all welcome because they empower people to have more say over their communities, we will not snatch that control away from them unintentionally because we have not made accommodation further down here.
I will leave it there, but in the spirit of trying to make this work—nobody wants Bills that do not work in practice—let me add that the art of consensus is not waiting for people to come to our point of view, but accepting that we all have a responsibility to add to this process and take on board others’ views. If a good suggestion has been made, it should be taken on board.
Gavin Barwell
Addressing that last point directly, it is certainly my intention to achieve consensus where possible, but sometimes we have to accept that we disagree on issues. Let us look at the three amendments in detail and with a positive spirit.
Amendment 17 introduces a rather radical constitutional concept. The hon. Member for City of Durham went even further, suggesting that Governments always follow the results of every consultation they have, but I will not be drawn into that territory. In the current planning system, if an application for planning permission is refused by the local planning authority or granted with conditions, an appeal can be made to the Secretary of State under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It is also possible for the applicant to apply to the local planning authority for the removal or variation of a condition attached to planning permission. If such an application is turned down, it is also possible to appeal to the Secretary of State in relation to that decision. As Opposition Members have recognised, in the unlikely event that an applicant refuses to accept a necessary condition proposed by a local planning authority, the authority can refuse planning permission for the application as a whole.
Amendment 17 would do a much more radical thing, which is to give an individual local authority the right of appeal against regulations passed by Parliament. There are some rather interesting constitutional questions about who would hear that appeal and what the result would be if it was upheld. Whoever was hearing the appeal would essentially be telling Parliament that the regulations were wrong and should be abandoned. The hon. Lady is always keen to stress that these are probing amendments and that she is merely inquiring into the Government’s thinking. I understand that, but this amendment raises some rather complex questions.
I will repeat the reassurances I have already given. Safeguards are in place under subsections (2) and (3) of proposed section 100ZA of the 1990 Act, inserted by the clause, which constrain the Secretary of State’s power to prohibit conditions imposed so that he or she can only prevent the use of conditions that clearly fail to meet the well-established policy tests in the national planning policy framework. It was very nice to hear the hon. Lady be so complimentary about the NPPF document. I share her admiration for it and, like her, cannot envisage a future Government wanting to unpick its key principles. Subsection (2) will ensure that conditions we all agree are necessary and appropriate to the development in question—for example, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet mentioned, to protect important matters such as heritage or the natural environment—are not prohibited through use of this power.
The second safeguard, in subsection (3), states that before making any regulations on how the Secretary of State might use this power, the Secretary of State must carry out a public consultation. As I have told the Committee, we are currently consulting on the detail of how we might wish to use those powers. Ultimately, we want local authorities and developers to work together from the earliest stage in the development process, including holding discussions about what conditions may be necessary and reasonable. That is the approach advocated in the NPPF and the planning guidance.
I understand what the hon. Lady is trying to achieve with amendment 20. Of course, we have to ensure that where agreements cannot be reached, a sensible solution can be found. However, I am not convinced that a formal mediation system would speed things up, which is the test that the hon. Lady set for it. Clause 7 builds on best practice, as set out in our planning guidance, which states that applicants and local authorities should engage at the earliest possible stage to come to an agreement about these matters. That is what we all want. The question is how best to frame the law and policy to make that happen.
My concern is that if agreement was not possible and there was then a mediation process, and then a possible appeal, that would effectively add another possible stage to the process, which I fear would delay things further. I repeat the assurance that I gave to my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South, that it is clear in the Bill that if a planning authority felt that an applicant was being unreasonable in not being prepared to accept a well warranted pre-commencement condition, the application could be turned down and the council should be confident that that judgment would be backed up by the Planning Inspectorate.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I wonder whether the Minister has thought about circumstances in which a local authority could not get the developer’s agreement and may feel pressured into lifting a condition that it would otherwise think was necessary because the developer tried to suggest it was unreasonable by making the local authority go to appeal. We are not sure—I would like some assurances from the Minister on this—that that would not trigger the Secretary of State getting involved to impose restrictions on conditions. It seems to me that if the Secretary of State will be able to do that in such circumstances, local authorities will be placed in a difficult situation.
Gavin Barwell
I think I can provide the hon. Lady with quite a lot of reassurance on that front. I think she is envisaging a situation in which a particular application is the cause of conflict and the applicant goes to the Secretary of State and says, “Council A is being unreasonable and you should exercise your power under these regulations to resolve the problem.” I think that this House would want to see a more substantive body of evidence for the use of these regulations than one particular case, and in any event there would clearly be a significant time delay in drafting the regulations and bringing them before the House. I think I am also right in saying that there is a general presumption that there are two dates during a given year on which most regulations are brought in. Practically, it is highly unlikely that an applicant will be able to run off to Marsham Street and say, “We need help with this; deal with this.” Speaking for myself, I would not want to take decisions based on such one-off cases.
More generally, the hon. Lady raised the question of the balance of power in the planning system. I can speak only for myself, but my approach—it was when I was a councillor and it is now I am a Minister—is to listen to the evidence that people give me when they make complaints about things that they think are unreasonable about the planning system. If I am convinced that they have a case, I think the right thing to do is to shift public policy, as I am doing in relation to pre-commencement conditions.
People complain to me about other matters. For example, developers often complain about how local planning committees work. Local democratic representation has an important role in our planning system, and when developers fall foul of planning committees, it is often because they have not engaged with the relevant local political representatives early enough in the process—or they have engaged, they have been given clear feedback about the likely concerns, and they have not reflected or responded to those concerns.
The point that I have slowly been trying to work my way around to is that my advice to local authorities is to listen, and if a developer is saying, “This condition is unreasonable, for the following reasons,” to consider that argument fairly. But if, having reflected on it, they think that the argument has no merit and they are doing the right thing for their community, they should stick to their guns and not be afraid to stick up for the position they believe in.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I have heard the Minister’s reassurances on specific individual cases, but what about the generality? For example, a lot of developers may come to Marsham Street and say, “We’re absolutely fed up with having to do bat surveys and think about newts”—or even, as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport may say, hedgehogs—“and therefore we want these regulations to have much clearer guidance for local authorities in terms of restricting the conditions that they can apply to protect wildlife.” Is that a real danger of the clause? Would it not help to have an appeal or mediation system to deal with that?
Gavin Barwell
I can give the hon. Lady strong reassurance on that front. First, she has my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport completely wrong; far from wanting to further persecute hedgehogs, he is first to the barricades to protect and defend them.
Let us take the hypothetical example that the hon. Lady gave, where at some point in the future more and more developers are coming to the Secretary of State and saying, “There’s a real problem about the way in which the protection of bats is working and the onerous conditions that are being put on us.” If the Secretary of State was persuaded by those arguments, we would need to look at planning policy and whether we wished to shift it.
Broadly speaking, the test with all these things is one of proportionality. I think all of us would place significant weight on the protection of our wildlife and fauna. The test is always one of reasonableness, in terms of the costs incurred by the developer to do that. If a future Secretary of State decided that in his or her judgment that balance was wrong, that would involve a shift in policy. It would not be possible to outlaw a type of condition that is consistent with what current policy says. I hope that reassures the hon. Lady.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
It is not only a case of trying to talk to politicians at an early stage; it is also about engaging with the local community, so that it feels it has a say and has been involved in the decision-making process.
Gavin Barwell
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Clearly, councillors and Members of Parliament are representatives of those communities, and engagement with them is important, but he is quite right that developers should also be talking directly to local people in the relevant area. They should be talking and listening. In my experience of the planning system, that kind of positive engagement is very good for the developer because it avoids problems later on when things come to a planning committee.
The broad point I was making to the hon. Lady is that my approach, were I on a local planning committee, would be to listen to concerns that developers expressed about planning conditions and judge whether the evidence backed up those concerns. If it did, I would adjust my policy, but if it did not, I would stick to my guns and do what I thought was the right thing for my local community.
On amendment 21, the hon. Lady made an important point about providing clarity for the applicant during the process. The amendment seeks to ensure that associated guidance is made accessible to inform parties of the appeals procedure, should an agreement not be reached on the application of conditions. I agree that we need to ensure that applicants are fully aware of the options available to them and how they can pursue that action. However, I would like to assure hon. Members that that information can already be found online as part of our planning guidance, and I believe it provides the right support to those looking to appeal against the imposition of certain conditions. On that basis, I hope the hon. Lady will accept that the necessary protections are there.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I thank the Minister for his helpful additional information on how this process might work in practice, particularly with regard to instances that might provoke the Secretary of State to develop and put out to consultation regulations to affect the conditions being applied by local planning authorities. I heard what he said about giving clarity to applicants about the appeals process and the circumstances in which the Secretary of State might get involved. I would like some time to consider that further. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
We now come to amendment 22 to clause 7. Before I call the shadow Minister, it might be helpful to advise the Committee that, in the light of the wide debate we have had on the amendments tabled to the clause, we are not planning to have a separate debate on clause stand part. If hon. Members wish to make any further comments about clause 7, I suggest they do so after the shadow Minister’s speech on amendment 22.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I beg to move amendment 22, in clause 7, page 6, line 23, leave out subsection (5).
This amendment would ensure that local authorities are still able to make necessary pre-commencement conditions on developers.
Thank you for that direction, Mr McCabe. I will address my comments not only to amendment 22, but to some of our wider concerns about clause 7.
The Minister knows, because he heard the evidence, as we did, that clause 7 was the one bit of this relatively short Bill that concerned people who gave evidence to the Committee. In fact, a number of people thought that the clause was just as likely to slow down development as it was to speed it up. Councillor Newman, who represented the LGA, said:
“The whole perspective of what I am seeing in the Bill looks very much like a sledgehammer to crack a nut approach—another layer of red tape.”
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
It is a pleasure, Mr McCabe, to serve under your chairmanship. Is not that exactly the opposite of what has been said? We are trying to get rid of the complexity of the system. Clause 7 creates conditions of good practice, where people sit down together and make an agreement. If a council is being reasonable and a developer is reasonable, there will be no issue. There will be written agreement and things will move forward. If either party is being unreasonable, an inspector will be able to look at that and judge for the other party. It is in everybody’s interests to sit down and get a sensible agreement on the conditions. Is not that a sensible piece of legislation?
Dr Blackman-Woods
The hon. Gentleman has described the situation that exists at the moment, not the position in which we will all be in after the Bill is enacted. The Bill puts in writing the agreement between the local authority and the developer. Significantly, as we have all been discussing, it gives powers to the Secretary of State to intervene in the process by producing regulations that will say something about the conditions that can be attached.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the system is working well at the moment because, as Councillor Newman reminded the Committee,
“nine out of 10 permissions are given, and 470,000 permissions are already granted for homes up and down the land that await development for various reasons.”
All those reasons are not pre-commencement planning conditions.
Hugh Ellis said:
“From our point of view, the concern about conditions is that they are fairly crucial in delivering quality outcomes.”––[Official Report, Neighbourhood Planning Public Bill Committee, 18 October 2016; c. 23, Q31.]
He also said that he had no evidence whatever that conditions result in delay. Duncan Wilson from Historic England said that local authorities are usually reasonable already. He did not feel that unnecessary conditions were being imposed, and he believed that that particular assertion could be challenged. That is what we have been attempting to do thus far today.
It is not just Her Majesty’s Opposition saying that all this is unnecessary; it is the Town and Country Planning Association, the LGA, Historic England and the British Property Federation, which said that it saw an issue with the discharge of conditions, but could not give us much detail on pre-commencement conditions.
I want to outline the evidence we have been given on why the clause is unnecessary. Various people who gave evidence said that they felt that if an application was turned down because an agreement could not be reached with the developer, it could take longer to argue about the condition and determine it than under the current set of arrangements. I point out to the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton that that point has been made not only by me but by lots of other people.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is setting out her case powerfully. It has been suggested that the proposal set out in clause 7 is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Does she agree that it is a sledgehammer to crack the wrong nut, because what really needs to be addressed is the resourcing of local authority planning departments, so that they can apply the existing guidance thoroughly and rigorously, give each application the time it needs and properly negotiate with applicants to ensure that applications are policy compliant?
Dr Blackman-Woods
My hon. Friend, as ever, hits the nail on the head. It is the wrong target, which is exactly our point. A lot of information is available to local authorities, never mind their experience of applying conditions. The problem is not setting conditions, but the lack of resourcing for planning departments. As we rehearsed this morning, most people’s problem with pre-commencement planning conditions is not the conditions themselves but the time it takes to discharge them because of the lack of resources in planning departments. A lot of information is available to local authorities, so in general one would not expect them to set unnecessary conditions, because that would clearly be in breach of all the documents I have discussed.
I picked up, at random, a list of pre-commencement planning conditions from my constituency. The developer has just written to me about them, to ask me to ensure that the local authority discharges them, and I thought, “Here’s a helpful bit of information that has just dropped into my inbox at a very appropriate time.” To give the Committee some context, the development is taking place in a conservation area—a rather large student accommodation block—so one would expect the local authority to take some care and use some diligence over the pre-commencement planning conditions, and indeed it has. I want to go through the list—I will do so as quickly as possible—because Government Members are saying that these pre-commencement planning conditions are often unnecessary, yet when I went through the list I could not find a single one that was unnecessary. The list states:
“No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the building hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.”
Dr Blackman-Woods
It is absolutely necessary; it is in a conservation area.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Well, we will have to disagree. I think that if somebody is asking for planning permission—not just outline planning permission—for a major development in a conservation area that abuts a world heritage site, it is vital that the materials to be used are included as a pre-commencement condition.
Government Members will love the next part:
“No development shall take place until full details of the location of the proposed bat loft and a scheme for the provision of 10 house sparrow terraces have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority.”
We all agreed earlier that protecting wildlife is really important. As the Minister knows, sparrows need to be protected if they are to survive and thrive. Such mitigation and compensation are necessary within the breeding bird assessment regulations.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I hope that the hon. Lady is not going to go through too extensive a list. One of the points that we have been trying to make is that quite a lot of the conditions that have been mentioned could be carried out during, say, the demolition phase; they do not have to take place or be agreed before the contractor starts at the site.
On the particular condition that the hon. Lady just raised, although it might be possible for the developer to agree a location for the bat and sparrow accommodation, there is no guarantee that the inmates will transfer willingly. Anybody who knows anything about bats—I happen to, strangely—will know that one can put up a bat loft to accommodate displaced bats but they might not use it for years, and they might never use it. They are capricious creatures that might decide to go elsewhere, perhaps because of the noise of the development.
The same is true of colonies of sparrows. Sparrows are strange birds, in that they do not travel very much. They tend to live in one place—as the hon. Lady said, they colonise particular areas—and they might even pick a particular tree that they never leave, but they are unlikely to move simply because someone decides to put up accommodation. All these things are iterative and could be done during the demolition phase. There is no reason to wait months and to have an argument about where the sparrow accommodation should go, because even the sparrows might not agree on where is decided.
Dr Blackman-Woods
The hon. Gentleman might have had a point had there been a demolition phase. As there is not, it is important that all these things are known up front. A further condition was noise mitigation. The developers were asked for details of proposed foul and surface water drainage; for an archaeological investigation; to refrain from site clearance, preparatory work or development; for a tree-protection strategy; and for a site map.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I shall take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention and then explain why, given the circumstances, those preconditions were necessary.
Oliver Colvile
I thank the hon. Lady very much. I should have declared an interest: I have a shareholding in a communications company. Does she agree that we need to ensure that we have hedgehog super-highways so that hedgehogs can get from one garden to another?
Dr Blackman-Woods
Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. In the development in Durham that I am describing, because it abuts a wooded area in the centre of the city called Flass Vale, several local residents were concerned that there was no particular order in the pre-commencement conditions about the protection of hedgehogs. We are all terribly concerned about hedgehogs and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising their profile in Parliament—it is very much needed.
The point I wanted to make by going through that list—I have not gone through it all, but I have highlighted the most important conditions—is that it is an extremely contentious development in a very sensitive area of the city. Because the developers were made to provide all that information to the local community, the development is going ahead and the community is engaged with the developer in ensuring that the pre-commencement conditions are discharged. That seems to me to be a sensible way forward.
Had the developers been able to not agree, and to hope that six months down the line the Secretary of State would intervene and overrule the local authority, they might not have worked so hard to meet the conditions, and the local community might have been very upset with them indeed. As it is, as the local MP I have been able to ensure that everyone is speaking to each other about the trees and the sparrows, and about the hours during which work will take place on the site, as it abuts residential properties. The conditions have been carefully thought through by the local authority and were applied for a reason. I would like to hear why the Minister thinks—this is the important point—that those conditions do not comply with the requirements set out in the NPPF, because that is what the Government would have to show in order to have a provision in the clause to take away from local government the power to set the conditions, and give it to the Secretary of State.
The LGA and London Councils both made exactly that point to the Committee, so it is not just the Opposition who are saying that there is no evidence. The LGA said:
“The NPPF, and the associated national planning practice guidance, already clearly sets out expectations on use of planning conditions and the new primary legislation is unnecessary…There is little evidence to suggest development is being delayed by planning conditions. Planning conditions provide a vital role by enabling planning permissions to go ahead which would otherwise be refused or delayed while the details are worked out. They can also save developers time and money as they do not need to invest in detailed submissions until after the principle of the development is granted…Joint working between councils and developers is the most effective way of dealing with any concerns about planning conditions and the LGA strongly advocates the use of early, collaborative discussions ahead of planning applications being submitted for consideration.”
I do not think it could be clearer.
To rub the point in, London Councils said that there was little robust evidence to suggest that the current system of planning conditions was the reason for the under-supply of housing generally or for the slow build-out rates of residential developments. It also questioned the need for the Bill to prohibit certain conditions in defined circumstances, where they do not meet the national policy test. It said that adequate tests on conditions were already set out in national policy, and that there is already a system in place that allows applicants to appeal against conditions that they consider fail those tests.
London Councils, the LGA and lots of other people who gave evidence to the Committee appear to back up what the Opposition are saying, which is that there is already a huge amount of information, advice and guidance that local authorities have to apply in setting pre-commencement planning conditions—and, indeed, conditions per se. The provisions in clause 7 are unnecessary and are further evidence that the Government are anti-localist and are taking powers back to the centre.
Gavin Barwell
We had some of this debate this morning when we considered the first group of amendments, while Mr Bone was in the Chair. Let me rehearse some of the arguments. There are four points that I want to make.
First, it is pretty undeniable that we have had a very partial presentation of the evidence we received, so I want to put on the record again what the evidence we received is. I acknowledge that it is mixed. Certainly, people came to us and said, “I don’t see a problem here,” but there were also plenty of people who said that there is a problem, so let me counterbalance what the hon. Lady said. The district councils network said that it supports the Government in seeking to address conditions. It was interesting that when I put it to Councillor Newman, who was speaking on behalf of the LGA, that that was the view of district councils, which make up the vast majority of local planning authorities, it seemed to be news to him.
I quoted a number of major developers earlier. Persimmon said in its annual report that,
“planning-related pre-start conditions continue to increase the time taken to bring new outlets”—
new homes—
“to market”.
Knight Frank stated that we
“need to address the increasingly onerous levels of pre-commencement conditions”.
The NHBC survey that I quoted provided clear evidence of small and medium-sized enterprises being concerned about, yes, the speed of discharge of planning conditions, but also the extent of those conditions.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Actually, I am pretty certain that I did answer the Minister’s question. I simply do not accept its premise, because we do not believe that pre-commencement planning conditions slow down development. In fact, much of the point that I have been making is that the system that the Government are about to put in place could slow down development, because more developers may now have to use an appeal route. We do not think that pre-commencement conditions slow down development; that is the Government’s case. It is not me who has to address that point; it is the Minister.
Gavin Barwell
—and my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire is going to help me.
Kit Malthouse
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, because I could not intervene on an intervention. Would the Minister care to ask the hon. Member for City of Durham how long the period was between the granting of the application of which she spoke, and a spade going into the ground, while materials, sparrows, bats and all those sorts of things were dealt with? How long did the process take?
Gavin Barwell
The hon. Member for City of Durham may intervene, but I suspect that the answer is that it has not happened yet. I was going to come to that, but the hon. Lady gave a clear response to my point, so let me deal with her two points in turn.
The hon. Lady’s first argument is that there is a danger that the process will lead to more appeals, and will therefore slow things down, not speed them up. I do not agree, and I will make it clear why. If, at the moment, an applicant does not like the pre-commencement conditions imposed on them, they already have the right to appeal. It seems that there is no evidence that they are any more likely to appeal as a result of the fact that the local authority will now not be able to impose those conditions on them than they would have been otherwise.
The second argument, which is irrefutable, is that if an applicant is asked to do a large number of things before they can start any work on site, that is bound to delay the start of work on site. On most things, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire is beyond reproach, but on this issue, I blame him, because the hon. Member for City of Durham was in the midst of giving us a long and detailed list, and he rather hurried her up, so we did not get the full list. I managed to scribble down at least six of the conditions she mentioned. One condition was details of the materials to be used. That does not necessarily have to be a pre-commencement issue, but I accept that it is not that onerous. However, the designs of new homes for bats and birds will clearly take some time, as will the noise mitigation scheme, a drainage scheme, and tree protection schemes. Archaeological work is necessary and will always have to be pre-commencement, but it clearly takes time. All those things take time to design, work up, go to the local authority with, and get discharged.
It is difficult to comment with certainty, not knowing the site in question, and I would not want, without knowing the site, to express strong opinions, because the hon. Lady will have pictures of me printed and shown at local protests or something. None the less, some of those things, all of which it is important to deal with, can arguably be dealt with later in the process. It seems unarguable that the hon. Lady’s council requires of the developer a significant chunk of work that will take time and will delay the point at which the developer can get on site. The question of how many of those conditions are a necessary delay to the development is a legitimate source of public debate. The legislation tries to weed out those that are not necessary and focus on those that are.
Gavin Barwell
I will take one final intervention and then conclude my remarks.
Jim McMahon
I fear that the Minister has chosen the wrong application to pick on, because it is a very particular one—for anyone without knowledge of it to say what should or should not be allowed is embarrassing, to say the least. In a local context, those issues could well be extremely important. If you, Mr McCabe, lived next door to that development, you would want to know that the noise mitigation element would be dealt with before it was approved. If it could not be dealt with, we would all want to have a say on whether it was appropriate for the development to go ahead at all. With all due respect, I am not convinced that this was the right battle for the Minister to choose.
Gavin Barwell
I thought that I had been careful, but perhaps I was not careful enough; I think I said that I did not know the site in question and could not comment on the detail.
Let me comment instead on a generic application in which these issues arose. My view, generally speaking, is that materials are important, particularly in a conservation area, but their colour does not necessarily need to be agreed before a spade can go into the ground. The situation of bats, birds or other species that inhabit a site clearly needs to be dealt with before their habitats are disturbed. However, on a large site, of which a part was existing buildings and another part was a wooded area where those species had their homes, work could be done on the buildings before touching the habitat. Noise mitigation needs to be dealt with at the outset, because clearly initial works can be noisy. On drainage, a clear commitment would be needed at the outset that the drainage solution would be sustainable, but the detail would not be needed until the detailed works were to be done. Archaeology clearly needs to be considered.
On a generic site, some of those points are clearly pre-commencement, but I argue that some are not. It cannot be denied, however, that the more a developer is asked to do before a spade goes into the ground, the longer the wait until that happens. The Government are therefore quite right to focus on this issue, alongside lots of other issues such as raising the performance of our utility companies, resourcing our planning departments better so that they can take decisions more quickly, and getting section 106 agreements more quickly.
The hon. Member for City of Durham cited a statistic that gets to the core of the issue. The coalition Government’s planning reforms have done an amazing job of increasing the number of homes given consent through our planning system. In the year to 30 June, a record number of homes were given consent. However, we have seen a growing gap between consents and homes being started, because the number of homes being started has also gone up but not by anything like as much. A strategy to get the country building the homes we desperately need therefore needs to address bridging that gap. My contention is that these pre-commencement conditions and other abuses of planning conditions are one issue, albeit not the only one, that we need to address in order to do that.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I will start by addressing the specific question asked by the hon. Member for North West Hampshire: when did the scheme I mentioned start on site? Planning permission came through in April and the developer was hoping to start on site in August. Actually, I got a phone call to say that there was a delay in the system. Hon. Members are right that there was a delay in the system, but it had nothing whatsoever to do with the pre-commencement planning conditions, which were not mentioned at all; it was because the Brexit vote meant that the developer lost its funding and had to go out to the market again to get support for the development. It was therefore unable to start on site until October—and start in October it did. We have had the first meeting with residents, and they all agree that the pre-commencement conditions were essential.
Gavin Barwell
I will not delay the Committee for long. Schedule 2 sets out the amendments that need to be made to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as a consequence of clause 7(1), which will allow the Secretary of State to make regulations that prohibit local authorities from imposing certain planning conditions in circumstances to be prescribed when they grant planning permission.
The amendments in schedule 2 seek to ensure that any such regulations the Secretary of State may make under clause 7(1) would also apply to conditions that are imposed via the ways in which it is possible to gain planning permission other than by application to the local planning authority. That includes planning permission granted by: development order; local development order; mayoral development order; neighbourhood development order; applications to develop without compliance with conditions previously attached; simplified planning zones; development in enterprise zones; orders requiring the discontinuance of use or alteration or removal of building works; and appeals against enforcement notices. We have already debated the principles.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 2 accordingly agreed to.
Clause 8
Register of planning applications etc
Jim McMahon
I beg to move amendment 28, in clause 8, page 7, line 21, at end insert—
“(e) information on the number of permitted demolition of offices for residential use to a similar scale including—
(a) the impact on a local plan;
(b) an estimate as to how many homes the development will deliver and
(c) a consultation with the local authority regarding the effect of the change of use on any urban regeneration plans.”
This amendment would ensure monitoring of the impact of permitted right of demolition on offices, on urban regeneration that requires office space and on the provision of housing.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 29, in clause 8, page 8, line 10, at end insert—
“(9) The cost of compiling a register and gathering the information to underpin it should be met by the Secretary of State.”
Jim McMahon
I have been brought off the subs bench to do this. I am quite excited about the debate we have had and the evidence we have heard, because I am a localist; I believe that communities should have a say and be able to direct their futures in the most appropriate way. Neighbourhood planning gives them the ability to do that, framed in the context of a national plan and the land supply. That means national Government can achieve what they want to achieve, local authorities can take a view of the wider area and, integral to that, the community has a strong voice. That is why I am slightly at odds with permitted development.
A number of representations have been made over the years that are at odds with the “community first” approach that we have been talking about. The Local Government Association’s evidence frames that quite well. In the survey it carried out of its members, to which 93 local authorities responded, 82% were making a loss on maintaining that process. It is important we get some comfort from the Minister today and accept that local authorities are taking on an additional burden that they should be compensated for.
Moreover, that flies in the face of what we might assume would happen. Let us take light industrial and office accommodation as an example. The view surely is, “Well, there’s all this accommodation that isn’t being taken because the market demand for it isn’t there, so it’s far better to put that to good use as residential accommodation.” However, that is not what we have seen. Areas often have low office demand and low residential demand going hand in hand. I could take Members to Oldham town centre and show them empty office blocks, and alongside those is an empty potential residential conversion that, because demand has not taken hold, is commercially unviable.
We have seen a displacement in areas where there is significant high demand. In some London boroughs, for example, we have not seen empty office blocks being converted into solely residential accommodation; we have seen profitable businesses and charities that are there for the community benefit and value being displaced by landlords, who recognise that it is more financially beneficial to get rid of a tenant who is not paying anywhere near enough. They convert the building for residential use and displace the local business or charity in favour of greater profits.
Don’t take my word for it. We have examples in Barnet, where 100 small businesses and charities were displaced with just four to six weeks’ notice. We have a situation in Islington where 71 office buildings have been converted to residential accommodation. More than 40,000 square feet of office accommodation has been taken in that one borough, where there is demand for that facility.
Chris Philp
Is not Islington, along with many other London boroughs, now subject to an article 4 direction, which will prevent the conversions that the hon. Gentleman describes from taking place in future?
Jim McMahon
That is a fair point about where things are today, but the damage has been done and we cannot change things back to what they were. The phrase “a sledgehammer to crack a nut” has been used probably once too often today, but article 4 is a good example of a very big sledgehammer being used to crack a very particular nut. Article 4 affects everybody in the vicinity or within the boundary and obliges them to comply with the directive. I am talking about a particular problem that has been brought about by the extension of permitted development.
Dr Blackman-Woods
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Does he agree that in policy-making terms it is nonsense to set up a scheme to relax permitted development rights, recognise that it causes a huge problem and then introduce another system to try to counteract the adverse consequences of the original policy? All the Government had to do was allow local authorities to grant planning permission in the first place, rather than introducing a relaxation of permitted development rights.
Jim McMahon
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A lot of people are of the view that permitted developments of this type mean that an empty office is simply converted—from the outside there is very little difference, but it is what happens inside that changes, and that is surely up to the person who owns the building—but the rules actually allow for a building to be completely demolished and then rebuilt to a similar scale. That can change the street scene significantly, so it does go further.
Let us also consider the location of some of the buildings. Take an everyday town centre. It is easy to imagine two restaurants or bars operating with an office block in between. If the office block is converted under permitted development, the tenants who move in are forced to live with the noise nuisance of a pre-existing use in an acceptable location. What is not taken into consideration is how to create a vibrant community that has the requisite facilities, amenities and, importantly, quality of life. For a lot of people, permitted development as it stands does not have that balance in place.
The LGA, which is the voice of local government, has said that. It consults its members, who have been clear in numbers that the problems with permitted development should be looked at. It is odd that a Government who say that they are all about community voice and control—about people being empowered, for once, to have some control over what their communities look and feel like—are not tackling permitted development in the right way.
If we take ourselves out of the town centre, we could go to an industrial estate where small industrial units can be converted for residential use. It is perhaps okay if a unit is converted, but what about the existing users who suddenly have a barrage of complaints from the local authority about the noise nuisance from their pre-existing use, which might have been going on for decades? There might be early-morning or late-night deliveries at what is a predominantly industrial location that has suddenly changed into a residential neighbourhood, without the required facilities or amenities. It is a really big issue.
We have talked a lot about bricks and how important their colour and texture are. We have discussed whether they are important in pre-commencement or could be dealt with later. At least we are talking about them. If someone goes for a change of use under permitted development, very little attention is given to the quality of finish, design and detail. An entire shopfront has been removed in my town. Imagine how a shopfront block looks: there is a hole on the ground floor where a full shopfront used to be, with a sign on top. I know of several examples where the shopfront has been taken away, leaving an exposed girder where the sign used to be, and a completely inappropriate insert has been added that has no relationship to the wider street scene. In a normal planning application, such issues would be negotiated with a developer to ensure that they were dealt with appropriately.
We must recognise that permitted development flies in the face of the community voice and empowerment that we have been talking about.
Chris Philp
On the question of shopfronts, class A1 retail use, to which the hon. Gentleman is referring, is not subject to permitted development rights, which apply only to class B1 office use.
Jim McMahon
Of course, what I am talking about is the physical appearance of a shopfront, not necessarily the fact that a building was previously a shop. A building may be in use as an office but have the external appearance of a shop. It is that conversion that I am talking about. I am thinking in particular of professional services businesses that are based in accommodation with a shopfront façade but where there is office-type use behind that. That is the point that I was getting to.
Whatever our view about the finish, we need to accept that when we are talking about a policy of empowering communities and giving them a voice and a say, it is important to manage expectations to ensure that they are not let down after the fact. Permitted development flies in the face of that empowerment, because it takes power and control away from them. If nothing else, we should at least accept that permitted development rights are a significant burden for local authorities, and when we talk about capacity being an issue, we should at least ensure that local authorities are given the finances to administer that policy in the right way.
Helen Hayes
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. The gathering of data on homes delivered through permitted development rights is a small beneficial step. It is long overdue; it should have been introduced when permitted development rights were extended. It remains a significant problem that although the negative impacts of the extension of permitted development rights are widely reported, there are no consistent data to monitor those impacts, and we therefore cannot have the debate that we need in the House and elsewhere about this significant problem.
Concerns have been raised with me consistently, ever since the permitted development rights policy was introduced, about the size and type of new homes that are being delivered under those rights; the quality of those homes; the lack of section 106 contributions to provide properly for the physical facilities and public services that an expanding residential population needs; the lack of affordable homes; and, particularly in London, the loss of much-valued employment space for small and medium-sized businesses. We cannot quantify the scale of the problem, because the policy was flawed from the start.
Although the small measure in the clause will help with the monitoring of data, I am concerned by the fact that the Government are extending permitted development rights to include the demolition and rebuilding of office accommodation for residential purposes. That brings with it exactly the same concerns that I have about the previous extension of permitted development rights—but more than that, it will result in local authorities’ total loss of control over the quality and aesthetics of new development. As we debated earlier, those are often among the issues that matter most to local communities and make the difference between something being acceptable and not being acceptable.
The Minister argued on Second Reading that permitted development rights are helping to accelerate the delivery of new homes. The delivery of new homes at speed and at scale is of course of utmost importance, but the housing crisis is more complicated than that.
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Lady refers to the Minister’s comments about speeding up delivery. Does she accept that permitted development rights have in many cases done exactly that? She talks about the negative consequences of that policy but has not spoken about the positive consequences. Does she accept that there have been positive consequences, including the delivery of more residential units?
Helen Hayes
I was just about to say that in addition to the numbers, which I do not dispute are important, the size and type of homes that we are delivering matters. It matters whether we are delivering homes that families can live in and have a good quality of life in, or only homes that are too small even to fit adequate furniture into. Minimum space standards matter, and the Government have failed to address that issue. The provision of amenities matters. It matters whether there is a local park that is properly funded through the planning process. It matters whether the roads and pavements are of an appropriate standard, whether there is lighting and whether our neighbourhoods are attractive to live in. It matters whether there are places in schools and GP practices for an expanding population to access.
Above all else, affordability matters to my constituents. It is simply not fair and not appropriate that new homes are allowed to be delivered with no contribution at all to the affordable housing that we need more than any other type of housing in London. As a Member of Parliament for a London constituency, the Minister should, quite frankly, know that.
The extension of permitted development rights is a disaster for the delivery of the high-quality neighbourhoods with good facilities and services that we all want to see. We want to see the right numbers of homes being delivered, but we also want to build attractive and successful communities for the future, not tomorrow’s regeneration projects. I am deeply disappointed that, through the Bill, the Government are trying to patch up a broken policy, rather than accepting that it is not working in the way it needs to and reforming it to make it more fit for purpose, so that we can deliver not only the number, but the type and quality, of new homes needed within the successful neighbourhoods that we all want to see.
Dr Blackman-Woods
My hon. Friends the Members for Oldham West and Royton and for Dulwich and West Norwood have done an effective demolition job on the Government’s case for promoting permitted development. The Opposition are on record, on a number of occasions, as being totally against the relaxation of permitted development rights for all the reasons that my hon. Friends outlined, including the very poor-quality development that often ensues from developers taking a permitted development route.
It is not that we are against a change of use from offices or agricultural buildings to residential; we just think that it is critical that local people have a say on whether those changes of use take place. The process should take place through the planning system, not through permitted development. We are living with some of the huge consequences, such as poorly planned developments and neighbourhoods, emerging from too much permitted development.
On amendment 28, we are not in favour of permitted development, but if the Government are in favour of it, it makes some sense that they might actually want to know what is going on with it. To date, they are probably not that aware. The compilation of the planning register would elicit further information from local authorities about what is happening with regard to permitted development. The circumstances set out in clause 8 are too restrictive and will not capture some of the information that local authorities have told all members of the Committee is very important to them.
How many additional homes have been created through permitted development? What is the impact on any local council regeneration plans, and on the local plan? Those questions are important. Let us begin with the local plan. If a lot of windfall sites have emerged through permitted development, and a lot of homes—even of relatively poor quality—have been created that contribute towards meeting the housing need, there might be an impact on local plan provisions. The local authority might like an opportunity to tell the Minister and everyone else about the impact of permitted development on the local plan. It will also want to be able to give information not only on the type of housing delivered but on the number of homes, who they are for, whether they are affordable, their quality and a whole lot of other issues.
My most significant point about the amendment is what it would mean for regeneration, and I am really interested to hear what the Minister says about that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton touched on earlier, a number of cities and towns have areas with empty shops, pubs or offices, but they are empty for a reason: the local authority has or is developing a plan to regenerate the area. Local authorities have told us that a developer will now be able to come along, get the office block and say, “I can make a quick buck here by converting this block into housing through the prior approval route”—and bang goes the council’s ability to regenerate the whole area in line with a local plan that has emerged through the neighbourhood planning system or consultations with the community. That does not seem a very sensible way forward.
If I were the Minister, I would want to know whether a policy of mine was actually impeding local authorities from regenerating their areas because permitted development was getting in the way. I would want to do something to put that right and to help the local authority with that process. The Minister will know that the prior approval system in place for permitted development simply does not give a local authority the tools to turn down a permitted development, either for regeneration reasons or because it severely, or even mildly, affects the authority’s local plan.
Indeed, the prior approval system is very complicated. The Government make much of the fact that they have simplified the planning system; I could not help but smile when I saw the statutory instrument that they passed last year, the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, which is 162 pages long—such have been their extensions to permitted development. Each class of permitted development has different prior approval conditions, but none of them allows consideration of the issues addressed by our amendment. For instance, for a change from offices to dwelling houses, the local planning authority has to consider
“whether the prior approval of the authority will be required as to…transport and highways impacts…contamination risks…and…flooding risks”,
but it cannot take account of anything else. If the development will impede a regeneration scheme, the authority cannot even consider that. If there are huge energy conservation issues because the office block has poor energy efficiency, the authority cannot do anything about that either. If it thinks the materials are wrong, it cannot do anything about that. If it absolutely needs affordable housing in the area, it cannot do anything about that. There is really a very small list of things that it can do anything about, and that list certainly does not cover the issues in the amendment.
Jim McMahon
The resources of local government are a critical issue. Many are looking at the next three to four years and wondering how on earth they will make ends meet or cover the costs of adult social care and children’s services. When faced with such choices, clearly the councils go to the back office—or what people consider the back office until they are an applicant who needs to use the planning system when, all of a sudden, it becomes a front-line service. If the Minister is determined to make everything work, it is important that the proper resource is given. We have been given some hint about a White Paper that is due and about conversations that might or might not be taking place, and we are intrigued, but a bit more certainty would go a long way.
Dr Blackman-Woods
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. He more than any of us in Committee understands the day-to-day, lived experience of people in local authorities and just how difficult it is to keep managing, in particular, the huge portfolios that some of our local planning officers have to on such limited resources and—this is pertinent—with no end in sight. We do not know what is to come in the Minister’s White Paper, but there is no clarity at all about when the contraction of budgets in local planning departments will stop. At the moment, we have contraction figures right up to 2020. If the Minister is to reverse that and put in additional resources, that would be a good thing, but at this point in time we do not know whether that is the case.
We do not know whether there will be any means by which local authorities can fund the putting together of the register. Several people who gave evidence to the Committee were at pains to stress to the Minister that responsibility for an operation of this type will fall on planning policy officers. Some district councils have only one planning policy officer to do all their local plan-making work, to support all neighbourhood planning and to do all the work required for a register. That just does not seem possible, or possible to deliver.
We have made the case that the planning register as proposed under clause 8 is wholly inadequate. If the Government did not rely so heavily on permitted development, it would not be necessary anyway. If the Minister wants to stick to his thoroughly discredited permitted development scheme and ask local authorities to produce a register, he should also pay for it. I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
Gavin Barwell
It is a pleasure to welcome the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton to the Front Bench as a substitute, as he described himself. I am a keen fan of the beautiful game, and I observe that substitutions happen in one of two circumstances: either a team are winning and coasting, so give some fresh talent a chance, or they are struggling and bring on someone different. I shall leave it to Committee members to decide which of those sets of circumstances applies now.
I thank Opposition Members for tabling amendments 28 and 29 on changes to the planning register. Before I address them specifically, perhaps I can say a few general words about clause 8, which, as we have heard, aims to ensure that both local and central Government further understand the contribution that permitted development rights make to increasing the housing supply, while also increasing transparency about development proposals in an area.
The Government have introduced a series of permitted development rights for change of use to residential use since January 2013, and they are playing an important role in supporting the delivery of the homes that our country so desperately needs. We do not know exactly how many homes they have delivered, which is part of the purpose of the clause, but we have two bits of data that I shall share with the Committee.
First, since April 2014 there have been more than 6,500 applications for prior approval for changing from office to residential. We do not know how many housing units have been created, but we do know that. Secondly, the Estates Gazette reported that more than 5,300 new homes have been started in London as a result of permitted development, although I cannot tell the Committee the source of the data. I shall return to the remarks made by the hon. Member for City of Durham later in my speech, but it is worth putting clearly on the record now that 5,300 families in London have had the opportunity of a home as a result of the policy. Whatever other critiques may be made of it, that important fact should not be lost in the balance.
Clause 8 enables the Secretary of State to require local planning authorities to place information about prior approval applications or notifications for permitted development rights on the planning register. For the first time there will be consistent public-access data on the number of homes being created through permitted development rights in England. Details of which prior approval applications or notifications should be placed on the register, and specific information relating to them, will be provided in subsequent regulations, which we expect to be made available during the passage of the Bill.
Before I discuss the amendments in detail, I make a general observation: good-quality data are important in assessing public policy. My officials know me well enough by now to understand that I am interested in data and in understanding figures properly, so that Ministers can take good decisions based on clear evidence. The data collected under the clause will be important with respect to the main way we measure the success of the Government’s housing policies—the net additions measure of housing supply. I shall not detain the Committee too long on one of my pet subjects, but Members might be aware that data on starts and completions are published quarterly, and we then get annual data on net additions, which takes in not only starts but changes of use and permitted developments. That way, we get a total picture in terms of the net change in the number of homes.
Interestingly, even the starts figure in the net additions data is not consistent. If one adds up the net starts for the previous four quarters, one will not get the same total because they are measured differently. That often creates room for people to have political fun by using different figures. Even for those who oppose permitted development, clause 8 is good because it will provide data on the effect of the policy, which can inform our political discussions of it.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I want to return to the Minister’s point about planning permissions being put on the register. Planning permissions do not completely cover the cost of determining a planning application, but more money certainly goes to the local authority than under the prior approval system. Although there might be a case for additional resources to allow local authorities to put planning permissions on the register, does he accept that requiring them to put prior approvals on the register when they receive so little money from them is really a burden of a different order?
Gavin Barwell
I tried to answer that question in my remarks: we do not believe that there is any additional cost in requiring local authorities to place these applications on the register. The register is not new; it already exists and holds information on individual planning applications. We do not think that the requirement will place a new burden on planning authorities. However, the Department will carry out an assessment to confirm that before introducing regulations. I hope that reassures the hon. Lady.
Let me turn to some more generic points about permitted development. The hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton spoke passionately about his views as a localist and suggested that this area of policy points in the opposite direction. I understand his point, but I think it all depends on how we look at things. Our planning system is built on the understanding that people do not have the right to do whatever they want with their land; they need to seek permission from the state because what they do might affect the amenity of adjoining landowners or people who live on adjoining sites.
However, there has always been an understanding that, for certain kinds of applications that fall below a particular de minimis threshold, it is possible to proceed without having to make a planning application. A good example is that some of the smallest, single-storey extensions to domestic properties can proceed as permitted developments. That has been in our planning system for a long time. As the Government wish to drive up supply, they have extended that right to others.
There is no denying that permitted development removes from councils the right to consider a full planning application. It limits the freedom they have to the matters specified in any prior approval. However, it also gives the owner of a building the freedom to do what they will with their land because we have judged that the issue is unlikely to have a significant impact on adjoining owners.
Jim McMahon
Does the Minister accept, in this context, that the council is a community? The elected members of the council derive from the local community and are elected by it to represent it and sit on planning committees that make decisions based on the community interest.
Gavin Barwell
I would not accept that a council is a community, but I certainly accept that it comprises the elected representatives of that community and speaks with the authority of the community, if that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman.
Stepping aside from the controversial topic of office-to-residential conversion, the question that we should ask ourselves when deciding whether something should be a permitted development right or require a full planning application is whether the change being made to a property is sufficiently significant that it is likely to have implications for adjoining owners. If it does have implications, there are clearly arguments that it should go through the planning application process. I was trying to make the point that the Government did not invent permitted development—it has existed for a period of time—but have chosen to extend it to particular classes of conversion.
The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood, who represents a constituency not too far from mine, spoke passionately, as she did on Second Reading, of her concerns about the permitted development process. It is entirely legitimate to say that, compared with the full planning application, the authority does not receive a section 106 contribution for local infrastructure or for affordable housing, and neither do the space standard rules apply. She raises legitimate concerns.
Weighed against that, we must look at the contribution of the policy to housing supply. I believe that in Croydon—my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South, also sits on this Committee—the policy has certainly brought back into use buildings that would otherwise not have come back into use. Therefore, it has contributed to supply. The debate on space standards is particularly interesting. We certainly need to ensure that at least a proportion of our housing stock is sufficiently large, providing the space to accommodate families with particular needs. There is a much more difficult balance to strike on whether we should say that all homes must meet a minimum standard, or whether we should allow flexibility. Strong arguments can be made both ways.
I visited a site just south of Nottingham at the end of last week, where I saw a good mixed tenure development with some owner-occupied housing. The housing association also provided some shared ownership properties and some affordable rent. When the Homes and Communities Agency master-planned that site before selling it on to the developer, it insisted that all the homes built on it meet the national space standard. Perhaps predictably, the developer argued to me that it would have preferred to have that requirement only for some properties, because it would have been able to build more homes, which is clearly in its commercial interests.
Interestingly, the housing association made the same argument. It needed some stock with sufficient space to accommodate families who perhaps needed a carer, or included somebody in a wheelchair. However, the association believed that housing need in the area was sufficiently acute that it would rather have had a compromise whereby some of the homes had that space standard but it could have got a larger number of homes overall out of the site. I am not expressing a view one way or the other; I am simply saying that there is a choice to be made between overall supply and space standards.
Helen Hayes
I simply do not accept that, in seeking to meet the need for new homes, we aspire to rabbit-hutch Britain. There are of course families who have exceptional needs for space, but every family deserves a home into which they can fit the right amount of furniture and within which their waste and recycling storage commitments can be met and there is appropriate storage for cycling equipment and all the other stuff that people accumulate in the course of family life. We should not accept that families being asked to live in homes that are too mean in space terms so they can afford an adequate and appropriate standard of life is a fair compromise anywhere in the country.
Gavin Barwell
The hon. Lady makes her point passionately. Let me be clear that I do not think anyone wants people to live in rabbit hutches. Her own local authority—her constituency crosses local authority boundaries, so I should be clear that I am talking about the London Borough of Lambeth—has given planning permission to a scheme in the north of the borough by Pocket Living, which I had the opportunity to visit. As part of a deal with the GLA, that developer has been given the flexibility to develop homes below the minimum space standard, and those homes have proved popular with young professional people.
A journalist gave a rather slanted representation of a presentation I gave at party conference in which I talked about housing for young people. I ran through a whole load of things that we could consider as part of that, and I referenced that Pocket Living scheme. The journalist wrote an article saying that I wanted people to live in rabbit hutches. Interestingly, that night I was speaking to students at a university and one of them had read the article in question and said, “I’d just like to say that, given the choice of being able to buy a small home of my own or there being bigger homes that I can’t afford, I’d be interested in looking at that flexibility.” Every single student in the audience agreed.
Helen Hayes
To be clear, developments of the type produced by Pocket Living are a specific type of housing—they are a niche in the market. There is certainly a place for that type of accommodation in the market, and Pocket balances space standards and quality particularly well for that niche, but we are talking about the much broader issue of national space standards for all types of homes, and particularly family homes. I have too often seen examples of schemes up and down the country that are not built to the national space standard, whose quality is too mean and that do not provide the best possible basis for successful communities or places that people want to live in.
Gavin Barwell
Well, it may be that the hon. Lady and I are not as far apart as I thought we were, because I agree with that. People have different requirements at different ages, and it is certainly important that adequate space is provided for family housing. She may agree with the point that I am going to make. I was going to close by giving an example of a permitted development conversion that I had the opportunity to see in Croydon. She may want to go and have a look at it herself.
Kevin Hollinrake
I quite agree with the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood about family homes, but where the opportunity exists to innovate and create homes for young people and first-time buyers, particularly in areas of high house prices, should we discourage that purely on the basis of space standards?
Gavin Barwell
I suppose the story I told that prompted the hon. Lady’s intervention interested me because one might to a degree expect private developers to look to maximise the units that they can build on a site and their commercial return, but what was striking about that conversation was that the chief executive of a housing association also wanted that flexibility. He saw clearly that there was a trade-off between having homes that were fully accessible and fulfilled the space standard and maximising the number of homes for vulnerable people that he could have on the site. There is a debate to be had, but I do not think that the hon. Lady and I are as far apart on this as I thought we were.
Let me give an example. There is a building in Croydon called Green Dragon House, which was a fairly old office building that was not wholly vacant but had very limited use. It has been converted into 119 homes—a mixture of one and two-bed homes. It is a little like the Pocket housing schemes. It is very high-spec—the quality of the finish is very good—but the rooms are smaller than the national space standard. Interestingly, what is not taken into account is that there is a huge amount of communal space. Virtually the whole of the first floor of the building is given over to a high-standard communal lounge, and the whole of the roof is a terrace, which is communal space for residents. In a way, it is a different vision of how people might live, and it is targeted very much at young professional people.
Helen Hayes
The Minister is being generous with his time. I will simply say that the scheme he describes sounds commendable. It also sounds like exactly the kind of scheme that a local authority would have given planning permission for. The point about permitted development rights is that we cannot leave to chance whether the development industry will deliver to that high standard. We have to secure that high standard through the planning system.
Gavin Barwell
Clearly, part of the issue is that these schemes were not coming forward before. The cost of the conversion, if it goes through the full planning process, meant the schemes were often not viable, and permitted development rights have allowed some of these schemes to come forward that would not otherwise have done so.
I have had an interesting exchange of views with the hon. Lady. As I said, I understand her point of view, but these things have to be balanced against the urgent need to drive up supply of housing. She will know that there is no part of this country with a greater gap between what we are currently building and what we need to build than the city she and I represent. There are different views in the House about permitted development, but whatever one’s views on the issue, this is a good clause because it will give not only the Government but Members of the House and the wider world that is interested access to data, which we can then use as we debate this policy.
Jim McMahon
I thank the Minister for that response. Like him, I am a geek when it comes to data. I love nothing more than spending time in the library on the Office for National Statistics website—that counts as entertainment for me. However, I am also aware that data can often be used as a crutch for a weak argument. Data have been thrown out in bucket-loads, but the substance of this argument has not been deployed in quite the same way. We talked a lot about numbers, which is great. We have not talked anywhere near enough about affordability, quality or even if these units are occupied. We know that in many towns and cities foreign investors are coming in and buying up units that local people could live in, ensuring that no one lives there.
When we talk about data collection and how councils have enough to do—that is a fair point—we must also accept that development control teams will be in those buildings, making sure they comply with development control rules. They will be signing those buildings off for occupation. At that point the buildings will come on to the council tax register, and any council worth its salt will then make applications for the new homes bonus. So councils are reporting units anyway, but via a different route. One thing that councils would appreciate is a single point of reporting. Rather than all these Government Departments coming to councils from all over the place asking for individual pieces of data, the Government should say with one voice, “This is what we need to know.” Collating the data in one place would helpfully save time and energy.
There is quite a lot of agreement on the principles we have been talking about. The combination being mooted here is of quite small living spaces with a lot of communal areas. A development is being built today in Oldham on that model, where the flats are quite small but there is a gym facility, communal areas and quality space that will attract a niche market of commuters who no doubt work or study in Manchester city centre. There is a place for that, but that is where the local authority has made a conscious decision that that would add value to the overall mix of accommodation within the town. It is not a free-for-all. Unfortunately, the permitted development route at the moment is a free-for-all for far too many people, without the right checks and balances in place.
I suspect that we will not be able to come much closer than agreeing that permitted development seems to have worked quite well in one or two locations. The evidence, in particular when we hear representations from local government, says that it is fraught with difficulties and removes the local control we know is very important. Perhaps we cannot get any closer than that. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I will not detain the Committee for long, because we have had quite a wide-ranging discussion. The Minister started his comments on amendment 28 by referring to Opposition Members’ subbing policy. I want to tell him exactly what our policy is, then perhaps he will explain his. The Opposition recognise the talents of all our Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw, who is not currently present. We have an incredibly inclusive policy because we want to ensure that everybody participates and is able to use their talents to the full. I am not sure that that is the policy the Minister is employing with regard to Government Members, but I will let him answer for himself.
We will return to permitted development when we discuss new clause 14, but I should say to the Minister quickly that a number of people who gave evidence to the Committee pointed out that permitted development was weakening the planning system. In particular, his own councillor, Councillor Newman from the Local Government Association, pointed out the nonsense of what had happened in Croydon where they had to get an article 4 direction. Although we are not going to vote against the clause, permitted development is not working as well in practice as the Minister suggests, for all the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton. I hope the Minister will consider whether the register is really necessary. If he got rid of all the permitted development, it would be unnecessary.
Gavin Barwell
I will keep my remarks brief because I think I already covered clause stand part in my earlier comments on the amendments. To rehearse those arguments, if we got rid of permitted development rights, we would be giving up the thousands of homes—we will find out exactly how many—that the policy has contributed in the nine quarters since it came into place. I repeat the point that I made earlier: if Opposition Members share our view that there is a desperate need to get this country building more homes, it seems strange to oppose a policy that is making a significant contribution to that aim. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Power to take temporary possession of land
Dr Blackman-Woods
I beg to move amendment 30, in clause 9, page 8, line 23, at end insert—
“(2A) The power of temporary possession of leasehold interests is not available if an interest would terminate within one year of the date on which the authority intends to hand back possession to the occupier.”
This amendment would establish a limitation on the temporary possession of leasehold interests.
Having been at the dizzy heights of permitted development, we turn to the really exciting bit of the Bill—the changes that the Government wish to make to the compulsory purchase order system. This is where we get particularly excited about the Government’s reading of the Lyons report, which recommended a major look at this country’s CPO system, with the particular intention of simplifying it and making it much easier for local government to operate.
Several of the people who gave evidence to the Committee seemed to suggest that the proposed changes to the compulsory purchase system were okay as far as they went, but that the Government could have used the opportunity provided by the Bill to do something much more substantial. However, people did express some concern about how the Government were taking simplification and rationalisation forward with regard to the power to take temporary possession in clause 9. Amendments 30 and 31 relate to temporary compulsory purchase, to which we do not object per se, but nevertheless we wonder whether, in pursuing the changes, the Minister should put in place further safeguards.
Some general concerns were expressed in the evidence received by the Committee about the interaction between temporary and permanent possessions. Witnesses just did not think that that had been suitably clarified. Richard Asher of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors told us:
“There is one area of difficulty: the danger that authorities may use powers to acquire land compulsorily when it is only required on a temporary basis. That interferes with long-term prospects for development by landowners, whose development plans are quite often disrupted by compulsory purchase on a temporary basis. That needs to be considered to ensure that authorities only acquire land on a temporary basis when it is required temporarily.”––[Official Report, Neighbourhood Planning Public Bill Committee, 18 October 2016; c. 61-62, Q113.]
Similarly, Colin Cottage from the Compulsory Purchase Association said:
“There is still the possibility of taking both temporary and permanent possession, and that will create uncertainty for people affected by it, because, even if there is a period of temporary possession, it may be converted at a future date to permanent possession and they will have no control over that.”––[Official Report, Neighbourhood Planning Public Bill Committee, 18 October 2016; c. 66, Q117.]
Amendment 30 is a probing amendment that seeks to gain some clarification on whether the Minister thinks there should be a limitation on the temporary possession of leasehold interests so that there may be a greater degree of certainty in this area for the landowner, for the local authority and, indeed, for any possible future developer.
Some specific problems seemed to emerge on the temporary possession of leasehold land. The CPA pointed to those concerns in its written evidence:
“We are concerned that there should be limitations on the power to acquire short leasehold or other subordinate interests because the Bill does not deal with the situation where a leaseholder remains responsible to the landlord for the use, repair and payment of rent under the lease but is not in control of the property whilst it is under temporary use. The area is complex and clarity of the relative parties’ obligations to each other must be clarified in a leasehold situation where temporary possession powers are exercised.”
That was reiterated by Colin Cottage of the CPA when he said that,
“there are practical issues with temporary possession that need to be dealt with, including the interrelationships between different tenures in land, how to deal with an occupier of land when that land is taken temporarily, and what to do if buildings have to be demolished and so on. Those issues can be overcome, but they need to be looked at carefully if the Bill is to come into law and to not cause, rather than solve, problems.”––[Official Report, Neighbourhood Planning Public Bill Committee, 18 October 2016; c. 62, Q113.]
Those problems might be experienced by either the landowners or the local authority.
I hope the Minister will be able to answer some of the questions about the nature of temporary possessions, particularly with regard to leaseholds, and whether there might be some limitation on the timeframe. More generally, it is clear from some of the evidence we received that CPO legislation needs serious reform. The witness from the RICS said:
“I believe, and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has always believed, that codification of the whole of the CPO rules, which go back to 1845 and are highly complex, would be a sensible way forward. I think the simplification of the rules for CPO would be a major step forward…I think the complexity often deters people—particularly local authorities, in my experience—from using CPO powers. It also results in a number of CPOs being refused or rejected by the courts because of the complexity of the rules that surround them.”––[Official Report, Neighbourhood Planning Public Bill Committee, 18 October 2016; c. 63, Q114.]
Gavin Barwell
We have now moved on to the CPO section of the Bill. A number of clauses relate to those provisions. Let me address a couple of the points that the hon. Lady made right at the outset.
The hon. Lady is right to say that several witnesses said that they would be interested to see a more fundamental reform of the CPO system, and I am certainly interested in talking to people about that, but I do not think that that should preclude some sensible reforms to simplify the system now, to make it clearer, fairer and faster. We can then have a longer-term debate about a more radical reform.
On whether more homes will be delivered, I do not think that anyone claims this particular reform to be a game changer. However, I believe that simplifying the system will make it easier for local authorities to make use of those powers. I speak from some experience because my own local authority recently embarked on a significant compulsory purchase order in relation to the redevelopment of the Whitgift Centre in the centre of Croydon.
Amendment 30 would amend clause 9, “Power to take temporary possession of land”, so it might help if I briefly explain the purpose of the clause. All acquiring authorities may need to enter and use land for a temporary period to help to deliver development for which they have made a compulsory purchase order; for example, they may require land to store construction materials for the scheme or to provide access to the construction site. At present, however, only certain acquiring authorities—such as those authorised under special Acts for very large schemes, such as the Crossrail Act 2008—have the compulsory power to occupy and use land on a temporary basis. Crucially, compulsory purchase orders cannot authorise temporary possession.
Clauses 9 to 21 will give all acquiring authorities the power to take temporary possession of land needed to deliver their scheme. At the same time, they will ensure that those whose land is taken are fairly compensated, and that appropriate safeguards are in place to protect their interests. The hon. Member for City of Durham quoted a witness who said that we needed to ensure that when land is required only temporarily, only a temporary occupation is taken. That is precisely why the clauses are in the Bill: to ensure that all acquiring authorities can take both permanent and temporary possession. Clause 9 sets out who may exercise the new power; essentially, everyone with the power to acquire land, either by compulsion or agreement, will have the power to take temporary possession of land for purposes associated with the development scheme for which they need compulsory acquisition.
I agree with the hon. Member for City of Durham that we need to ensure that the interests of leaseholders are adequately protected in introducing this power. However, I believe that amendment 30 is unnecessary, because we have already built in a safeguard that will deliver the outcome she is looking for but in a more flexible way. Her amendment would restrict the temporary possession power so that it could never be used if a leasehold interest had less than a year to run after the land was handed back. It is completely understandable why she wishes to do that, but her amendment would mean—this is quite complicated, so I hope Members will bear with me—that if the land was essential to the delivery of the scheme, the acquiring authority would have to seek to acquire the leasehold interest by compulsion. At the same time, given that there would still be a need to occupy the land on a temporary basis to implement the scheme, the authority would have to seek temporary possession of the freehold interest and any other longer leasehold interests in the same land. That would be contrary to the established principle that the authorising instrument deals with the need for the land, while the interests in the land are dealt with afterwards. It would make the authorising instrument more complicated, because it would have to deal with different interests in different ways for that plot of land. It would also restrict the leaseholder’s options, because they might be content for temporary possession to go ahead.
There is a problem and the hon. Lady has rightly put her finger on it, but we have tried to build in a safeguard that I believe will achieve the outcome she seeks in a different way. That safeguard is clause 12(3), which allows leaseholders who are not content with the situation to
“give the acquiring authority a counter-notice which provides that the authority may not take temporary possession of the land.”
On receipt of that counter-notice, if the land is essential to the delivery of the scheme, the acquiring authority will have to look into taking it permanently. That is a neater solution. because it will give leaseholders the flexibility to decide whether they are content with what the acquiring authority sought to do or whether they have concerns and want to serve a counter-notice. I therefore ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her amendment.
Before I take my seat, it might help if I briefly respond on a couple of wider issues that the hon. Lady raised in relation to clause 9 and to temporary possession in general. She is right to say that some witnesses questioned whether being able to take both temporary and compulsory acquisition over the same piece of land would work. The Government believe that there may be circumstances in which that is required. It would be for an acquiring authority to make the case to the confirming authority that it was necessary. For example, temporary possession of a large field might be needed for a working compound for construction of a pipeline, but compulsory acquisition of a small part of the field might be required on a permanent basis to install and then maintain the pipeline. Actually, there are some good historical examples. Compulsory purchase and temporary possession powers are often sought in relation to the same land in development consent orders. To give two examples, the docklands light railway extension and the Nottingham tram system both involved a mixture of those powers.
There was one other point that the hon. Lady referred to that I probably need to respond to. Her amendment deals with the issue of a minimum time—what happens to a leaseholder when they reacquire their land and there is less than a year left on the lease—but she was also probing about whether there should be a maximum period of time for which somebody could take temporary possession of land.
No maximum period is set in the legislation, because circumstances can vary a great deal from case to case; however, acquiring authorities must specify the total period of time for which they need temporary possession at the outset of the authorising instrument. The confirming authority will then consider whether the acquiring authority’s justification for the length of temporary possession is strong enough before deciding whether to authorise it. There are some safeguards built in. Both freeholders and leaseholders can serve a counter-notice on an acquiring authority, requiring them to limit the temporary possession period to 12 months when the land is part of a dwelling, or to six years in any other situation. Again, leaseholders have the ability to serve a counter-notice provided that the acquiring authority cannot take temporary possession of the land at all, in which case the acquiring authority would have to look at taking permanent possession.
This is a complicated area, but I hope I have been clear—maybe not.
Jim McMahon
I am not usually a suspicious person, but during that contribution there was a voice at the back of my head saying, “Is this all about fracking?” Is this about the Government’s newfound commitment to fracking and about trying to remove landowners’ rights, trying to create temporary compounds and trying to create opportunities to drill without going through the full and proper procedure? That may not be for today, but I would certainly appreciate the position on that in writing.
Gavin Barwell
I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman and provide him with a full response to that question. I can reassure him that these provisions do not come from that particular policy area. It was before my time—I am looking for inspiration—but I think I am right in saying that there were compulsory purchase provisions in the Housing and Planning Act 2016. It was in the discussion and debate around those provisions that these issues got raised, and that is why the Government are seeking to clarify the law in that regard. I will happily write to the hon. Gentleman and hope that I have now addressed the points that the hon. Lady raised, so I ask her to withdraw the amendment and hope the clause can stand part of the Bill.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I listened carefully to what the Minister had to say. I did emphasise that this is very much a probing amendment, testing whether the Minister and his Department had thought through some of the possible complexities that could arise with a temporary possession and a more permanent possession going through at the same time, and also some of the difficulties that might arise for landowners when a temporary possession is granted but they still have liabilities.
In the main, the Minister’s comments were quite reassuring. I am still not sure whether there is a need to have an overall time limit on temporary possession, to make sure that local authorities do not use it as a way of letting things run forward without having to put a full application for a CPO in place. I want to think about that; I will do so and will consult the Compulsory Purchase Association. For the moment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Procedure for authorising temporary possession etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Gavin Barwell
It is clearly important that where an acquiring authority wishes to exercise the temporary possession power, it is subject to proper scrutiny, and that those with an interest in the land that will be affected have the opportunity to put forward their views. The clause achieves that by requiring the case for temporary possession to be set out in the same type of authorising instrument as the associated compulsory purchase—for example, in a compulsory purchase order or in a development consent order. It will then be subject to the same procedures for authorising and challenging it as the compulsory acquisition. That means that if, for example, a planning inspector holds a public inquiry to consider the CPO before it is decided whether the order should be confirmed, the public inquiry will also need to consider whether the temporary possession power should be authorised.
The clause sets out which information must be included in the authorising instrument—for example, the purpose for which the acquiring authority needs temporary possession of the land and, as I have previously mentioned, the total period of time for which temporary possession is required.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Notice requirements
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Gavin Barwell
The clause requires acquiring authorities to give at least three months’ notice of their intention to enter and take temporary possession of the land. It will ensure that those affected have sufficient time to put in place any necessary arrangements—for example, to move livestock. The measure is a minimum requirement, and acquiring authorities will be able to give more notice where they consider it appropriate. The notice must specify how long the temporary possession will last, and a separate notice must be served for each period of temporary possession.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Jackie Doyle-Price.)
Neighbourhood Planning Bill (Seventh sitting)
Thursday 27th October 2016
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesNeighbourhood Planning Act 2017 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 27 October 2016 - (27 Oct 2016)
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 31, in clause 12, page 10, line 10, leave out “6” and insert “3”
This amendment would reduce the length of time that an acquiring authority can take temporary possession of land.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. Amendment 31 would reduce the length of time that an acquiring authority can take temporary possession of land for. It is very similar to amendment 30, in that it aims to provide a degree more certainty for owners about what temporary possession means. At present, the Bill states that the amount of time that an owner—defined as having either a freehold or leasehold interest in the land—can limit temporary possession to by means of a counter-notice is 12 months where the land is or is part of a dwelling and six years in any other case, or else the acquiring authority must take further action.
The amendment would allow owners to limit the amount of time that land can be temporarily possessed, where it is not a dwelling, to three rather than six years. Our position reflects that of the Compulsory Purchase Association, which said in evidence,
“we feel that, for freehold owners, six years is too long. Three years as a maximum is better. Notwithstanding that, the ability to serve counter-notices is correct and encouraging to development.”
I want to stress that point to the Minister. It is not the counter-notice period as such that we have a problem with, but the length of it. The CPA went on:
“Six years is quite a long period. If a business is dispossessed of its property for six years, that is effectively almost as good as a permanent dispossession”.––[Official Report, Neighbourhood Planning Public Bill Committee, 18 October 2016; c. 66, Q117.]
If a business is away from its premises for six years, it will essentially have to completely restart the business somewhere else. One would assume that it will feel much more like a permanent relocation if it is away in excess of five years.
The IPD UK lease events review 2015, which was sponsored by Strutt and Parker and the British Property Federation, pointed to short-term leases of five years or less being particularly desirable for smaller commercial leases, stating:
“Flexibility remains key for many tenants, despite the lengthening of commercial leases, with 73% of total leases signed so far in 2015 for a term of between one and five years.”
Allowing counter-notices to be served that limit temporary possession to three years, rather than six, relates more directly to the reality of a lease’s lifespan, particularly for a small business. The whole point here is that if a lot of leases are five years in length and businesses are required to move for six years, it is very likely that a substantial number of those businesses will have lost the lease on the original premises and had to take out a lease on wherever they relocate to, for five years or even longer.
We are trying to find out why the length of time is being set at six years. What research did the Government do to come up with that period? Have they any plans to meet the CPA or representatives of small businesses who may be particularly affected by the measures in clause 12? Do they have any plans to review how the clause is operating in practice, and particularly whether it is producing problems for small businesses?
The Minister will probably say that only a small number of businesses would be affected by the relevant type of compulsory purchase, that the balance is right and that the provision should therefore remain. I am sure he is right that the clause will not be used in many instances. Nevertheless it is a critical matter for the businesses that are affected. We would not want the clause to result in businesses moving from a high street or an important position in the community and not being able to come back, so that there would be blight further down the line. I hope that the Minister has got the drift of our argument.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Bone.
The amendment is entirely legitimate as a way of probing why the Government have arrived at the figure in question. It may help if I explain the purpose of clause 12 before I discuss the amendment, because some of the provisions will, I think, help to reassure members of the Committee.
The Government recognise that in certain circumstances taking temporary possession of land may be at least as disruptive as permanent acquisition. Clause 12 therefore provides an important additional safeguard to protect the interests of those whose land is subject to temporary possession. I say “additional” because any proposal for temporary possession of land must be authorised in the same way as compulsory purchase.
Clause 12(2) allows the owner of a freehold, or a leaseholder with the right to occupation, to serve a counter-notice requiring the authority to limit the period of possession to 12 months for a dwelling or six years for other land. That ability to serve a counter-notice on implementation of temporary possession is a further check and balance, in addition to scrutiny during the confirmation process.
Under clause 12(3) leaseholders—who are, I think, the people in whom the hon. Member for City of Durham was particularly interested—will also have the option to serve a counter-notice providing that the acquiring authority may not take temporary possession of their interest in the land at all. In those circumstances the acquiring authority must either do without the land or acquire the leasehold interest permanently.
Where a counter-notice is served under clause 12(2) the acquiring authority will have to decide whether the limited possession period sought by the landowner is workable for the acquiring authority at that time, or whether permanent possession is necessary. Alternatively, the acquiring authority may conclude that it does not need to take temporary possession of the land in question; for example, it might alter its construction plans.
Where the acquiring authority opts for acquisition of the land, subsection (9) provides for the standard material detriment provisions to apply. That means that if only part of a person’s land is acquired, but the retained land would be less useful or valuable as a result of part of the land being acquired, a further counter-notice may be served requiring the authority to purchase all the land.
I hope that the Committee can see that there are a number of safeguards, including time limits that can be placed on periods of temporary possession of a leasehold interest; I think that that is the issue about which the Opposition are particularly concerned. It is possible to say, in that case, “If it is going to be for that length of time we do not want temporary possession at all, and you either need to take permanent possession or do nothing at all.” Also, if possession is taken of part of a site and that will have an impact on the rest of the site, there are provisions to require the whole site to be taken.
The amendment, as the hon. Lady explained, would limit the period of temporary possession of land not occupied by dwellings to three years, rather than the six specified in the Bill. I entirely appreciate why she tabled the amendment; it was, I think, out of a determination, which I share, to ensure that those whose land is subject to temporary possession are properly protected.
The limit of six years is designed to give those affected greater certainty about the total period that non-dwelling land can be subject to temporary possession. Restricting the temporary possession period to three years would limit the usefulness of this new power and may drive acquiring authorities down the route of compulsory purchase in certain circumstances where that would be unnecessary. There are some schemes—one example not too far from us here is the Thames Tideway tunnel—where the temporary possession of land has been required for longer periods than the three years in the amendment.
There needs to be a balance between giving acquiring authorities the power they need to deliver their schemes and ensuring that the interests of those whose land is taken on a temporary basis are protected. The Government believe that six years strikes the right balance. In many cases the temporary possession will be for far less than six years. In the case of the Thames Tideway tunnel, the maximum length of temporary possession is eight years, so the acquiring authority would have to decide to permanently acquire the land.
As the Bill continues its progress through Parliament, I am happy to consider any evidence that Opposition Members or interested parties are able to provide that suggests the six-year figure does not achieve the correct balance. I can also reassure the hon. Member for City of Durham that even if the legislation is passed in its current form, the Government will keep the time limit under review as the new power begins to take effect, because the regulation-making power in clause 19 would allow us to make changes to the time limit without having to come back to the House with further primary legislation.
I hope I have given significant reassurance. On that basis, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her amendment.
The Chair
The Minister has kindly set out what clause 12 is all about, so there will be no separate stand part debate. If anyone wants to speak on stand part, now is the time to do it.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I thank the Minister for his largely helpful response. It is useful to point out that a counter-notice can try to remove possession being taken at all. It is quite a drastic measure to ask local businesses to enter into a lengthy and difficult process. However, it is worth stressing that that option is open to them, as is trying to suggest that possession should be for only a part of the site. Again, that could be helpful.
I listened carefully to what the Minister said about reducing the total period of temporary possession to three years. I am very pleased that the Minister said he would keep that under review. He did not address the fact that a lot of leases for businesses are five years, and that requiring them to move for six years is effectively a permanent removal to a new location for them. However, I heard what the Minister said about keeping the matter under review and seeking evidence from people who have a specific interest in this area. It was a very helpful response. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13
Refusal to give up possession
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Gavin Barwell
The clauses deal with compensation and other matters related to the temporary possession power. Clause 13 is relatively straightforward. It ensures that where someone refuses to give up possession of the land, the acquiring authority can take steps to gain possession by ensuring that the existing enforcement provisions for compulsory acquisition cases, which enable an acquiring authority to use a sheriff or officer of the court to enforce possession by a warrant, also apply to temporary possession cases.
Clauses 14 to 16 set out how the compensation provisions will work to ensure that those whose land is subject to temporary possession are fairly compensated for the disruption caused. Clause 14 provides that the claimants will be entitled to compensation for any loss or injury that they sustain as a result of the temporary possession. The compensation payable will reflect the rental value of the leasehold interest in the land. Where the claimant is operating a trade or business on the land, they will be entitled to compensation for disturbance of that trade or business.
Dr Blackman-Woods
How will the Secretary of State know that he has to give a direction, in a particular case, about what temporary possession can be used for?
Gavin Barwell
I imagine—although I will happily write to the hon. Lady if inspiration arises subsequently suggesting that I have got this wrong—that it would be a situation in which a dispute had arisen about the use that the land was put to and where there was a question of whether that would have an effect on the long-term interests of someone on the land. The casework would end up on the Secretary of State’s desk and give him the power to make a ruling to that effect. If there are other points that I have not mentioned, I will write to the hon. Lady and members of the Committee to clarify.
Clause 20 simply provides meanings for some of the words used in the earlier temporary possession clauses. Finally, clause 21 provides that the temporary possession power can be exercised in relation to Crown land, subject to the acquiring authority obtaining the consent of the appropriate authority.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I repeat my declaration of interest as a member of Oldham Council, as on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I am asking for clarity, because the measure states that compensation will be made for the period of occupation or possession of the land, and that subsequent compensatory payments will be made for any loss or injury suffered. In one possible scenario, however, if farmland was taken possession of, unforeseen costs might be incurred. For example, if the planting season occurred before occupation, a poor harvest might be the result of occupation, so how would the compensation payment work in such circumstances?
Gavin Barwell
Again, it is better that I write to the hon. Gentleman, rather than giving an answer on the spot. I guess he is asking about when some detriment has been done to the long-term interest in the land by the period of temporary occupation and how that is catered for.
Gavin Barwell
Exactly; if it is discovered afterwards. I will write to the hon. Gentleman to answer his point, rather than speculating now.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 14 to 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22
No-scheme principle
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Clauses 23 to 30 stand part.
New clause 13—Review of compulsory purchase—
(1) Before exercising his powers under section 35(1) the Secretary of State must carry out a review of the entire compulsory purchase order process.
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the entire compulsory purchase order process.
Gavin Barwell
I will now run through the remaining compulsory purchase measures in the Bill. Clause 22 is the key measure of all the CPO measures in the Bill. It wipes the slate clean of more than 100 years of sometimes conflicting statute and case law about how compensation should be assessed, and it establishes a clear, new statutory framework for doing so.
The core principle of compulsory purchase compensation, which is not altered by the Bill, is that the land should be acquired at market value in the absence of the scheme underlying the compulsory purchase. Any increase or decrease in land values arising from the scheme is therefore disregarded for the purposes of assessing compensation.
The problem is that since the “no-scheme world” principle was first established, it has been interpreted in a number of complex and sometimes contradictory ways. That lack of clarity can make negotiations over the level of compensation difficult, resulting in unnecessary delays. The clause will therefore clarify the position by creating a statutory no-scheme principle and setting out a series of clear rules to establish the methodology of valuation in the no-scheme world.
The clause will also extend the definition of the scheme to include relevant transport projects where they have made the regeneration or redevelopment scheme that is the subject of the compulsory purchase possible. I will say more about that later. The Committee will be delighted to hear that I will not go through the clause line by line, but focus on a few key points.
Subsection (3) will replace sections 6 to 9 of the Land Compensation Act 1961, which set out how the scheme is to be disregarded when assessing compensation. Proposed section 6A in the Land Compensation Act will maintain the fundamental principle that any increases or decreases in value caused by the scheme, or the prospect of the scheme, should be disregarded, and lists the assumptions to be made. If there is a dispute about compensation and the parties have to go to the Upper Tribunal to resolve it, proposed section 6D clarifies how to identify the scheme that must be disregarded.
The default position is set out in proposed section 6D(1): that the scheme to be disregarded means the scheme of development underlying the compulsory acquisition—usually the current compulsory purchase order. If an acquiring authority wants to assert to the Tribunal that a scheme to be disregarded covers a larger area than the underlying scheme of development, it can do so only if that was identified at the outset in the authorising instrument or associated documents, when the acquiring authority started the compulsory purchase process. I hope that is clear.
In proposed section 6D(2) we have replicated the current special provisions for new towns and urban development areas. This special status means that all development within these designated areas forms part of the scheme to be disregarded, so the value of later acquisitions within a new town area will not be influenced by earlier developments within that area. We have extended this special provision to mayoral development areas as well.
We have also made special provision where regeneration or redevelopment schemes have been made possible only by relevant transport projects. I said I would say a few more words about this. New transport projects will often raise land values around nodes or hubs—HS2 is a good example. Where that makes regeneration or redevelopment attractive, but the private sector is unable to bring a scheme forward, public authorities might have to step in by using their compulsory purchase powers to help bring forward the regeneration.
In those circumstances, when assessing the compensation that people might receive if their property is acquired through compulsion by a public authority, the regeneration or redevelopment scheme will be able to include the relevant transport projects as part of the scheme to be disregarded in the no-scheme world. This is a complicated area of law, so let me try to make it as clear as possible. What that means is that the land will be valued without the uplift caused by the public investment in the transport project. This is one of only two bits in the Bill that change the compensation people might get if some of their property is subject to compulsory purchase.
The provision is subject to some very important safeguards to ensure that it is proportionate and fair to all. They are as follows. The prospect of regeneration or redevelopment must have been included in the initial published justification for the relevant transport project. In other words, an acquiring authority could not come along to a piece of land that had been improved by a transport project 20 or 30 years ago, when no mention of this redevelopment happened, and use this legislation to try to drive down the price of compensation. The instrument authorising the compulsory acquisition must have been made or prepared in draft on, or after, the day on which this provision comes into force. The regeneration or redevelopment scheme must be in the vicinity of the relevant transport project. The relevant transport project must be open for use no earlier than five years after this provision comes into force—they must not be existing schemes. Any compulsory purchase for regeneration or redevelopment must be authorised within five years of the relevant transport project first coming into use.
Importantly, if the owner acquired the land after plans for the relevant transport project were announced, but before 8 September 2016—the date on which we announced we were going to do this—the underlying scheme will not be treated as though it included the relevant transport project. In other words, the provision should not be retrospective for people who acquired the land before they might have known the Government were going to change the law in this way.
I recognise that extending the definition of the scheme in this way will mean that some claimants receive less compensation than might otherwise have been the case. However, I hope that the Committee shares my view that it is right that the public, rather than private interests, benefit from public investment into major transport projects. Having increased neighbouring land values by providing new or improved transport links, the public sector should not then have to pay more when acquiring land for subsequent development that was envisaged when that transport project was announced, and would not otherwise have been possible. The provision will ensure that the public purse does not have to pay the landowner land values inflated by previous investment that the public sector has already made.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I thank the Minister for his helpful run-through of the CPO clauses in the Bill. I have a couple of specific questions about clause 22, but I want to say at the outset that those are probing questions because we agree with the overall thrust of the clause. I think that the Minister has taken some tentative steps down the road of socialism in protecting the public interest in the way that might happen under the clause. We absolutely agree with the broad intention of the clause. It is right that it applies to new towns and mayoral developments, and to an extent to transport, to try to facilitate, in particular, the larger scale development that is very much needed. Nevertheless, there are a few questions about how compensation will be decided under proposed section 6D(2) to (4), which is what my questions specifically relate to. At the moment it does not look as though any claims under the proposed section can be referred to the Upper Tribunal. If that is not the correct interpretation, perhaps the Minister will clarify that.
We know that the no-scheme principle is central to a fair assessment of compensation and that the scope of the disregarded scheme must be appropriate so that proper compensation is paid. The Government have included proposed section 6D(5) under clause 22 to safeguard the public purse in circumstances where it is appropriate to disregard a wider scheme. Where the appropriateness of doing so is challenged, the Upper Tribunal is empowered to determine the matter. Can the Minister explain what safeguards exist where a scheme is extended instead under proposed section 6D(2) to (4), where the recourse to the Upper Tribunal does not exist and all qualifying schemes, regardless of merit or circumstances, will be extended as a matter of law? I am sure that he has sensible reasons for including them but, to ensure that there is confidence out there in the development sector, we might need to hear a little more about why that is the case—if indeed it is the case.
Does the Minister agree that, as desirable as it is to recover the benefits of public investment, such recovery should be made from all those who benefit and should not discriminate against those who are already bearing the impact of losing their homes or businesses to make way for the scheme? The extension of the scope of the scheme in proposed section 6D(2) to (4) without any appeal or consideration of the facts of a case means that there could be injustice to homeowners and small businesses as well as investors and developers that own land affected by such schemes. It goes beyond ensuring fair compensation, which is assured by proposed section 6D(5).
My point is that the Government must avoid poorly targeted policies to recover the benefit of public investment and must introduce separately a properly considered mechanism that might build on existing schemes such as the tax incremental funding and community infrastructure levy schemes, which properly focus the recovery of value from past and future public investment.
Those are my questions for the Minister. As I have said, we agree very much with the basic provisions of clause 22, but there is perhaps a need to put something else into the public record about why they are being introduced in the way they are. Perhaps he should look at the limitations for appeal under proposed section 6D(2) to (4). Does he think anything more needs to be done, or will the scheme as outlined put in place appropriate safeguards for those who might be concerned about the extension of the wider scheme, in particular, and the extension to transport? Overall, we can see the rationale for the Government wanting to do that.
I move on to new clause 13. We have had a helpful discussion about CPO. We had a rather lengthier discussion about CPO during the passage of what is now the Housing and Planning Act 2016. I also looked at CPO powers under the previous Government’s Infrastructure Act 2015. Having recognised that CPO powers and the legislation underpinning them are very complex, we are in danger of the Government going on with the process of simply amending CPO powers and tinkering with the system, making it more complex, I suspect, rather than less. However, there seems to be a view across all parties that we need to review this in its entirety and bring forward a much more consolidated and rationalised piece of legislation that will be much easier for local authorities and developers to get their heads around.
Unfortunately, I do not have with me the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015. The last time I asked the Government to introduce a piece of consolidated legislation on permitted development, I did not think I was going to get 167 pages in return, plus an additional 12 pages a couple of months ago, separate from that order, so I have some anxieties in proposing this new clause.
CPO legislation goes back a very long way—I think to 1845, with parts of that legislation still used—and it might be about time to think of consolidating it. We are not the only ones to think so. Colin Cottage from the CPA—which is the Compulsory Purchase Association, not the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, although that might have an interest in CPO—told the Committee:
“The existing system is not helpful for reaching quick solutions. In fact, in many ways it encourages people to be fighting with each other from the outset. Ultimately, that increases the uncertainty, conflict and cost. That is really the issue that we have to look to address in order to give ourselves a more streamlined system.”––[Official Report, Neighbourhood Planning Public Bill Committee, 18 October 2016; c. 64, Q114.]
Richard Asher from the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors said:
“I believe, and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has always believed, that codification of the whole of the CPO rules, which go back to 1845 and are highly complex, would be a sensible way forward. I think the simplification of the rules for CPO would be a major step forward…I think the complexity often deters people—particularly local authorities, in my experience—from using CPO powers. It also results in a number of CPOs being refused or rejected by the courts because of the complexity of the rules that surround them.”––[Official Report, Neighbourhood Planning Public Bill Committee, 18 October 2016; c. 63, Q114.]
If ever there were an argument for simplifying, rationalising, streamlining and consolidating a bit of legislation, surely it is that the courts, simply because they are finding the legislation too difficult and complex, are throwing out what might be bona fide requests for a CPO.
Gavin Barwell
I will begin by answering some of the hon. Lady’s detailed questions and then come on to the principles behind the amendment. I think she had three questions; I was not quite clear on the first, so I will deal with the other two and then see if I understood the first question correctly.
The hon. Lady’s third question was about ensuring that everybody benefits from an uplift in land values as a result of Government public investment in the scheme and that there is a way of capturing back some of that uplift. To a degree, she answered her own question: under current policy, CIL is the main mechanism by which we seek to capture some of the uplift when development is given, so that a contribution can be made to necessary improvements within a community area, a new infrastructure or whatever is required. She will be aware that I have on my desk a review by Liz Peace and her team of CIL and issues relating to section 106 contributions. We are considering that review and will respond to it in our White Paper later this year. The hon. Lady’s point that it is legitimate for the state to capture some of that uplift is absolutely valid; we need to think about the best mechanism for doing that.
I believe that the hon. Lady’s second question was on arguments about the definition of the scheme, what it constituted and whether the upper tribunal had a role. Have I understood her correctly?
Dr Blackman-Woods
It was whether the widening of the scheme under proposed section 6D(2) to (4) of the Land Compensation Act 1961 could be referred to the upper tribunal under proposed section 6D(5).
Gavin Barwell
The answer is a simple yes. Proposed new section 6D(5) states:
“If there is a dispute as to what is to be taken to be the scheme…then, for the purposes of this section, the underlying scheme is to be identified by the Upper Tribunal”,
so the answer is a simple yes.
I think the hon. Lady’s first question was about the wider role of the upper tribunal in dealing with compensation disputes. She was concerned that there were some other areas that could not go to the upper tribunal. We believe the answer is that they can, but I may not have captured her question correctly. Would she reiterate in which particular cases she was worried that people could not go to the upper tribunal?
Dr Blackman-Woods
It was the schemes referred to in proposed new section 6D(2) to (4), and whether compensation arrangements could be determined under proposed new section 6D(5).
Gavin Barwell
The answer is a definite yes.
If Mr Bone is feeling particularly generous, he might let me answer hon. Members’ earlier questions, but he may prefer me to write to them rather than going back to a previous debate.
Gavin Barwell
Inspiration has arrived. Clause 19 gives the power to make regulations limiting or making particular provision about temporary possession; the hon. Member for City of Durham asked for some guidance about how those powers might be used. The Government’s thinking is that it could be about particular types of land, such as open spaces, commons or National Trust land. We might want to give particular thought to classes of land in which the provisions might not apply.
In the agricultural example given by the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton, the losses would be assessed as a claim for loss or injury under clause 14(2), so the answer is that it is covered. Thank you for allowing me to clarify those two matters, Mr Bone.
I have some sympathy with the points made by the hon. Member for City of Durham. As we touched on in an earlier debate, the evidence we heard showed that there was definitely a strong desire out there for simplification of the CPO rules. We believe that the Bill contributes to that, particularly by clarifying in statute how the no-scheme world principle works, but also by removing the uncertainty that I referred to about people’s ability to come back and make subsequent claims for compensation based on subsequent planning applications. There are definitely measures in the Bill that deliver some of the simplification that people want, but the hon. Lady is right that some people who gave us evidence said that maybe we need a fundamental rethink of the whole thing. I certainly do not have a closed mind on that.
The Law Commission has looked at this area of law. To a degree, what the Government did in the Housing and Planning Act 2016 and what they are doing in this Bill reflects the advice of the Law Commission. Compulsory purchase is probably an area on which it is easier to say, “We need a fundamental reform,” than to develop consensus on what that fundamental reform should be. I am certainly not opposed to that in principle.
What I would like to do, if the Committee is agreeable, is to implement these reforms, around which there is a good degree of consensus. Let us see what impact they have on speeding up CPOs; hopefully they will make it easier for people to use and undertake them. At that point, we can consider the hon. Lady’s suggestion. There is something that I do not like doing, although I accept that I may be in a slightly different position from other members of the Committee. I have become very conscious, in just the three months I have been doing this job, of how easy it is for Parliament to write into legislation, “The Government must review this” and “The Government must review that.” A huge amount of civil service time is then taken up with undertaking those reviews.
We keep all our policies under review and based on the evidence all the time. However, something that has been said to me consistently by people across the housing world—large developers, smaller developers, people working in local authority planning departments and housing associations—is that people are looking for consistency of policy. Therefore, my ambition, if possible, is to set out in the White Paper a strategy for how we can get the country building the number of homes that we need, to listen to what people have to say in response to the White Paper and to implement it. I would then like to try—this is an ambitious thing for a politician to say—to have a period of policy stability during which we get on and implement the strategy that we have set out, rather than introducing changes every single year.
I do not want to be unsympathetic to the hon. Lady because her new clause just reflects the fact that some people have said, “Could we look at a more radical thing on CPO?” If, over time, there were a growing consensus about how that might be done, I would not close my ears to it. However, I do not want to write into this legislation a statutory requirement on the Government to conduct such a review when I am clear that my officials will have a huge piece of work on their hands dealing with the White Paper and the responses to it, and then implementing the strategy. I hope that I have explained my position without being in any way unsympathetic to the principle of the hon. Lady’s point.
The Chair
It might be helpful to right hon. and hon. Members to understand a couple of technical things that happened there. First, we are appreciative of the Minister going back to earlier matters. It is my belief that it is better to have answers given on the record, rather than by letter.
The second point is that new clause 13 has been spoken to in this group because it is about CPO, but it is not being moved at this stage, so it cannot be withdrawn. It will be up to the shadow Minister whether she wants to move that clause when we reach it later. As nobody else wishes to speak, we can move on.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 22 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 23 to 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 31
Financial provisions
Gavin Barwell
I will try to be brief. Clauses 31 to 33 make standard provision in relation to expenditure incurred, consequential provision that can be made and any regulations that may be passed by virtue of the provisions in the Bill.
Clause 31 provides spending authorisation for any expenditure incurred in consequence of the Bill. That is necessary, for example, in relation to the provisions in part 2, which provide for the circumstances where public authorities may be liable to pay compensation—and, in some cases, interest on that compensation—to persons who have an interest in or a right to occupy land that is compulsorily acquired or subject to temporary possession.
Clause 32 confers a power on the Secretary of State to make such consequential provision as is considered appropriate for the purposes of the Bill. A number of consequential changes are made by the Bill, including those flowing from: the addition of a new procedure for modifying neighbourhood plans; the changes to restrict the imposition of planning conditions; and the amendments to compulsory purchase legislation. Despite aiming for perfection, it is possible that not all such consequential changes have been identified. As such, it is prudent for the Bill to contain a power to deal in secondary legislation with any further necessary amendments that come to light.
Clause 33 makes provision for the parliamentary procedure that applies to any regulations made under any delegated powers set out in the Bill. The majority of delegated powers in the Bill will be subject to the negative procedure, but there are two exceptions. First, any regulations made under clause 19(1) that set out further provision in relation to temporary possession—the hon. Lady asked me about this, and inspiration arrived to answer her—will be subject to the affirmative procedure. That is because the nature of the power to take temporary possession, which interferes with property rights, and the public interest in compulsory powers over land merit a higher level of parliamentary scrutiny.
Secondly, any consequential amendments that amend primary legislation under clause 32(1), which I was just talking about, will also be subject to the affirmative procedure. That is to ensure that any further changes that might be necessary to Acts of Parliament that have previously been subject to the full parliamentary process are appropriately scrutinised. In plain English, if we have missed anything and we need to use clause 32 to deal with that, it would be inappropriate to do that through the negative procedure. Parliament should have the opportunity to properly debate any changes that have been made.
In conclusion, the clauses make standard an essential provision that is necessary to ensure that the measures in the Bill can be commenced.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 32 and 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 34
Extent
Gavin Barwell
I beg to move amendment 24, in clause 34, page 26, line 38, leave out “subsections (2) and” and insert “subsection”.
This amendment and amendment 25 provide for the repeal of section 141(5A) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 in clause 23(3) to extend to England and Wales only. Although section 141 generally extends to Scotland, subsection (5A) only extends to England and Wales, so its repeal should only extend there.
Gavin Barwell
As a demonstration that perfection is not always possible, amendments 24 and 25 are technical amendments to clause 34, which is the standard extent clause of the Bill. In other words, it is the clause that says which parts of the United Kingdom the legislation applies to. They are necessary to correct a drafting error.
As currently drafted, clause 34 provides that clause 23(3), which makes a consequential amendment as part of the repeal of part 4 of the Land Compensation Act 1961, extends to England, Wales and Scotland. That is incorrect, as the measures in the Bill, with the exception of the final provisions, should extend to England and Wales only.
Clause 23(3) is a consequential provision that repeals subsection (5A) of section 141 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. That provides that part 4 of the 1961 Act does not apply to urban development corporations. Although the 1980 Act extends to Scotland, section 141(5A) extends only to England and Wales. That is how the mistake was made.
Although leaving clause 34 without amendment would have no practical effect, it would be beneficial to correct it to avoid any potential confusion about the territorial extent of the Bill as it proceeds through Parliament. Making the correction will mean that the extent clause of the Bill will correctly reflect that the substantive measures in the Bill extend only to England and Wales. I hope that is clear; I have done my best to make it so.
Amendment 24 agreed to.
Amendment made: 25, in clause 34, page 26, line 39, leave out subsection (2).—(Gavin Barwell.)
See the explanatory statement for amendment 24.
Clause 34, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 35
Commencement
Gavin Barwell
I beg to move amendment 26, in clause 35, page 27, line 8, after “3”, insert
“, (Power to direct preparation of joint local development documents)”
The amendment provides for the regulation-making powers conferred by NC4 to come into force on the passing of the Act resulting from the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 4—Power to direct preparation of joint development plan documents—
(1) The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 28 insert—
“28A Power to direct preparation of joint development plan documents
(1) The Secretary of State may direct two or more local planning authorities to prepare a joint development plan document.
(2) The Secretary of State may give a direction under this section in relation to a document whether or not it is specified in the local development schemes of the local planning authorities in question as a document which is to be prepared jointly with one or more other local planning authorities.
(3) The Secretary of State may give a direction under this section only if the Secretary of State considers that to do so will facilitate the more effective planning of the development and use of land in the area of one or more of the local planning authorities in question.
(4) A direction under this section may specify—
(a) the area to be covered by the joint development plan document to which the direction relates;
(b) the matters to be covered by that document;
(c) the timetable for preparation of that document.
(5) The Secretary of State must, when giving a direction under this section, notify the local planning authorities to which it applies of the reasons for giving it.
(6) If the Secretary of State gives a direction under this section, the Secretary of State may direct the local planning authorities to which it is given to amend their local development schemes so that they cover the joint development plan document to which it relates.
(7) A joint development plan document is a development plan document which is, or is required to be, prepared jointly by two or more local planning authorities pursuant to a direction under this section.
28B Application of Part to joint development plan documents
(1) This Part applies for the purposes of any step which may be or is required to be taken in relation to a joint development plan document as it applies for the purposes of any step which may be or is required to be taken in relation to a development plan document.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) anything which must be done by or in relation to a local planning authority in connection with a development plan document must be done by or in relation to each of the authorities mentioned in section 28A(1) in connection with a joint development plan document .
(3) If the authorities mentioned in section 28A(1) include a London borough council or a Mayoral development corporation, the requirements of this Part in relation to the spatial development strategy also apply.
(4) Those requirements also apply if—
(a) a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 has the function of preparing the spatial development strategy for the combined authority’s area, and
(b) the authorities mentioned in section 28A(1) include a local planningauthority whose area is within, or is the same as, the area of the combined authority.
28C Modification or withdrawal of direction under section 28A
(1) The Secretary of State may modify or withdraw a direction under section 28A by notice in writing to the authorities to which it was given.
(2) The Secretary of State must, when modifying or withdrawing a direction under section 28A, notify the local planning authorities to which it was given of the reasons for the modification or withdrawal.
(3) The following provisions of this section apply if—
(a) the Secretary of State withdraws a direction under section 28A, or
(b) the Secretary of State modifies a direction under that section so that it ceases to apply to one or more of the local planning authorities to which it was given.
(4) Any step taken in relation to the joint development plan document to which the direction related is to be treated as a step taken by—
(a) a local planning authority to which the direction applied for the purposes of any corresponding document prepared by them, or
(b) two or more local planning authorities to which the direction applied for the purposes of any corresponding joint development plan document prepared by them.
(5) Any independent examination of a joint development plan document to which the direction related must be suspended.
(6) If before the end of the period prescribed for the purposes of this subsection a local planning authority to which the direction applied request the Secretary of State to do so, the Secretary of State may direct that—
(a) the examination is resumed in relation to—
(i) any corresponding document prepared by a local planning authority to which the direction applied, or
(ii) any corresponding joint development plan document prepared by two or more local planning authorities to which the direction applied, and
(b) any step taken for the purposes of the suspended examination has effect for the purposes of the resumed examination.
(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to what is a corresponding document or a corresponding joint development plan document for the purposes of this section.”
(3) In section 21 (intervention by Secretary of State) after subsection (11) insert—
“(12) In the case of a joint local development document or a joint development plan document, the Secretary of State may apportion liability for the expenditure on such basis as the Secretary of State thinks just between the local planning authorities who have prepared the document.”
(4) In section 27 (Secretary of State’s default powers) after subsection (9) insert—
“(10) In the case of a joint local development document or a joint development plan document, the Secretary of State may apportion liability for the expenditure on such basis as the Secretary of State thinks just between the local planning authorities for whom the document has been prepared.”
(5) Section 28 (joint local development documents) is amended in accordance with subsections (6) and (7).
(6) In subsection (9) for paragraph (a) substitute—
“(a) the examination is resumed in relation to—
(i) any corresponding document prepared by an authority which were a party to the agreement, or
(ii) any corresponding joint local development document prepared by two or more other authorities which were parties to the agreement;”.
(7) In subsection (11) (meaning of “corresponding document”) at the end insert “or a corresponding joint local development document for the purposes of this section.”
(8) In section 37 (interpretation) after subsection (5B) insert—
“(5C) Joint local development document must be construed in accordance with section 28(10).
(5D) Joint development plan document must be construed in accordance with section 28A(7). ”
(9) Schedule A1 (default powers exercisable by Mayor of London, combined authority and county council) is amended in accordance with subsections (10) and (11).
(10) In paragraph 3 (powers exercised by the Mayor of London) after sub-paragraph (3) insert—
“(4) In the case of a joint local development document or a joint development plan document, the Mayor may apportion liability for the expenditure on such basis as the Mayor thinks just between the councils for whom the document has been prepared.”
(11) In paragraph 7 (powers exercised by combined authority) after sub-paragraph (3) insert—
“(4) In the case of a joint local development document or a joint development plan document, the combined authority may apportion liability for the expenditure on such basis as the authority considers just between the authorities for whom the document has been prepared.”
This new clause enables the Secretary of State to give a direction requiring two or more local planning authorities to prepare a joint development plan document. It also makes provision about the consequences of withdrawal or modification of such a direction.
Amendment (a) to Government new clause 4, in proposed new subsection (12) of section 21 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, at end insert
“after consulting with the local authorities concerned.”
Gavin Barwell
If I may, before I turn to the specific amendment, I would like to make introductory remarks about the amendments that we are debating here, and the next couple, which sit together, to a degree, in policy terms, although we shall debate them separately. This is really about our proposed approach to ensuring that all communities benefit from the certainty and clarity that a local plan can provide. I hope that what I say will provide helpful context.
The planning system is at the heart of the Government’s plans to boost housing supply. It is not the only thing that we need to do to build more homes; but certainly, one of the crucial ingredients of the strategy that we shall set out in the White Paper will be to release enough land in the right parts of the country to meet housing need. However, rather than having a top-down system in which central Government decide where the housing goes, the Government passionately believe in a bottom-up system where communities take the decisions. There is one caveat: that councillors should not be able to duck taking the tough decisions. In my view, my role in the system is to ensure that each community in the country takes the necessary decisions to meet housing need. How they do it should be a matter for them.
A second objective, looking at the matter from the viewpoint of those who want to build homes, is that the planning system should give them certainty about where the homes can be built, and where they should not try to build homes. That is why we have a longstanding commitment to a local plan-led system, which identifies what development is needed in an area, and sets out where it should and should not go, and so provides certainty for those who want to invest.
Local planning authorities have had more than a decade to produce a local plan. The majority—more than 70%—have done so. However, not every local authority has made the same progress towards getting a plan in place, and there are some gaps in parts of the country where plans are needed most. We have made clear our expectation that all local planning authorities should have a local plan. We have provided targeted support through the LGA’s planning advisory service and the Planning Inspectorate, to assist them in doing so. We have also been clear about the fact that local plans should be kept up to date, to ensure that the policies in them remain relevant. If that is not happening it is right for the Government to take action.
We invited a panel of experts to consider how local plan-making could be made more efficient and effective. The local plans expert group recommended a clear statutory requirement for all authorities to produce a plan. We agree that the requirement to have a local plan should not be in doubt. However, as long as authorities have policies to address their strategic housing and other priorities, they should have freedom about the type of plan most appropriate to their area. In fact, the constituency of the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton is an example of a part of the country where a decision has been taken to work with a strategic plan over a wider area, rather than 10 individual local plans.
Effective planning, which meets the housing, economic and infrastructure needs of the people who live in an area, does not need to be constrained by planning authority boundaries. We want more co-operation and joint planning for authorities to plan strategically with their neighbours, ensuring, together, that they can meet the housing and other needs of their areas. There are opportunities to improve the accessibility of plans to local people. The amendments that we propose will strengthen planning in those areas.
New clause 4 enables the Secretary of State to direct two or more local planning authorities to prepare a joint development plan document—the documents that comprise an authority’s local plan—if he considers that that will facilitate the more effective planning of the development and use of land in one or more of those authorities. Where we direct authorities to prepare a joint plan, the local planning authorities will work together to prepare it. They will then each decide whether to adopt the joint plan.
The country’s need for housing is not constrained by neighbourhood, district or county boundaries. The system needs to support planning and decision making at the right functional level of geography.
Mrs Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I wholeheartedly subscribe to the sentiments that my hon. Friend the Minister expressed at the start of his remarks about local councils and communities making decisions. How is that reconcilable with the position in London, where, although borough councils have important powers in this policy area, they can effectively be overridden by the Greater London Authority? If we were really localist, would we not be pushing decisions on housing down to our borough councils?
Gavin Barwell
Actually, most of the statutory responsibilities in London still sit with the London boroughs, but their plans do have to conform to the strategic policies of the London plan, as my right hon. Friend knows. There is a debate about such matters. An interesting distinction is that the London plan cannot allocate specific sites, in either my right hon. Friend’s constituency or any other part of the capital. It can set out some overall strategic policies, but it is then essentially for the borough plan in Barnet, Croydon or wherever else to decide where the development in their area goes, subject to the overall strategic policies.
The Government’s view is that the balance is right, and that there is a case for strategic planning across London, but clearly it would be possible to argue otherwise. Indeed, there was a period during which the capital did not have a body to provide strategic planning. There is absolutely a legitimate debate to be had. It might reassure my right hon. Friend to hear that I would be opposed to a situation in which the London plan could allocate particular sites contrary to the wishes of Barnet Council, because that would undermine the kind of localism that she refers to.
We have been clear that local planning authorities should work collaboratively so that strategic priorities, particularly for housing, are properly co-ordinated across local boundaries and clearly reflected in individual local plans. We have already discussed the duty to co-operate, and separately we have set out our commitment to strengthen planning guidance to improve the functioning of that duty. The Government recognise that it is not currently functioning in an ideal way.
Following a call for evidence and discussions with a range of bodies, including planning authorities, the development industry and the community groups, the local plans expert group drew attention to the difficulty that some areas are having with providing for the housing that they require, particularly where housing need is high and land is heavily constrained. Such challenges can be compounded when the timetables for local plans coming forward in neighbouring areas do not align, and the plans are therefore not informed by a common evidence base. We need to ensure that such challenges—they are real challenges—do not become reasons for ducking the tough decisions that need to be made to ensure that we build the housing we need.
A joined-up plan-making process, in which key decisions are taken together, will help local planning authorities to provide their communities with a plan for delivering the housing they need. The idea of joint planning and working collaboratively with neighbours is not new. Local planning authorities can already choose to work together on a joint plan and as part of a joint planning committee. There are many examples of their doing so. Indeed, I recently met representatives of Norwich City Council at the MIPIM exhibition. They told me about the way in which they are working with South Norfolk and Broadland districts to produce a combined plan across the three districts. I have already referred to the example in Greater Manchester, with which the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton will be familiar.
We will continue to support and encourage local planning authorities to choose the most appropriate approach to plan-making in their area, whether they are working on their own or with others to prepare a joint plan. My first bit of reassurance to the Committee is that I envisage the power we are taking being used sparingly. Where effective planning across boundaries is not happening, we must take action to help local planning authorities to make progress, to provide certainty for communities; otherwise, we risk delaying or even preventing the delivery of housing that is urgently needed.
New clause 4 will enable us to do what I have just described. It amends the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to enable the Secretary of State to direct two or more local planning authorities to prepare a joint plan. The power can be exercised only in situations in which the Secretary of State considers that it will facilitate the more effective planning of the development and use of land in one or more of the authorities. The change will apply existing provisions for the preparation and examination of development plan documents. It also provides for the consequences of the withdrawal or modification of a direction.
New clause 4 will also amend some existing provisions—sections 21 and 27 of the 2004 Act—to ensure that, should the Secretary of State need to intervene more directly in the preparation of a joint plan, there is a mechanism for recovering any costs incurred from each of the relevant local planning authorities. Costs will be apportioned in such a way as the Secretary of State considers just. If the Mayor of London, a combined authority or a county council prepares a joint plan at the invitation of the Secretary of State, they will be responsible for apportioning liability fairly for any expenditure that they incur. Government amendment 26 will provide for the regulation-making power conferred by new clause 4 to come into force on the passing of the Act.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I shall address my introductory remarks to the Minister’s general points about the importance of local plan-making. I say at the outset that Opposition members of the Committee have noticed and welcomed the difference in tone and the slight change in policy direction that have come with the new Minister. I agree about the importance of having communities at the heart of local plan-making. When planning is done really well and people are involved in planning their neighbourhoods, we are much more likely to get the sort of development that supports our placemaking objectives, and that is supported by local people. Critically, in my experience, the involvement of local communities drives up the quality of what is delivered locally. We totally agree with the Minister that, where possible, local communities should be at the heart of planning and local authorities should work with their neighbourhoods to draw up a local plan.
Nevertheless, like the Minister, we recognise that if a local plan is not in place, local communities and neighbourhoods are at risk of receiving really inappropriate development. To determine applications, a council is likely to rely on saved local policies, if it has them, from a previous plan which might be out of date. What often happens in my experience—this is particularly true recently, with local authorities concerned about the number of applications they reject in case they subsequently get overturned on appeal—is that decisions go through that might not be in the best interests of the local authority or the local community, simply because a local plan is not in place.
I am pleased that the Minister consulted the local plan expert group in thinking about how to bring forward the provisions in new clause 4. The people on that group are very knowledgeable about the planning system. Nevertheless, he did not need to do that. He just needed to pick up his copy of the Lyons report—I know he has one—and turn to page 62. On that page he will find our arguments as to why in certain circumstances it might be necessary for the Secretary of State to intervene in local plan-making when, for whatever reason, local plans are not coming forward from the local authority.
The Minister knows that one of the major reasons for plans’ not coming forward or being thrown out by the inspector is that councils are not suitably addressing the duty to co-operate. When we were taking evidence for the Lyons review, a number of councillors said, “The real problem is that we cannot meet housing need in our area because we do not have enough land available. We cannot put a proper five-year land supply in place because we simply do not have the land available.”
From memory, two examples that stood out were Stevenage and the city of Oxford. They have substantial housing need and a strong demand for housing, but they do not have enough land within their specific local authority boundary to meet that need. Under the Government’s legislation, the duty to co-operate would come into play. Those authorities would sit down and make a decision.
The city of Oxford needed South Oxfordshire to bring forward some land, and Stevenage required its neighbouring authorities to bring forward some land. Alas, the duty to co-operate did not work as the Government had envisaged. The land did not come forward in those neighbouring authorities’ plans, and that placed both the city of Oxford and Stevenage in the rather difficult situation of having acute housing need but no means by which to meet that need. There are many other such examples around the country.
We listened to a lot of evidence in the Lyons review. In an ideal world, one would not want to give powers to the Secretary of State to direct authorities to come together and produce a plan, but if they are not doing so, they are putting their communities at risk of not meeting housing need, which is acute in some areas. We therefore decided reluctantly—very much like the Minister—that powers should be given to the Secretary of State in limited circumstances to direct local authorities.
The new clause refers to,
“two or more local planning authorities”.
That is one way forward. Another that we thought of would be to look at the area covered by strategic housing market assessments and perhaps make that subject to direction by the Secretary of State, but a few local authorities coming together in the appropriate area is just as good a way forward.
As the Committee will have gathered from what I am saying, the Opposition do not have any particular problems with new clause 4, but I have some specific questions. First, will the Minister clarify who decides exactly what is in the document? Perhaps I misheard him, but I think he said it would be up to local authorities themselves, under the provisions in proposed new section 28A, to decide exactly how they would put the plan together. My reading, though, is that that proposed new section gives powers to the Secretary of State to determine exactly what is in the documents and what they might look like.
Proposed new section 28A(4) says that the Secretary of State can give a direction about:
“(a) the area to be covered by the joint development plan document to which the direction relates;
(b) the matters to be covered by that document;
(c) the timetable for preparation of that document.”
I have absolutely no problem with that—it seems to us to be an entirely sensible way forward when local plan-making arrangements have broken down for whatever reason—but it does seem to suggest that it will not be the local councils that will be deciding what the documents cover. In those circumstances, it will be the Secretary of State.
Gavin Barwell
The hon. Lady has read the provisions entirely correctly. We want to make sure that, for example, everywhere in the country there is clarity about site allocations and where people can build. That is why we need that power. The point I was making in my speech was that authorities can choose whether they wish to do their own local plan or to work together, as those in Greater Manchester have done, to produce a spatial development strategy. We shall not specify all the detail, but there are some core things that need to be covered throughout the country.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I thank the Minister for that helpful clarification.
My second point is about proposed new section 28C. Will the Minister direct us to where we can find the set of circumstances that will trigger the Secretary of State’s asking local authorities to come together to produce a joint plan? I have given him the example of when the duty to co-operate is not working. I would have thought that should be pretty apparent, because the likelihood would be that a local plan would be thrown out by the planning inspector. I am not sure whether there are other circumstances that the Minister can tell us about. It could be that things are just taking too long, or that something is not being done properly.
I suspect that we will have regulations to support the legislation, which will make it all clear to us at some future date. They will have the specificity on the action or non-action that the Minister has in mind that would trigger the Secretary of State’s involvement and such a direction being given to local authorities. It would help our deliberations if the Minister could be a bit clearer about the circumstances in which the Secretary of State will make this direction.
Finally—we will get on to this later, I hope—the Planning Officers Society has helpfully put into the public domain some detail on how the duty to co-operate is failing to meet housing need in this country. The association has very helpfully proposed policies to ensure that everywhere has a local plan in place that are pretty similar to what the Minister has suggested this morning. I did not want to finish my remarks on new clause 4 without acknowledging the work done by the society over several years to highlight, to the Minister and others, the fact that the current system is just not working for everyone, and the fact that something must be done to ensure that each area can have a local plan in place.
Neighbourhood Planning Bill (Eighth sitting)
Thursday 27th October 2016
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesNeighbourhood Planning Act 2017 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 27 October 2016 - (27 Oct 2016)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Government new clause 4—Power to direct preparation of joint development plan documents—
(1) The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 28 insert—
“28A Power to direct preparation of joint development plan documents
(1) The Secretary of State may direct two or more local planning authorities to prepare a joint development plan document.
(2) The Secretary of State may give a direction under this section in relation to a document whether or not it is specified in the local development schemes of the local planning authorities in question as a document which is to be prepared jointly with one or more other local planning authorities.
(3) The Secretary of State may give a direction under this section only if the Secretary of State considers that to do so will facilitate the more effective planning of the development and use of land in the area of one or more of the local planning authorities in question.
(4) A direction under this section may specify—
(a) the area to be covered by the joint development plan document to which the direction relates;
(b) the matters to be covered by that document;
(c) the timetable for preparation of that document.
(5) The Secretary of State must, when giving a direction under this section, notify the local planning authorities to which it applies of the reasons for giving it.
(6) If the Secretary of State gives a direction under this section, the Secretary of State may direct the local planning authorities to which it is given to amend their local development schemes so that they cover the joint development plan document to which it relates.
(7) A joint development plan document is a development plan document which is, or is required to be, prepared jointly by two or more local planning authorities pursuant to a direction under this section.
28B Application of Part to joint development plan documents
(1) This Part applies for the purposes of any step which may be or is required to be taken in relation to a joint development plan document as it applies for the purposes of any step which may be or is required to be taken in relation to a development plan document.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) anything which must be done by or in relation to a local planning authority in connection with a development plan document must be done by or in relation to each of the authorities mentioned in section 28A(1) in connection with a joint development plan document.
(3) If the authorities mentioned in section 28A(1) include a London borough council or a Mayoral development corporation, the requirements of this Part in relation to the spatial development strategy also apply.
(4) Those requirements also apply if—
(a) a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 has the function of preparing the spatial development strategy for the combined authority’s area, and
(b) the authorities mentioned in section 28A(1) include a local planning authority whose area is within, or is the same as, the area of the combined authority.
28C Modification or withdrawal of direction under section 28A
(1) The Secretary of State may modify or withdraw a direction under section 28A by notice in writing to the authorities to which it was given.
(2) The Secretary of State must, when modifying or withdrawing a direction under section 28A, notify the local planning authorities to which it was given of the reasons for the modification or withdrawal.
(3) The following provisions of this section apply if—
(a) the Secretary of State withdraws a direction under section 28A, or
(b) the Secretary of State modifies a direction under that section so that it ceases to apply to one or more of the local planning authorities to which it was given.
(4) Any step taken in relation to the joint development plan document to which the direction related is to be treated as a step taken by—
(a) a local planning authority to which the direction applied for the purposes of any corresponding document prepared by them, or
(b) two or more local planning authorities to which the direction applied for the purposes of any corresponding joint development plan document prepared by them.
(5) Any independent examination of a joint development plan document to which the direction related must be suspended.
(6) If before the end of the period prescribed for the purposes of this subsection a local planning authority to which the direction applied request the Secretary of State to do so, the Secretary of State may direct that—
(a) the examination is resumed in relation to—
(i) any corresponding document prepared by a local planning authority to which the direction applied, or
(ii) any corresponding joint development plan document prepared by two or more local planning authorities to which the direction applied, and
(b) any step taken for the purposes of the suspended examination has effect for the purposes of the resumed examination.
(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to what is a corresponding document or a corresponding joint development plan document for the purposes of this section.”
(3) In section 21 (intervention by Secretary of State) after subsection (11) insert—
“(12) In the case of a joint local development document or a joint development plan document, the Secretary of State may apportion liability for the expenditure on such basis as the Secretary of State thinks just between the local planning authorities who have prepared the document.”
(4) In section 27 (Secretary of State’s default powers) after subsection (9) insert—
“(10) In the case of a joint local development document or a joint development plan document, the Secretary of State may apportion liability for the expenditure on such basis as the Secretary of State thinks just between the local planning authorities for whom the document has been prepared.”
(5) Section 28 (joint local development documents) is amended in accordance with subsections (6) and (7).
(6) In subsection (9) for paragraph (a) substitute—
“(a) the examination is resumed in relation to—
(i) any corresponding document prepared by an authority which were a party to the agreement, or
(ii) any corresponding joint local development document prepared by two or more other authorities which were parties to the agreement;”.
(7) In subsection (11) (meaning of “corresponding document”) at the end insert “or a corresponding joint local development document for the purposes of this section.”
(8) In section 37 (interpretation) after subsection (5B) insert—
“(5C) Joint local development document must be construed in accordance with section 28(10).
(5D) Joint development plan document must be construed in accordance with section 28A(7).”
(9) Schedule A1 (default powers exercisable by Mayor of London, combined authority and county council) is amended in accordance with subsections (10) and (11).
(10) In paragraph 3 (powers exercised by the Mayor of London) after sub-paragraph (3) insert—
“(4) In the case of a joint local development document or a joint development plan document, the Mayor may apportion liability for the expenditure on such basis as the Mayor thinks just between the councils for whom the document has been prepared.”
(11) In paragraph 7 (powers exercised by combined authority) after sub-paragraph (3) insert—
“(4) In the case of a joint local development document or a joint development plan document, the combined authority may apportion liability for the expenditure on such basis as the authority considers just between the authorities for whom the document has been prepared.”
This new clause enables the Secretary of State to give a direction requiring two or more local planning authorities to prepare a joint development plan document. It also makes provision about the consequences of withdrawal or modification of such a direction.
Amendment (a) to Government new clause 4, in proposed new subsection (12) of section 21 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, at end insert—
“after consulting with the local authorities concerned.”
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I refer to my entry in the register of interests as a member of Oldham Council. I am speaking to amendment (a) to new clause 4.
Throughout the debate, what has stood out is a sense that although we are creating a framework to be understood clearly and to set expectations, that is in the spirit of communities themselves determining what is right—a genuinely partnership approach. The amendment to Government new clause 4 seeks to ensure that there is discussion with local authorities before the apportioning of costs between local authorities for joint development plans.
At the moment, new clause 4 will allow the Secretary of State to apportion liability for expenditure, on the basis of what the Secretary of State thinks is just, between the local planning authorities that have prepared the document. The amendment would ensure consultation with the relevant local authorities before the Secretary of State determines what proportion of costs each must pay. The Secretary of State might already intend to consult with local authorities, so reassurance would be what is required. Given that the tone of the debate so far has been one of working with local communities, it would be helpful not to go against that and impose costs without any kind of consultation or discussion.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr McCabe.
The hon. Member for City of Durham asked a couple of questions about new clause 4, which I will endeavour to answer before I come to the amendment to the new clause. In essence, the main issue that the hon. Lady wished to explore was the circumstances in which the Secretary of State might wish to pursue the power to intervene. The wording of the new clause is relatively broad—I tried to touch on this wording in my speech this morning—under proposed section 28A(3):
“The Secretary of State may give a direction under this section only if the Secretary of State considers that to do so will facilitate the more effective planning of the development and use of land in the area of one or more of the local planning authorities in question.”
It might help the hon. Lady if I expand on that and give an idea of the types of situation we have in mind. I will make two points. First, in relation to “one or more”, there might be a situation in which a particular local planning authority is struggling to produce its own local plan—perhaps, as I indicated in my speech, because there is not only a high level of housing need in the area concerned, but also heavy constraints on land. Given the cases I have already dealt with over the past three months, I am thinking of districts where a significant proportion of the land area is green belt and therefore has heavy constraints on development potential.
In such circumstances, the Secretary of State might want to direct that authority and two or three others where land is much less constrained to produce a joint plan, in order to provide an opportunity to consider whether some of the housing need in district A might be met in some of the adjoining districts. It is possible that authorities covered by such a direction might have produced a perfectly viable plan for their area, but we would be looking to work across a group of authorities to meet housing need over a wider area.
Secondly, there are probably two types of situation in which that might arise. I have alluded to one already—where an authority has simply failed to produce a plan. As the Committee knows, several authorities are in that position at the moment. The second is where an authority might have tried to produce a plan, but is failing to meet the housing need in its area. Either it has fallen short of the assessed need or the plan was accepted by an inspector but the authority subsequently found itself unable to deliver the housing it had planned for various reasons. Essentially, the two things that I think the Secretary of State is likely to be interested in are, first, authorities that are simply not doing the job of producing a plan; and secondly, plans that are wholly inadequate in terms of meeting the required level of housing need.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
Will regulations set out the circumstances that are likely to lead to a Secretary of State’s direction, or the process that will be followed in order to involve the Secretary of State? We are struggling with what will trigger the Secretary of State’s involvement. Will it be a complaint from a member of the public or one of the local authorities, or something else?
Gavin Barwell
I will do my best to answer that question. I am in a slightly difficult position. I might as well be open about the difficulty that I face. I have referred several times to the fact that there will be a White Paper that will set out clearly how we intend to use the powers. Given that I do not yet have collective agreement to the White Paper, it is difficult for me to say too much. However, the powers will not be used if it is a simple matter of complaints from individual members of the public in an area or from developers.
The Department is likely to proactively monitor the progress that local planning authorities make. I made it fairly clear in my opening remarks that I attach great importance to getting full coverage of the country, not necessarily in terms of every single planning authority having its own plan, but in terms of making sure that all parts of the country are covered by a plan, whether it is a strategic plan covering a wider area or individual authorities having their own plan. I will ask my officials to give me regular updates on progress and I will proactively look to intervene if I believe that is the only remaining lever to get to where I think we all agree we want to get to in planning. Does that go far enough to help the hon. Lady?
Gavin Barwell
It does. That is good to hear.
I hope I can provide some reassurance on the amendment. As the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton said, in the case of a joint local development document or a joint plan, where the Secretary of State is apportioning liability for the expenditure between the relevant authorities, the amendment basically says that the relevant authorities have to be consulted. As I have argued before, I do not think it is necessary to write that into statute, but it is clearly something that we would want to have a discussion with the relevant authorities about. To reassure the hon. Gentleman, the key language in the clause is about justness. There is a test of reasonableness in terms of the way the Secretary of State will be doing it in legislation.
Jim McMahon
Clearly, we have absolute confidence in the Minister. We know he is a localist and values relationships with our local authorities, but—heaven forbid—if another Minister in that position with such powers has a different approach, we would want to make sure that safeguards are in place.
Gavin Barwell
Let me make a couple of further remarks and then I will be happy to go away and reflect on that point. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says.
Should the Secretary of State intervene under section 21 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, statutorily he can only require reimbursement of any costs he has incurred if the costs are specified in a notice to the authority or authorities concerned. I will read this into the record because it will allow the hon. Gentleman to go away and look at this and check that he is satisfied with it. This is set out in subsection (11) of section 21 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which is inserted by section 145(4) of the Housing and Planning Act 2016.
Should it be necessary for the Secretary of State to prepare a plan because the relevant authorities have failed to do so, despite being given every opportunity, again it is right that he can recover his costs, but in doing so he would need to demonstrate that he has been just and has acted reasonably. The former—the justness point—may require a consultation with the authorities concerned. I have given an assurance that that would happen. The latter is a concept that is well understood in legal terms. I do not believe it is necessary to write this into law, but if the hon. Gentleman is happy he can go away and look at what I have just referred to in statute. If he is still not satisfied, there is the option for him to press the matter a bit further on Report. I am happy to talk to him outside the Committee if he is still not satisfied.
Amendment 26 agreed to.
Gavin Barwell
I beg to move amendment 27, in clause 35, page 27, line 8, after “3”, insert
“, (Review of local development documents)”.
The amendment provides for the regulation-making powers conferred by NC7 to come into force on the passing of the Act resulting from the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 3—Content of development plan documents—
(1) In section 19 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (preparation of local development documents) after subsection (1A) insert—
“(1B) Each local planning authority must identify the strategic priorities for the development and use of land in the authority’s area.
(1C) Policies to address those priorities must be set out in the local planning authority’s development plan documents (taken as a whole).
(1D) Subsection (1C) does not apply in the case of a London borough council or a Mayoral development corporation if and to the extent that the council or corporation are satisfied that policies to address those priorities are set out in the spatial development strategy.
(1E) If a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 has the function of preparing the spatial development strategy for the authority’s area, subsection (1D) also applies in relation to—
(a) a local planning authority whose area is within, or the same as, the area of the combined authority, and
(b) the spatial development strategy published by the combined authority.”
(2) In section 35 of that Act (local planning authorities’ monitoring reports) after subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) Subsection (3B) applies if a London borough council or a Mayoral development corporation have determined in accordance with section 19(1D) that—
(a) policies to address the strategic priorities for the development and use of land in their area are set out in the spatial development strategy, and
(b) accordingly, such policies will not to that extent be set out in their development plan documents.
(3B) Each report by the council or corporation under subsection (2) must—
(a) indicate that such policies are set out in the spatial development strategy, and
(b) specify where in the strategy those policies are set out.
(3C) If a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 has the function of preparing the spatial development strategy for the authority’s area, subsections (3A) and (3B) also apply in relation to—
(a) a local planning authority whose area is within, or the same as, the area of the combined authority, and
(b) the spatial development strategy published by the combined authority.”
This new clause requires a local planning authority to identify the strategic priorities for the development and use of land in the authority’s area and to set out policies to address these in their development plan documents. The latter duty does not apply in the case of certain authorities to the extent that other documents set out the policies, but in that case the authority’s monitoring reports must make that clear.
Amendment (a) to Government new clause 3, after proposed new subsection (1E) to section 19 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, insert
“(1F) The Secretary of State may by regulations require a particular timescale to be set for the production of plan documents.”
Government new clause 7—Review of local development documents.
Gavin Barwell
This morning, when Mr Bone was in the Chair, he kindly allowed me to make some introductory remarks about the whole package of amendments in relation to local plans, so I hope I can be a little more brief as I tackle each one.
We have previously made clear our expectation that all local planning authorities should have a plan in place. That is in paragraph 153 of the national planning policy framework, for example. As I said earlier, the local plans expert group recommended introducing a statutory duty on local planning authorities to produce and maintain an up-to-date plan. The group saw that as a means of underlining the importance of local plans and ensuring that their production is given the necessary priority. We have carefully considered those recommendations and the representations we received on them, and we agree.
New clause 3 amends the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, and introduces a requirement for each local planning authority to identify the strategic priorities for the development and use of land in their area. It also places a requirement on the local planning authority to set out policies that address those strategic priorities in the authority’s development plan documents, which collectively make up the local plan. That requirement does not apply if a local planning authority in London considers that its strategic priorities are addressed in the Mayor of London’s spatial development strategy, the London plan. The same opportunity will be given to local planning authorities in the area of a combined authority where the combined authority has the function of preparing a spatial development strategy for its area as, for example, Greater Manchester will.
Where a local authority is relying on policies in a spatial development strategy to deliver its strategic priorities, it has to make that clear in the authority monitoring report that it is required to publish annually. For local plans to be effective, they need to be kept up to date, which brings me to new clause 7.
Paragraph 153 of the NPPF makes it clear that a local plan should be reviewed
“in whole or in part to respond flexibly to changing circumstances.”
We want to put beyond doubt our expectation that plans are reviewed regularly, so new clause 7 amends the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, introducing a requirement for a local planning authority to review its documents at intervals prescribed by the Secretary of State. When reviewing its documents, it should consider whether they should be revised, a little bit like the statements of community involvement that we covered earlier in relation to the neighbourhood planning provisions. If the authority is content that a document does not need to change, that is fine, but it needs to publish its reasons for coming to that decision. The new requirement does not affect the existing duty to keep documents under review.
Finally, amendment 27 simply provides for the regulation-making powers conferred by new clause 7 to come into force on the passing of the Act resulting from the Bill.
Taken together, the two new clauses and amendment 27 put beyond doubt the Government’s commitment to a plan-led system in which all local planning authorities have an up-to-date local plan that ensures that sufficient land is allocated for housing in the right places to meet needs, with roads and other vital amenities required to support that housing—a local plan that crucially provides an opportunity for local communities to shape the development of their city, town or village. I am grateful for what the hon. Lady said earlier, and I hope that the amendment is accepted.
Dr Blackman-Woods
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I will speak about Government new clause 3 and amendment (a) together. I tabled amendment (a) hoping to elicit more information from the Minister about what the Government are trying to do with new clause 3. On the face of it, that new clause seems very sensible in asking that development plan documents set out strategic priorities. That is quite hard to disagree with. What I am not clear about is whether an additional tier of work will be required of local authorities in putting their plan together.
I tabled amendment (a) simply so that I could ask the Minister to focus on the speedy production of local plans. He will know that this has been an ongoing issue for some time. It is undoubtedly the case that the local plan-making process put in place in 2004 ended up being rather more lengthy than those who put the legislation together—I hasten to add that it was not me—thought it would be. It is a very cumbersome process for local authorities. It is not that all the documents are not needed. I will say something about that in a moment.
The issue—I think it is one that the Minister recognises, particularly in terms of the content of new clause 4—is that we need to get local authorities to a position where it is a more straightforward process for them to put a local development plan document together. We know that under the 2004 process, even where there were not really any local difficulties or much complexity, it was taking on average three years to produce the plan to make it ready for inspection. That was not getting it right through the process; that was just getting it ready and going through the various rounds of consultation.
The average cost of the process, from beginning to end, was a staggering £500,000. When I argued earlier in the Committee’s deliberations for putting more money into neighbourhood plans as the building block for local plan-making, that was the figure I had in mind. Lots of money is being set aside for consultation, but it has not always produced results that have altered the local plan-making process in any way. As I said earlier to the Minister, I think that money could be better spent.
I think it is fair to say that there has been a difference of opinion among some inspectors as to the weight that should be given to the plan, and various bits of the plan, during the whole process, particularly if the plan was referred back for a part of it to be rewritten. All in all, we have ended up in a situation where local plan-making has been very complex, lengthy and costly. I pay tribute to the Minister and others who are looking at streamlining this process, but I want to suggest a way of doing it that would help not only local authorities but local communities and all those who are subsequently involved in implementing the plan.
This is not actually my idea; it was put in evidence, before the last election, by the Planning Officers Society, the organisation that represents planners. They are the people who draw up the plans and then have to try and implement them. It is important that any Government listens to what they have to say about the planning system because they know better than anyone the difficulties and what would work in practice.
The planners, interestingly, have put together a two-stage process that relates directly to the content of new clause 3, which is why I made the suggestion here. They are suggesting a first stage, which could be the outcome of a lot of work with the local community to set strategic priorities for that specific local authority, or a group of local authorities if that is deemed to be more important. The critical point is that it would not require the long technical documents that currently go with local plans—such as a detailed minerals assessment or watercourse assessment—to be drawn up at that early stage.
I do not know whether the Minister has worked with local communities, particularly on the examination of a local plan, as I have in my local area on our local plan, but everyone came to the committee with documents at least 12 inches thick. They were incredibly complicated and technical, and unless someone is an expert they simply would not understand or have time to go through them. I am sure almost everyone could get to grips with such documents if they had all the time in the world, but to expect a local community to go through such highly technical and detailed documents at the stage of a public inquiry does not seem sensible. Nothing will be agreed until the public examination takes place.
It would be really helpful to consider what planning officers are saying. They are suggesting getting the community on board for what is important to them, such as the strategic direction forward plan and what, broadly in terms of land use, the local authority will set out—what types of housing and other developments in what timeframe. If it is possible to get broad agreement on that general way forward, there could be a second stage when the first one has been agreed and has been through a lighter-touch inspection. In the second stage, the more technical documents could be brought into the frame and all the professionals who will have to put the document into operation will be able to assess whether the technical support and evidence is there for the exact developments to take place.
I know the Minister is open to speeding up the process and introducing an easier one. I want to use the opportunity of amendment (a) to new clause 3 to suggest this as a possible way forward that could greatly speed up the whole process, not only for local authorities, but for the local community. That is the purpose of amendment (a).
There are two issues. It is really important to have a final date by which local authorities must produce their plan. I hope that we will not be sitting in another housing and planning Bill Committee, but I fear there may be one coming down the line. I certainly hope that in a year or 18 months, 30% of local authorities will not be without a plan in place. We certainly do not want to be here in 2020 with a set of local authorities not having a plan in place, 16 years after a Bill was enacted requiring a local plan.
As well as testing the Minister on whether he has given any consideration to how to speed up the overall planning process, I want to know whether he thinks it would be appropriate to set a final cut-off point for local plans to be made.
Gavin Barwell
The hon. Lady has just made a very interesting speech. I do not particularly like her amendment, for reasons I will explain, but I have a lot of sympathy with the ideas behind it and will try to reassure her on that front. She quoted the Planning Officers Society, a fine organisation that is chaired by Mike Kiely, who was chief planning officer at Croydon Council and whom I know very well—he is an excellent planning officer. She is quoting from a very reputable organisation.
The hon. Lady made some sage points about the time and cost involved in producing a local plan, which we will address in the White Paper; I hope that reassures her. We are particularly keen to remove a lot of the confrontation involved in the local plan process, such as the huge arguments about whether councils have calculated objectively assessed need correctly, and everything that follows. Councils face the very high test of whether the plan is the most appropriate one, which allows the developer to say, “Well, you’ve got everything right, except that this site is better than that site.” A huge amount of wrangling goes on, and I am not sure whether that is in the public interest. I have a great deal of sympathy with the arguments underlying the amendment, which the hon. Lady outlined. If she bears with us for a few weeks, she should see our proposals to address those issues.
Let me say a few words, first about the indication of a final date, which the hon. Lady asked for, and secondly about my concern with the specific wording of the amendment—I think it is a probing amendment, so she is probably more interested in the principle than in the detail. The Government have said that we expect authorities to have plans in place by early next year. Anyone who is listening to this debate can be clear that there is a clear deadline to get this work done. That does not mean that we will want to intervene on every single council that has not achieved that by then, because some councils may be working flat out and are very close, so intervening would do nothing to speed the process up. However, councils that are not making satisfactory progress towards that target should be warned that intervention will follow, because we are determined to ensure that we get plan coverage in place.
The key issue with the wording of the hon. Lady’s amendment is that the gun did not start at the same moment; councils are at very different stages of the process. Rather than just saying, “Everybody needs to get to these points by these dates”, we need to reflect the fact that some councils have plans that are no longer up to date, so they need to do a review. Others have never produced one and are at a different stage along the road. If the hon. Lady was in my shoes, she would want a little more flexibility than her amendment would allow to decide on the right triggers for intervention.
What we hold councils to at the moment is whether they are achieving the timescales they set out in their own documents. I hope that I have reassured the hon. Lady on the issues of principle about trying to reduce the cost and the time taken to produce plans, which is very important, but I would not necessarily want to set out in statute or in secondary legislation a set of timescales that every local council had to fit into.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I have heard what the Minister has said, particularly on the measures that the Government might consider to help speed up and simplify the plan-making process. I await the White Paper with even more fervent anticipation; it is going to be really interesting. I wanted to test the Minister on what was meant by the Government’s expectation that plans would be put in place by March next year. I heard his response, but I press him to ensure that local authorities complete the plan-making process as quickly as possible.
Amendment 27 agreed to.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Gavin Barwell
Clause 35 makes standard provision in relation to the commencement of provisions in the Bill. Subsection (1) sets out the default position, which is that provisions are to come into force on a day appointed by the Secretary of State in commencement regulations. Where that default position applies, the Secretary of State may appoint different days for different purposes and may also make transitional provisions and savings. Subsection (3) sets out the exception to the default position, which is that the delegated powers within the neighbourhood planning provisions, the planning register provision and the final standard provisions of the Bill will come into force when the Bill obtains Royal Assent. The clause contains an essential and standard provision that is necessary to implement the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 35, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 3
Content of development plan documents
(1) In section 19 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (preparation of local development documents) after subsection (1A) insert—
“(1B) Each local planning authority must identify the strategic priorities for the development and use of land in the authority’s area.
(1C) Policies to address those priorities must be set out in the local planning authority’s development plan documents (taken as a whole).
(1D) Subsection (1C) does not apply in the case of a London borough council or a Mayoral development corporation if and to the extent that the council or corporation are satisfied that policies to address those priorities are set out in the spatial development strategy.
(1E) If a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 has the function of preparing the spatial development strategy for the authority’s area, subsection (1D) also applies in relation to—
(a) a local planning authority whose area is within, or the same as, the area of the combined authority, and
(b) the spatial development strategy published by the combined authority.”
(2) In section 35 of that Act (local planning authorities’ monitoring reports) after subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) Subsection (3B) applies if a London borough council or a Mayoral development corporation have determined in accordance with section 19(1D) that—
(a) policies to address the strategic priorities for the development and use of land in their area are set out in the spatial development strategy, and
(b) accordingly, such policies will not to that extent be set out in their development plan documents.
(3B) Each report by the council or corporation under subsection (2) must—
(a) indicate that such policies are set out in the spatial development strategy, and
(b) specify where in the strategy those policies are set out.
(3C) If a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 has the function of preparing the spatial development strategy for the authority’s area, subsections (3A) and (3B) also apply in relation to—
(a) a local planning authority whose area is within, or the same as, the area of the combined authority, and
(b) the spatial development strategy published by the combined authority.”—(Gavin Barwell.)
This new clause requires a local planning authority to identify the strategic priorities for the development and use of land in the authority’s area and to set out policies to address these in their development plan documents. The latter duty does not apply in the case of certain authorities to the extent that other documents set out the policies, but in that case the authority’s monitoring reports must make that clear.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 4
Power to direct preparation of joint development plan documents
(1) The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 28 insert—
“28A Power to direct preparation of joint development plan documents
(1) The Secretary of State may direct two or more local planning authorities to prepare a joint development plan document.
(2) The Secretary of State may give a direction under this section in relation to a document whether or not it is specified in the local development schemes of the local planning authorities in question as a document which is to be prepared jointly with one or more other local planning authorities.
(3) The Secretary of State may give a direction under this section only if the Secretary of State considers that to do so will facilitate the more effective planning of the development and use of land in the area of one or more of the local planning authorities in question.
(4) A direction under this section may specify—
(a) the area to be covered by the joint development plan document to which the direction relates;
(b) the matters to be covered by that document;
(c) the timetable for preparation of that document.
(5) The Secretary of State must, when giving a direction under this section, notify the local planning authorities to which it applies of the reasons for giving it.
(6) If the Secretary of State gives a direction under this section, the Secretary of State may direct the local planning authorities to which it is given to amend their local development schemes so that they cover the joint development plan document to which it relates.
(7) A joint development plan document is a development plan document which is, or is required to be, prepared jointly by two or more local planning authorities pursuant to a direction under this section.
28B Application of Part to joint development plan documents
(1) This Part applies for the purposes of any step which may be or is required to be taken in relation to a joint development plan document as it applies for the purposes of any step which may be or is required to be taken in relation to a development plan document.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) anything which must be done by or in relation to a local planning authority in connection with a development plan document must be done by or in relation to each of the authorities mentioned in section 28A(1) in connection with a joint development plan document .
(3) If the authorities mentioned in section 28A(1) include a London borough council or a Mayoral development corporation, the requirements of this Part in relation to the spatial development strategy also apply.
(4) Those requirements also apply if—
(a) a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 has the function of preparing the spatial development strategy for the combined authority’s area, and
(b) the authorities mentioned in section 28A(1) include a local planning authority whose area is within, or is the same as, the area of the combined authority.
28C Modification or withdrawal of direction under section 28A
(1) The Secretary of State may modify or withdraw a direction under section 28A by notice in writing to the authorities to which it was given.
(2) The Secretary of State must, when modifying or withdrawing a direction under section 28A, notify the local planning authorities to which it was given of the reasons for the modification or withdrawal.
(3) The following provisions of this section apply if—
(a) the Secretary of State withdraws a direction under section 28A, or
(b) the Secretary of State modifies a direction under that section so that it ceases to apply to one or more of the local planning authorities to which it was given.
(4) Any step taken in relation to the joint development plan document to which the direction related is to be treated as a step taken by—
(a) a local planning authority to which the direction applied for the purposes of any corresponding document prepared by them, or
(b) two or more local planning authorities to which the direction applied for the purposes of any corresponding joint development plan document prepared by them.
(5) Any independent examination of a joint development plan document to which the direction related must be suspended.
(6) If before the end of the period prescribed for the purposes of this subsection a local planning authority to which the direction applied request the Secretary of State to do so, the Secretary of State may direct that—
(a) the examination is resumed in relation to—
(i) any corresponding document prepared by a local planning authority to which the direction applied, or
(ii) any corresponding joint development plan document prepared by two or more local planning authorities to which the direction applied, and
(b) any step taken for the purposes of the suspended examination has effect for the purposes of the resumed examination.
(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to what is a corresponding document or a corresponding joint development plan document for the purposes of this section.”
(3) In section 21 (intervention by Secretary of State) after subsection (11) insert—
“(12) In the case of a joint local development document or a joint development plan document, the Secretary of State may apportion liability for the expenditure on such basis as the Secretary of State thinks just between the local planning authorities who have prepared the document.”
(4) In section 27 (Secretary of State’s default powers) after subsection (9) insert—
“(10) In the case of a joint local development document or a joint development plan document, the Secretary of State may apportion liability for the expenditure on such basis as the Secretary of State thinks just between the local planning authorities for whom the document has been prepared.”
(5) Section 28 (joint local development documents) is amended in accordance with subsections (6) and (7).
(6) In subsection (9) for paragraph (a) substitute—
“(a) the examination is resumed in relation to—
(i) any corresponding document prepared by an authority which were a party to the agreement, or
(ii) any corresponding joint local development document prepared by two or more other authorities which were parties to the agreement;”.
(7) In subsection (11) (meaning of “corresponding document”) at the end insert “or a corresponding joint local development document for the purposes of this section.”
(8) In section 37 (interpretation) after subsection (5B) insert—
“(5C) Joint local development document must be construed in accordance with section 28(10).
(5D) Joint development plan document must be construed in accordance with section 28A(7). ”
(9) Schedule A1 (default powers exercisable by Mayor of London, combined authority and county council) is amended in accordance with subsections (10) and (11).
(10) In paragraph 3 (powers exercised by the Mayor of London) after sub-paragraph (3) insert—
“(4) In the case of a joint local development document or a joint development plan document, the Mayor may apportion liability for the expenditure on such basis as the Mayor thinks just between the councils for whom the document has been prepared.”
(11) In paragraph 7 (powers exercised by combined authority) after sub-paragraph (3) insert—
“(4) In the case of a joint local development document or a joint development plan document, the combined authority may apportion liability for the expenditure on such basis as the authority considers just between the authorities for whom the document has been prepared.”—(Gavin Barwell.)
This new clause enables the Secretary of State to give a direction requiring two or more local planning authorities to prepare a joint development plan document. It also makes provision about the consequences of withdrawal or modification of such a direction.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 5
County councils’ default powers in relation to development plan documents
Schedule (County councils’ default powers in relation to development plan documents) makes provision for the exercise of default powers by county councils in relation to development plan documents.—(Gavin Barwell.)
This new clause and NS1 enable the Secretary of State to invite a county council to prepare or revise a development plan document in a case where the Secretary of State thinks that a district council in the county council’s area is failing to prepare, revise or adopt such a document.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment (a) to Government new clause 5, at end insert—
“with the agreement of district councils.”
Government new schedule 1—County councils’ default powers in relation to development plan documents.
Gavin Barwell
New clause 5 is the next part of the package of amendments that the Government have tabled in relation to local plans. It allows for the introduction of new schedule 1, which enables the Secretary of State to invite a county council in a two-tier area to prepare a local plan for a district local planning authority in the county in instances where, despite having every opportunity, the district has failed to do so.
The Government absolutely want to see local planning authorities producing their own local plans, but where that is not happening it is right that we take action to ensure that communities and business can benefit from the clarity and certainty that having a plan can provide. The Committee has already accepted the principle that the Secretary of State should have the power to direct a group of local planning authorities to work together on a joint plan. This would be an alternative way of addressing the same problem—namely, to direct a county council to produce a plan for a local planning authority area.
It may help the Committee to know that the Secretary of State can already invite the Mayor of London or a combined authority to prepare a plan for an authority in their respective areas under similar circumstances. New clause 5 would extend the same opportunity to county councils in two-tier areas so that, as far as possible, local plans are developed at the most appropriate local level.
I said in a previous debate that the powers for intervention will merely be for the Secretary of State to produce a plan. I think we would all agree that that should very much be a last resort, and that we should explore different options. It would be preferable to have other people in the local area being directed to get involved if a local planning authority is not doing its job. The new clause will work by amending schedule A1 to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
Under our proposals, a county council will be invited to prepare, revise or approve a local plan only if the local planning authority has failed to progress its plan, and when the Secretary of State thinks it is appropriate. County councils are directly accountable authorities, with the knowledge and understanding of the development needs of their areas, so in the Government’s opinion they are suitable bodies to prepare a plan for the areas they represent.
New schedule 1 will amend paragraphs 3 to 8 in schedule A1 to the 2004 Act to ensure that the existing powers available to the Mayor of London and combined authorities also apply to county councils. The county council would be responsible for preparing the plan and having it examined. It may then approve the document, or approve it subject to modifications recommended by the inspector, or it may direct the local planning authority to consider adopting it. The new schedule will also enable the Secretary of State to intervene in the preparation of a document by the county council.
Should the Secretary of State believe it is appropriate to step in to ensure that a plan is in place, new clause 5 and new schedule 1 will give him a further option, alongside existing powers, so that decisions are taken at the most local level possible. I commend the new clause and the new schedule to the Committee.
Dr Blackman-Woods
With your permission, Mr McCabe, I will speak to new clause 5 and amendment (a) at the same time.
The new clause is interesting. The Minister has given us some helpful clarification of the circumstances in which the measures it contains might be invoked, but I suspect that district councils might require a bit more information. I am sure the Minister does not need me to tell him that district councils are not terribly happy with the provisions in the new clause, which allow the Secretary of State to invite a county council to prepare a development plan document if he or she thinks that a district council in the county council’s area is failing to prepare, revise or adopt such a document.
In terms of sequencing, if a local authority has not prepared a local plan, when might the Government decide to invoke new clause 5 and when might they decide to invoke new clause 4? Presumably, both could be used to bring forward a plan that is not being developed. If the Minister could say something about that it would be extremely helpful.
Amendment (a) was tabled to put on the record the fact that the power in the new clause would allow quite a drastic thing to be done to district councils. I suppose some might be mightily relived, but others will not be. There is no evidence in the new clause or the attached new schedule that efforts will be made to involve district councils in the process, either in making the decision to move the responsibility for producing the plan to a county council or subsequently, once that decision has been taken.
Such involvement might be quite important, particularly because, aside from unitary counties, county councils might have limited planning expertise. They have planning departments that look after minerals and so on, but they may not have the planning expertise to deal with the whole range of housing and other issues that need to be in a local plan. It seems to me quite important for the district councils to be involved at some stage if those plans are to have local acceptance.
Hardly surprisingly, although district councils are not very happy, the County Councils Network has welcomed new clause 5 and new schedule 1. However, even the County Councils Network says in its briefing to the Committee that peer support may be appropriate to facilitate the signing off of the plans, and something may need to be done to work with district councils in addition to a direction from the Secretary of State. I thought it was quite interesting that it mentioned that, and it reinforces my point about amendment (a).
The Minister will know that the District Councils Network has expressed serious concerns about the new clause and the new schedule. It would much prefer a collaborative process. It feels that the new clause casts district councils aside and leaves county councils to get on with the job rather than district councils being expected to work with county councils to see plans through. The district councils have put a series of questions to the Committee. Given what the new clause will do to some district councils’ local plan-making functions, it is worth taking a few minutes to go through those questions.
The first question is:
“As County Councils are not local planning authorities, what estimate has the Minister made of the extra time it would take for the County Council to carry out the functions…and where would this expertise come from?”
Will that expertise be expected to come from the district council involved, other district councils or the county council’s neighbours? That is not clear. The Minister may intend to follow up on this point in regulations, but it is also not clear how district councils will be notified of the plan-making process, what rights they have to be consulted or what requirement there will be for county councils to continue to seek to work in partnership with district councils.
Given that the process of public involvement in local plans is clear, the District Councils Network also asked what the public’s involvement will be when county councils have plan-making powers. County councils typically deal with much bigger areas, so some clarity may need to be given about how exactly affected residents will be consulted by the local authority. That is a particularly important question. I am sure that the Minister will reassure us, but I sincerely hope that new clause 5 is not intended in any way to bypass the local community and its input into the local plan-making process. It would help us all in our deliberations on new clause 5 to have more information about that.
Not surprisingly, the district councils are concerned that the costs of producing local plans will fall on them. They have asked a whole set of questions about funding, but I will wrap them up and paraphrase them. What is there in the system to prevent county councils from spending money in an extravagant way, on things such as exhibitions about the plan, lots of public consultation and glossy documents? The district councils will have to pay for that, so what will be in place to ensure cost-effectiveness in the delivery of plans and efficient use of resources?
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I want to say a few brief words on new clause 5 and to get a thorough understanding from the Minister about a particular situation that I, and I am sure others, might have in my constituency. This is about a local authority’s ability to use new clause 5 or possibly new clause 4 to avoid its responsibility in terms of required housing in its area, and how the Minister or Secretary of State will determine why one local authority is determined not to take its fair share of required housing.
I have a number of local authorities in my constituency, some of which are very keen to deliver houses and are doing so. One or two are not. How do we deal with a situation in which one errant local authority does not appear to want to produce a local plan that meets its objectively assessed housing need, and so uses new clause 4 or new clause 5 through the back door? I have not dreamed that situation. It is not that production of the local plan is being prevented, but there might simply be a political reluctance in the local authority to put housing in its area or there might be an ongoing battle to deliver a proper local plan.
That authority could argue, “We haven’t got the land in our local authority area, so we think all these houses should go in the adjoining local authority area”—which has a sound local plan and is delivering on its housing numbers. It might say, “Houses shouldn’t go in my local authority area. They should go in this adjoining one because they’ve got lots of space and lovely green fields to put the houses in.” The errant local authority might argue that houses should go into another local authority. We then come along and use new clause 4 or new clause 5 to say, “This has to be a joint plan, and these houses will have to go into the other local authority area that’s doing its job properly.” How will the Minister or the Secretary of State determine situations in which a local authority is not carrying out its duty to assess need and deliver those houses? Will the Minister look into that situation?
Gavin Barwell
It has been a useful debate, and I hope I can provide some clarification. Perhaps a mistress of understatement, the hon. Lady said that district councils were not terribly happy and county councils were reasonably happy. My message to district councils listening to this debate is that it is completely in their own power to ensure that this new clause is never used. All they need to do is produce local plans that address housing need in their area, and there will never be any reason at all for the Secretary of State to make use of this power. The only circumstances in which the power could ever be used would be if a district council somewhere in the country were failing to produce a local plan that met need in its area. To county councils, I would say, “Don’t get too excited,” because I do not think the intention is to make regular use of this power.
I will make one observation. When you become a Minister, you get given a mountain of brief to read into your subject. Something that stood out from one brief was the powers that the Government have taken to intervene on local planning authorities that are not deciding a high enough percentage of major applications within the specified timescale. That was quite contentious when the powers went through Parliament. What is interesting about it is that it has, I think, been used only three times. The existence of a power that says that the Planning Inspectorate is now going to determine planning applications rather than the relevant local authority determining them, has acted as a real spur to people to raise their game. It has not been necessary to use the power very often at all, and I suspect that this power might serve the same purpose. If it has provoked a strong reaction among district councils that do not ever want to see this happen, and that leads to more of them adopting their plans on a timely basis, I will be very happy never to have to use the power.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Does the Minister accept that one of the consequences—whether intended or unintended, I am not sure—of the possible designation of local planning departments as failing on the basis of the number of their determinations that are overturned by the inspector, is that, in practice, local authorities are very reluctant to turn any application down, lest it be overturned on appeal? That is most unfortunate, because we want local authorities to be able to determine an application on its merits, and not for it to be favoured because authorities are worried that they are going to lose their ability to determine all applications.
Gavin Barwell
That would be highly unfortunate and also unnecessary because the performance metric is purely about determining planning applications. It is just about ensuring that decisions are made within the statutory timescale.
Coming back to the issue the hon. Lady is probing with her amendment, what would be most useful—what she was really interested in—is some steer from me about when the powers under Government new clauses 4 and 5 might be used. The speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton was useful in providing a pointer about that. I will make two observations. One is generic: the hon. Lady was expressing nervousness that we might be back here in 12 months’ time debating another planning Bill. One of the things I wanted to do with this Bill was make sure that we took the necessary range of intervention powers in this area, so that we would not have to keep coming back and saying, “Actually, in this case we would like you to do this.” So I sat down with my officials and went through a variety of different situations and how Ministers might want to respond to them.
Taking my hon. Friend’s hypothetical example, if there is a local planning authority that is heavily constrained in terms of land—that is doing its best but is really struggling to meet housing needs in its area because of the make-up of that area—that would naturally lead to the use of new clause 4, because one might then look and say, “There are other authorities in the area that are not so constrained and if you worked together across that wider area, could you meet housing need across the area?”
My hon. Friend then mentioned a different kind of example: an authority that—an objective observer might suggest—had plenty of potential to meet housing need within its own area and was just ducking taking the necessary decisions. An intervention there, asking the authority to work with some neighbouring ones to produce a plan, would probably not work because they would continue to obstruct their neighbours and, as my hon. Friend said, potentially seek to pass the burden on to others. This might be a more suitable intervention power in those cases.
If the hon. Lady applies her mind to it, she can probably think of a couple of cases around the country in which a number of planning authorities within a county council area are struggling to meet their obligations. In that situation, looking at a county-wide solution to meeting housing need over a wider area might be an appropriate way forward. In some of those cases, county councils might choose to work with the relevant district councils, even if the Secretary of State gave them the formal responsibility.
Let me provide a little reassurance on a number of the detailed points that the hon. Lady made. She talked about three main things: skills and resources, and whether county councils had the skills and resources to do this work; the process in relation to the adoption of a plan—so if a county council produced a plan, how that plan got adopted; and also reassurance over residents’ involvement. I will deal with them in reverse order. I can provide her with complete reassurance on resident involvement. Local plans—whoever prepares or revises them—are subject to a legal requirement to consult the public and others, along with the right to make representations on the plan. From the point of view of residents living in a particular area, their ability to have their say and input on a plan will be completely unaffected. I hope that provides complete reassurance on that point.
Adoption is set out in the detail of new schedule 1, which goes with the new clause. I point members of the Committee to new paragraph 7C(4), which says:
“The upper-tier county council may…approve the document, or approve it subject to specified modifications”—
there it refers to modifications that the inspector recommends—
“as a local development document, or…direct the lower-tier planning authority to consider adopting the document by resolution of the authority”.
The county council has a choice: it can take the legal decision and have the plan adopted, or—perhaps in circumstances in which it has worked with the district council to get to that point—it might be prefer to say, “Okay, there is the plan. It would be better for the district council to make that decision.” Either option is available.
On the resources front—financially, as it were—there are clear provisions in place. Let me deal with the skills front. County councils do have significant input and involvement in the local plan-making process. They often have a significant contribution to make in terms of infrastructure—highways infrastructure and some of those other issues—but clearly if the Secretary of State felt that a particular county council did not have the relevant skills to do the job, he or she would not seek to use this provision and might rely on those in new clause 4.
On resourcing and the financial side, there are provisions that can provide reassurance. A county council has to be reimbursed for any expenditure where it prepares a plan because a local planning authority has failed to do so. Likewise, when it is necessary for the Government to arrange for a plan to be written, they can recover the costs.
I recognise—perhaps it is inevitable—that, say, organisations that represent district councils will have concerns about the proposal, but I hope I have provided reassurance. First, I do not expect the provision to be used on a regular basis, and indeed district councils have in their hands the means to ensure that it is never used. Secondly, the Government have sought to address concerns on resident involvement, the adoption process and the skills and resourcing of county councils. Thirdly, the right thing to do in the Bill, given the strong cross-party consensus on the need to get plans in place, is to ensure that, where it is necessary to intervene, the Secretary of State has the powers to think creatively about the ways in which that might happen.
My view in terms of the hierarchy is that the preferable solution would be to direct a planning authority to work with some of its neighbours. If that were not viable, the county council route is an interesting route. My strong view is that the worst option is ultimately that the Government have to step in, intervene and write a plan because, by definition, they are the most distant from the relevant local community. I hope I have provided the reassurance that the hon. Lady was looking for.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I thank the Minister for that helpful and detailed response. There are just two issues I would like him to go and ponder. First, what might be put in place to ensure that costs are kept at a reasonable level for district councils, bearing in mind that many local authorities really are struggling financially? Secondly, in the interests of keeping a positive relationship going between the district council and county council, what could be put in place to try to ensure that they work together in the production of a plan? I will come to amendment (a) at the appropriate point.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 5 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 6
Format of local development schemes and documents
(1) Section 36 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (regulations under Part 2) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).
(2) In the heading after “Regulations” insert “and standards”.
(3) After subsection (2) insert—
“(3) The Secretary of State may from time to time publish data standards for—
(a) local development schemes,
(b) local development documents, or
(c) local development documents of a particular kind.
(4) For this purpose a ‘data standard’ is a written standard which contains technical specifications for a scheme or document or the data contained in a scheme or document.
(5) A local planning authority must comply with the data standards published under subsection (3) in preparing, publishing, maintaining or revising a scheme or document to which the standards apply.”
(4) In section 15(8AA) of that Act (cases in which direction to revise local development scheme may be given by Secretary of State or Mayor of London)—
(a) after “only if” insert “—(a)”, and
(b) at the end of paragraph (a) insert “, or
(b) the Secretary of State has published data standards under section 36(3) which apply to the local development scheme and the person giving the direction thinks that the scheme should be revised so that it complies with the standards.”—(Gavin Barwell.)
This new clause enables the Secretary of State to set data standards for local development schemes and documents, requiring these documents or the data they contain to comply with specified technical specifications. It also enables the Secretary of State or the Mayor of London to direct a local planning authority to revise a local development scheme so that it complies with data standards.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment (a) to Government new clause 6, after proposed new subsection (3)(c) of section 36 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, insert—“(d) technical documents.”
Gavin Barwell
New clause 6 will enable the Secretary of State to publish data standards for local development documents and local development schemes. Local planning authorities already gather a range of information during the planning process, and the local government transparency code places a duty on authorities to make openly available data on which policy decisions are based and public services are assessed.
The local plans expert group, to which I have referred several times, believes that there needs to be a step change in how local plans are presented to their users—for example, ensuring that documents are accessible on the web, improving the interactivity between maps and planned policy documents, which is something to which I personally attach particular importance, and exploring opportunities for improving online consultation. The Government agree with that recommendation.
There are a number of examples of where new technology has enhanced and improved engagement in communities on local planning matters. By way of example, my Department funded an initiative that has seen Plymouth City Council’s neighbourhood planning team lead a Data Play initiative to help to open up council data for neighbourhood forums to use, but we can be more ambitious to ensure that planning and planning documents take advantage of what technology has to offer. New technology means that individuals, groups, entrepreneurs and businesses can now access and exploit public data in a way that increases accountability, drives choice and spurs innovation.
A constituent came to my surgery and brought a relative of his who did not live in my area but was involved in the development business. He showed me something that he had produced for a town in Kent. He had essentially taken a detailed Office for National Statistics map of that town and overlaid on to that map the planning policies of the relevant local plan in order to identify 324 small sites that would accommodate at least one unit of housing and that ought to receive planning consent because they appeared to be consistent with the planning policies set out in that relevant local plan. That was hugely interesting, thinking about the experience we all have with small and medium-sized enterprise builders who talk about access to land. My constituent’s relative was planning to go into partnerships with a whole series of small builders in that area. He would secure planning consent and work with the builders to develop out the scheme.
Jim McMahon
I want to endorse the power of open data. Greater Manchester is one of the pilot projects for the Cabinet Office’s open data scheme. That means that across all of Greater Manchester the public can access, completely free of charge, data on utilities, services, natural boundaries and, quite importantly, land ownership. We have discovered that the public sector sits on quite a lot of land that is ripe for development. Of course, the Land Commission will identify that as part of the whole parcel of attempts to get such sites developed. I recommend that the Minister, when he visits Greater Manchester, takes a look at that project.
Gavin Barwell
I am always grateful for tips. I think that I am coming up to co-chair a meeting of the Land Commission at the start of December with Tony Lloyd, so I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing that project to my attention.
I think that we are all localists here, but I hope that we all recognise that, to capitalise on the opportunities provided by new technology and gain maximum value, key planning data need to be published in a consistent format across the country. If every local planning authority opened up its data, but did so using different systems and in different ways, it would be much more difficult for people who want to operate across local planning authority boundaries to make use of the data.
The intention behind new clause 6 is to open up those possibilities, and it will do that by amending the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, with which we are becoming very familiar by now, to enable the Secretary of State to publish data standards. In essence, those standards are detailed technical specifications that local planning authorities must meet for documents that they are already required to publish.
We want to work with representatives of the sector to develop the specification of the data standards. We will then consult local planning authorities on the technical document that authorities will need to follow. Once the data standards are defined, they will apply to all local development documents, the planning documents prepared by a local planning authority; and local development schemes, the timetable for the preparation of the development plan documents that comprise the local plan.
The measure provides a solid basis for creating more accessible and more transparent plans. Opening up public data lies at the heart of a wider Government push for a digital nation, in which the relationship between individual citizens and the Government is transformed. This is a small but important contribution to that.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I will make a few brief comments on new clause 6 and on amendment (a). The Opposition very much welcome new clause 6. Anything that the Government can do to make planning documents more accessible to local people, the better, because, as I described earlier, some of those documents can be very weighty and lengthy. Being able to access them easily online and in a format in which people can comprehend them more easily will be a good thing and is very much to be welcomed.
I tabled the amendment on technical documents to test with the Minister whether the provisions of new clause 6 will relate to technical documents as well and to ask whether the Government will give some consideration—to reiterate a point I made earlier—to what exactly is needed in technical documents, which are public-facing documents. Obviously, we want people to have as much information as possible about what underpins policies in a local plan, but we also want to ensure that the important points do not get lost in a mass of detail such that people never seek to address, look at or try to understand the documents.
My first point is that I broadly welcome new clause 6, and it will be interesting to see how it works in practice and what sort of data the Secretary of State puts in the standards. I hope that the Minister will learn from his Cabinet Office colleagues about the open data project mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton and that the documents are made as successful as possible. Will the Minister deal with the specific issue I have raised about how we might do the whole technical documents thing?
Gavin Barwell
I hope that the hon. Lady and I can have a discussion outside the Committee to test whether we have a point of difference here. In essence, as the new clause is drafted, it defines what needs to be released in legally precise language—as I said, the local development documents, which are the planning documents prepared by the authority, and the local development scheme, which is the timetable for preparation. If she feels that that does not capture some of the things that need to be released, the Government are very happy to look at what other wording can be included. Clearly, however, the wording would need to be precise, so that authorities understand it exactly. Our intention is clear: all the key documents that make up the local plan should be covered by the measure. If, having listened to me, hon. Members feel that there is a gap here and that something is missing, I am happy to talk about it outside the Committee, perhaps coming back at a later date to address it.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 6 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 7
Review of local development documents
In section 17 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (local development documents) after subsection (6) insert—
“(6A) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision requiring a local planning authority to review a local development document at such times as may be prescribed.
(6B) If regulations under subsection (6A) require a local planning authority to review a local development document—
(a) they must consider whether to revise the document following each review, and
(b) if they decide not to do so, they must publish their reasons for considering that no revisions are necessary.
(6C) Any duty imposed by virtue of subsection (6A) applies in addition to the duty in subsection (6).”—(Gavin Barwell.)
This new clause enables regulations to require a local planning authority to review local development documents at prescribed times.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 9
Sustainable development and placemaking
(1) The purpose of planning is the achievement of long-term sustainable development and placemaking.
(2) Under this Act sustainable development and placemaking means managing the use, development and protection of land and natural resources in a way which enables people and communities to provide for their legitimate social, economic and cultural wellbeing while sustaining the potential of future generations to meet their own needs.
(3) In achieving sustainable development, the local planning authority should—
(a) identify suitable land for development in line with the economic, social and environmental objectives so as to improve the quality of life, wellbeing and health of people and the community;
(b) contribute to the sustainable economic development of the community;
(c) contribute to the vibrant cultural and artistic development of the community;
(d) protect and enhance the natural and historic environment;
(e) contribute to mitigation and adaptation to climate change in line with the objectives of the Climate Change Act 2008;
(f) promote high quality and inclusive design;
(g) ensure that decision-making is open, transparent, participative and accountable; and
(h) ensure that assets are managed for long-term interest of the community.”—(Dr Blackman Woods.)
This new clause would clarify in statute that the planning system should be focused on the public interest and in achieving quality outcomes including placemaking.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I accept that this is a fairly long new clause, but it seeks to do something that is really important: to put the purpose of planning in the Bill to be absolutely certain that it is about achieving long-term sustainable development and, critically, placemaking alongside that. It is very much along the lines of, but not identical to what is in the national planning policy framework.
The new clause then says what a local planning authority should do to try to achieve sustainable development: identify suitable land for development; contribute to the sustainable economic development of the community; contribute—this is really important because it often falls off the agenda when considering development issues—to the vibrant cultural and artistic development of the community; protect and enhance the natural and historic environment; contribute to mitigation and adaptation to climate change in line with the objectives of the Climate Change Act 2008, which I rehearsed for the Committee the other day; promote high-quality and inclusive design, which in my experience planning applications and determinations do not pay enough attention to; ensure that decisions are transparent and involve as many local people as possible; and finally and really importantly, because it often falls out of the decision-making process in applications, ensure that assets are managed for the long-term interest of the community.
Far too many developers in my area and others are very keen and quick to demolish or to enable alterations to be made to important historic buildings, for example, particularly if they are not protected by a listing. Planners often do not consider the short-term nature of some developments and whether they are of poor quality. If planning communities had to think about how they were managing assets for the longer term, some of the truly awful planning decisions that have been made might not have been made.
The Royal Town Planning Institute, in its August 2016 report, “Delivering the Value of Planning”—I am sure that it was one of the first things to land on the new Minister’s desk—pointed out:
“Instead of stripping power from planning, governments need to maximise the potential of planning and ensure that planners have the powers and resources to deliver positive, proactive planning.”
That is the purpose of new clause 9.
Gavin Barwell
I thank the hon. Lady for tabling the new clause and for underlining the importance of sustainable development and placemaking. To a degree, we have had this debate before—we had an interesting debate earlier about sustainable development—so she probably knows what I am going to say on the overall issue. However, she raised some interesting specific points about new settlements, which I will come on to in a moment.
The Government agree that sustainable development is integral to the planning system and that a plan-led system is key to delivering it, but we do not believe that it is necessary to write these things into legislation. The new clause seeks to make the achievement of sustainable development and placemaking the legal purpose of planning, and it would set objectives to be met by local planning authorities in working towards that goal. However, the Government believe that that goal is already adequately addressed both in legislation and in policy. I refer the hon. Lady to a statute that I have referred to many times today, the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, section 39 of which requires bodies that prepare local development documents for local plans to do so
“with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development.”
Our national planning policy framework is also very clear that sustainable development should be at the heart of planning and should be pursued in a positive and integrated way. Taken as a whole, the framework constitutes the Government’s view on what sustainable development means. It is explicit that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to achieving sustainable development; that the economic, social and environmental aspects that the hon. Lady referred to in some detail in an earlier debate are mutually dependent and that none should be pursued in isolation. The Committee has discussed the NPPF already, so I will not read out a long quotation from it, but the first sentence of the ministerial foreword, written by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) when he was Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, reads:
“The purpose of planning is to help achieve sustainable development.”
Our commitment there is very clear. That principle runs through all levels of plan-making—strategic, local and neighbourhood. Since decisions on individual applications must by law be plan-led, the goal of sustainable development permeates the planning system.
Although the Government completely agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of sustainable development and placemaking, we do not believe that setting a prescriptive definition in statute is the right way forward—not least from a democratic point of view, because it is perfectly possible that a future Government will want to amend the NPPF definition in some way, hopefully an ever more progressive way. In our view, that should not necessarily have to be done by introducing more primary legislation; the Government should be able to do it through policy.
For those reasons, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her new clause, but I will say a few positive words on her comments on new settlements. I very strongly agree with those comments. I have had some very good discussions with the Town and Country Planning Association on the issue, and I recently addressed a conference at Alconbury Weald, which is one of the new settlements being delivered along garden village principles. There were people there from all over the country who had bid into our programme to create new garden towns and villages. I very much hope to make an announcement on that shortly.
The Government have taken action fairly recently to try to change the law in a way that helps the process. At the instigation of the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Taylor of Goss Moor, we made some important changes to the New Towns Act 1981 by means of the Housing and Planning Act 2016. Those changes make it easier to set up new town development corporations in areas and to extend their objectives so that they can better support the delivery of new, locally led garden towns and villages where that is what local areas want.
I very much agree with the hon. Lady that new settlements will be an important ingredient of our strategy to ensure that we get this country building the homes we need. They are not the only answer because, by definition, a significant number of new homes are involved in the creation of a new settlement, and it takes time to get the build-out of those properties. We also need smaller sites where we are more likely to get rapid build-out. The hon. Lady is right to say that in many parts of the country it will prove much more politically acceptable to plan some new sustainable settlements, with all the community infrastructure and environmental sustainability that is at the core of the garden town and garden village concept, than to slowly expand every existing settlement out.
The Government share the hon. Lady’s thoughts on new settlements, and our garden towns and cities programme is good evidence of that. In fact, one of the first visits I made as a Minister was to Ebbsfleet to see the progress that is being made. It took some time to get under way, but we are now seeing good progress. I am looking forward to visiting several other new settlements throughout the country over the coming months. I very much share the aspirations that the hon. Lady expressed in support of her new clause.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I thank the Minister for his response, much of which I anticipated, if not quite all of it. I shall make two brief points.
First, with some of the detail of the new clause I was trying to tease out the extent to which the Government feel that new towns or garden cities have to abide by the garden city principles. For example, I discussed with the Minister’s predecessor the lack of affordable housing in Ebbsfleet, which did not seem to me to be in line with the garden city principles. That is why the new clause contains quite a detailed list and includes things such as community assets, which are not mentioned in the national planning policy framework. Will the Minister ponder on the fact that there is a great deal of detail in the new clause that is not in the NPPF? How might such detail be applied to new towns?
Finally, we have not discussed this much in Committee because the national infrastructure commission was taken out of the Bill, but I emphasise to the Minister that for any new settlement it is essential to get the infrastructure costs met, and met up front. That was a huge problem for Ebbsfleet, which is why there was considerable delay in the build-out. When the Minister comes to putting the final touches to the White Paper, I hope there is something in it about how infrastructure will be funded, because that seems to be a major issue that holds up the development of new settlements. With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 10
Funding for local authority planning functions
(1) The Secretary of State must consult local planning authorities prior to the commencement of any new statutory duties to ensure that they are—
(a) adequately resourced; and
(b) adequately funded
so that they are able to undertake the additional work.
(2) In any instance where that is not the case, an independent review of additional cost must be conducted to set out the level of resource required to allow planning authorities to fulfil any new statutory duties.—(Jim McMahon.)
This new clause would ensure that the costs of new planning duties are calculated and adequately funded.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 15—Ability of local authorities to set planning fees—
(1) A local authority may determine fees relating to planning applications in its area.
(2) Subsection (1) applies, but is not restricted to, fees relating to—
(a) permitted development applications, and
(b) discharge of planning conditions.
Jim McMahon
The new clauses are linked: they both relate to resources and funding. New clause 10 would ensure that we carry out a thorough review to understand the situation in local authorities, while new clause 15 would give local authorities the ability to charge more realistic fees for the services they provide.
We have heard a great deal in Committee about resourcing—it was a key feature of the oral evidence sessions—and about how local authorities have been affected by central Government cuts to the revenue support grant and how that has affected planning services. Despite that, local authorities are still subsidising planning services, because they are not able to get enough money from planning fees to cover the cost of those services.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
It continues to be a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. As I said in an evidence session, I completely accept the principle we just heard described: that planning departments are woefully under-resourced, which is a significant inhibitor to development and to planning consent being granted, and that the most appropriate way to remedy that under-resourcing is for applicants—the developers—to pay higher fees. I agree with the spirit of what has been said. This is a point I raised in the Housing and Planning Bill Committee in this very room a year ago and with both the current Housing and Planning Minister and his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis). I am completely on board with the principles being described. However, the two new clauses have some deficiencies.
New clause 10 simply says that where there is inadequate resource, a review must be conducted to set out the appropriate level of resource. Setting it out does not provide it. That is simply a statement that there is inadequate resource, so I do not think new clause 10 addresses the problem; it simply highlights the fact that the problem exists, which we all know already.
New clause 15 is very generally worded. It gives local authorities complete discretion to set their own fees. I have three concerns about it. First, there is no limit on how high the fees might go. I accept that the fees are currently too low, but as drafted the new clause would mean that some local authorities might set fees that are unreasonably high and in fact deter development. There is nothing in the new clause to address that concern. Secondly, there is nothing to ensure that the money raised by higher fees will be ring-fenced for the provision of additional planning services, nor, in a similar vein, to ensure that the existing level of service being provided by general taxation is maintained. There is nothing to ensure that the extra money raised leads to extra—that is to say, incremental—levels of resource in the planning department, which is what I want. Thirdly, the new clause does not place any performance obligations on the local authority planning department. It is essential that if a developer or applicant is paying higher fees, they receive improved performance in return—for example, a decision made within a certain period.
While I fully support the principles articulated by the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton, I am afraid to say that the details do not quite pass muster. I could not support a new clause unless it had those three things: reasonable fee levels, ring-fenced money to ensure incremental service provision and a link to performance. I am deeply sorry that I will not be able to support the new clause, despite the fact that I support its spirit.
I listened carefully to the Minister’s evidence and what he said about the coming White Paper. I very much hope to receive satisfaction when that White Paper is published—I hope in the near future. Should these measures not find their way into the White Paper, I will be an energetic and active advocate of those principles in due course. I would be happy to discuss this further with the Minister.
Gavin Barwell
Let me start by reiterating what I said during previous Committee discussions and in the evidence that my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South just referred to. The Secretary of State and I have heard the concerns of developers, local authorities, professional bodies and hon. Members about stretched resources of planning departments and the calls for an increase in planning fees. We absolutely accept that there is an issue here and we are looking closely at it. I want to ensure that planning departments have the resources to provide the service that applicants and communities as a whole deserve. However, for many of the reasons that my hon. Friend eloquently set out, I do not believe that new clauses 10 and 15 are the answer.
Chris Philp
Could we not have a graded scale of enhanced fees, reflecting the size of different applications?
Gavin Barwell
There is already a grading of the fees, but the general presumption is that fees increase by a similar percentage. We could consider increasing some fees and not others for larger schemes, with the caveat that although developers with large applications pay very significant fees, the majority of people who pay fees are individual constituents wanting to put an extension on a domestic property.
The hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton and I may have different views on the issue, but it is worth pointing out that we already have the powers to achieve what new clause 15 proposes. The Secretary of State can already provide in regulations for local planning authorities to set their own fees, at least up to the level of cost recovery. I would be surprised if the Opposition believed that fees should go beyond full cost recovery. Earlier this year, we consulted on several proposals for the resourcing of planning departments; we shall publish our response shortly, as part of the White Paper.
Before I resume my seat, I should like to add one other caveat, which does not detract from the central importance of getting the resourcing right. This is about not just money but ensuring that sufficient people enter the profession. In the last year, we have provided the RTPI with funding for a bursary scheme for students undertaking postgraduate planning studies. I very much agreed with the hon. Member for City of Durham when she spoke passionately about the important contribution that planners make with regard to new settlements. Raising the profile and status of the profession and ensuring that planners are seen as not obstructing or stopping development but ensuring that we get the quantity and high quality of development that we need is important in getting enough people coming into the industry.
Money is an issue—I hope I have provided sufficient reassurance that the Government are looking at that—but we must ensure that we have the human resources as well as the financial resources. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause.
Jim McMahon
I am willing to withdraw new clause 10 on the basis that there is universal agreement that local authority planning departments are under-resourced. If there is no need to carry out a review to establish that, it is not an issue that is worth falling out over.
I do want to press new clause 15 to a vote, though, because we need to focus minds. It is all very well saying that there will be jam tomorrow—there is a White Paper coming and it will all be milk and honey—but our planning departments want more.
Gavin Barwell
Clearly the Opposition can test that issue with a vote, but may I press the hon. Gentleman on the point I raised? Regardless of the wording of the amendment, do the official Opposition believe that planning authorities should be able to charge fees beyond full cost recovery?
Jim McMahon
That has never been a suggestion in any of our debates, or from any of the people who have given evidence. The proposal is not to profiteer from developments that enhance the local community, but to reflect the true cost of administering planning applications. Taxpayers should not subsidise applications through their council tax, and developers should get the service they require. I agree with the hon. Member for Croydon South that there is a need to ensure good performance, as there is a contract between developers and the local planning authority. We would be open to that, as would councillors—Councillor Newman was clear that a better relationship would be created between local authorities and developers through the increased fee and through developers’ expectations being managed.
Dr Blackman-Woods
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Does he agree that if the Government do not like the wording of the new clause, they can table another proposal on Report that makes it clear that only full cost recovery is being sought, and that it is about hypothecating for planning any additional money raised?
Jim McMahon
That is an important point. I am a localist at heart. I want to get away from the idea that central Government determine absolutely every fee, charge and activity at a local level. We should be far more inclined to push back and say that if people have an issue, they should take it up with the local authority concerned and have that direct relationship, holding to account locally. It is interesting that we are giving developers a facility that we do not give to members of the public, for example when they are having a relative cremated—we do not determine in Parliament how much those fees should be. We should be a bit more realistic and accept that councils are grown up and mature and that they do such things on a daily basis. That relationship with developers can be done to a great extent.
No one in the Opposition will say that the wording of the new clause absolutely achieves everything we have set out. That was not the intention; the intention was that we put a marker down and that we push the issue, because people have pushed us to push the issue—we heard that in the evidence sessions—and we would be absolutely delighted to see alternative wording come forward at a later stage to tie things down.
Gavin Barwell
I understand that the Opposition want to test the issue with a vote, but I repeat that the law already provides the exact power being sought; it is already in law that we could charge at full cost recovery.
Jim McMahon
It could well be that between now and our next sitting that legislation is used, that the regulatory power of the Secretary of State is enforced and that local authorities are given that ability, in which case we might have a very different debate at our next sitting. As it stands, however, that power is not used, which is why we suggested the new clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 11
Review of sustainable drainage
(1) Before exercising his powers under section 35(1) the Secretary of State must carry out a review of planning legislation, government planning policy and local planning policies concerning sustainable drainage in relation to the development of land in England.—(Dr Blackman-Woods.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the impact of the planning system on the management of flooding and drainage.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am sure that the Minister was an avid follower of the deliberations on the Housing and Planning Bill, so he will know that the issue raised by this new clause was mentioned in those proceedings, particularly in the other place. The Government have already committed to a review of planning legislation, Government planning policy and local planning policies as they relate to sustainable drainage. Given that, it is appropriate for the Minister to ask, “If so, why make a similar amendment to this Bill?” I hope to give him the answer. The new clause is, first, very much a probing one, so that we may put questions to the Minister about the review, and secondly, to reiterate the importance of undertaking that review before the Secretary of State exercises new powers that the Government have said are made under the Bill in order to bring forward more development.
The review came about as a result of a call for a more strenuous new clause on sustainable drainage that was tabled by a cross-party group in the other place. In response, the Government said that they would carry out a review, although it was much narrower than what was requested by their lordships. We ended up with a commitment to undertake a full review of the strengthened planning policy on sustainable drainage systems by April 2017—narrower than this new clause and the previous one.
The Housing and Planning Minister at the time said:
“The Government are committed to ensuring that developments are safe from flooding, and the delivery of sustainable drainage systems is part of our planning policy, which was strengthened just over a year ago. Our policy is still new, as I outlined in more detail last week, and I am willing to consider issues further as it matures. I am happy to review the effectiveness of current policy and legislation”.—[Official Report, 9 May 2016; Vol. 609, c. 463.]
That commitment was given in lieu of the amendment in May this year.
Gavin Barwell
Not for the first time, the hon. Lady has accurately predicted what I was going to say. The Government believe that the new clause is unnecessary. Section 171 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 includes a requirement for the Secretary of State to carry out a review of planning legislation, Government policy and local planning policies concerning sustainable drainage in relation to the development of land in England. Rather than just leaving it there, perhaps I can provide some reassurance on where we are with all that.
My Department has formally commenced work on the review and that section of the 2016 Act. The review’s primary purpose is to examine the extent to which planning has been successful in encouraging the take-up of such drainage systems in new developments. More specifically, it will look at how national planning policies for SUDS are being reflected in local plans; the uptake of SUDS in major new housing developments, including the type of systems employed; the use of SUDS in smaller developments below the major threshold; the use of SUDS in commercial and mixed-use developments, including the type of systems employed; and how successful local plans and national policies have been in encouraging the take-up of SUDS in housing developments. It will engage with a wide range of stakeholders to gauge how the new policy and arrangements are bedding in and to analyse options for further action to improve take-up.
My officials are working on gathering evidence for the review, in collaboration with colleagues at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency. We aim to substantially complete our evidence gathering by spring 2017 to ensure that the findings of the review are available to inform the Committee on Climate Change’s adaptation sub-committee’s progress report on the national adaptation programme, to be published in summer 2017.
It might be worth saying a brief word about the substantive policy issue. The background to the review relates to a non-Government amendment that sought to remove the automatic right to connect to a public sewer for surface water, in a bid to push people into adopting SUDS. Even before the changes to planning in major developments that came into effect in April last year, the NPPF set out some strict tests, which all local planning authorities are expected to follow, to protect people and property from flooding. As part of that policy, priority should be given to SUDS in all developments—except very minor ones—in areas at risk of flooding. The policy has now been strengthened to make clear our expectation that SUDS will be provided in all major new developments, whether or not in a flood risk area, unless they can be demonstrated to be inappropriate.
As well as strengthening policy expectations, we have extended national guidance to set out considerations and options for sustainable drainage systems, including in relation to their operation and maintenance. Lead local flood authorities have been made statutory consultees for planning applications for major developments, to ensure that local planning authorities have access to appropriate technical expertise and advice.
I hope I have reassured the hon. Member for City of Durham that there has already been a significant policy shift in the right direction and that good progress is being made on the review and on meeting our undertakings in the Housing and Planning Act 2016. On that basis, I ask her to withdraw the new clause.
Dr Blackman-Woods
The Minister is right that I tabled the new clause primarily to get an update on the availability and use of SUDS. There is cross-party agreement that they should be employed when new developments are at risk of flooding, and indeed in wider circumstances. We look forward to seeing the report on the climate change adaptation programme in summer 2017. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 12
Planning obligations
(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) of section 106 (planning obligations) paragraph (d) at end insert—
“(e) requiring that information submitted as part of, and in support of, a viability assessment be made available to the public.”—(Dr Blackman-Woods.)
This new clause would ensure that viability assessments are public documents with no commercial confidentiality restrictions, except in cases where disclosure would not be in the public interest.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am not sure that the Minister and I will be in such agreement on new clause 12, but we shall see. The new clause would ensure that viability assessments are put into the public domain so that they are available for public scrutiny. The Minister will know that the Opposition have long raised this issue. Labour’s view is that for the public to accept new development, they have to be absolutely certain that viability arrangements for a site—particularly safety integrity level requirements and section 106 requirements—are all that they should be.
I know from my own experience the kind of situation that can make local people sceptical about development or turn the public against a new housing development: for example, when they do not get the amount of affordable housing they think they should get; or when a contribution to a local primary school is suddenly no longer applied by the local authority because of viability issues. Although I am happy to take on trust a lot of what local authorities do, we would all accept that, as a general principle, local authorities need to be as transparent as possible in all their decisions. I am entirely uncertain as to why the Government are of the view that viability assessments should not be in the public domain.
The new clause would also help the public by giving us all a better view of any uplift in the value of land across the country. In some areas developers can provide more of a payback to the local community than in others because of the price of land. It does not always vary depending on the value of land—there will be other local circumstances. However, it would be good to have a more detailed understanding of what is being delivered, in terms of a planning gain, and why that particular level has been arrived at, than we currently have from the information that is in the public domain.
Viability assessments are used by developers to argue their planning obligations under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Of course, we find that a lot of viability assessments are used to reduce payments, although not always—that would be completely unfair. The Royal Institute of British Architects has commented:
“Despite the Planning Practice Guidance encouraging transparency, developers may opt not to disclose their viability assessments to the public on grounds of commercial confidentiality. It is widely accepted that this is sometimes done in order that they can negotiate down their S106 obligations without public scrutiny. As a consequence, affordable housing may be reduced and the quality of the built environment may suffer.”
We know that there is a huge lack of affordable housing across the UK, so it is absolutely vital that developers are not allowed to deliberately dodge their obligations to contribute to affordable housing through viability assessments. It is equally important that they can be held accountable by local people.
National planning policy guidance states that when it comes to viability, plans should
“present visions for an area in the context of an understanding of local economic conditions and market realities.”
In many places, local economic conditions mean that some affordable housing is required. In fact, that is the case in most areas; I was trying to think of some areas where it might not be required, and it is really hard to do so because there is such a desperate need for genuinely affordable housing. I am talking about genuinely affordable housing, not the starter homes that the Government have put into this category, because £250,000 is certainly not affordable for many people in my constituency.
Dr Blackman-Woods
In Durham city, which has a very different level of average house prices than in the county, the average house price is probably about £200,000 to £220,000.
Gavin Barwell
In that case, I put it to the hon. Lady that constantly quoting the maximum level for starter homes across the whole of England is not a particularly accurate rendering of what the policy will mean in her area. The average house price in the city is £200,000, so the average starter home in the city will be about £160,000. That certainly would not be affordable to everybody living in the city, but it would clearly bring home ownership within the reach of a greater proportion of her constituents than currently have it.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I am not sure that that is how the policy will work in practice. I spoke to the developer of a new development in Durham where really quite attractive family homes are being built. The prices range from £220,000 or £230,000 up to £310,000. Without the developer having to change anything at all that it does to roll out the development, it will meet its requirement under the starter homes initiative and will not have to deliver any affordable housing. That is the effect of the policy in an area such as mine. Those homes would have been delivered anyway. I am not sure that the policy is adding to the quantity of genuinely affordable homes locally, which is what we really need.
The point I was making was that greater transparency about viability arrangements would help us to understand how planning gain is arrived at and give the local community, which is at times concerned about how section 106 obligations get watered down, more confidence in the planning system overall. It would help communities to accept development more readily if they understood what the costs were and how they stacked up. Sometimes, such transparency would lead to more sympathy for developers than they currently get. The public often assume that the developers are making thousands and thousands of pounds from each development, but in some areas of the country where land prices are more difficult for developers, that might not be the case at all.
The new clause could help developers by making it clear how their obligations were arrived at. It would also help the public to understand how the finances and the housing market in this country stack up. On top of that, it might create circumstances in which, when the public are concerned about a particular development, better negotiation can take place between the developer and the local community about what can be delivered and in what way. At the moment, those conversations simply do not happen because viability assessments are kept confidential.
Gavin Barwell
As the hon. Lady said, new clause 12 relates to section 106 planning obligations and viability assessments. Planning obligations are normally agreements negotiated between the applicant and the local planning authority. They usually relate to developer contributions to infrastructure and affordable housing, and reflect policy in local plans.
The purpose of a section 106 planning obligation is to mitigate the impact of otherwise unacceptable development, to make it acceptable in planning terms. Local planning authorities may seek viability assessments in some circumstances, but Government guidance is clear that decision taking on individual applications does not normally require an assessment of viability. Developers may submit a viability assessment in support of their negotiations, if they consider that their proposed development would be rendered unviable by the extent of planning obligations sought by the local planning authority. Some authorities make such assessments publicly available, which I suggest shows the hon. Lady that there is no need to introduce legislation. Local authorities are currently perfectly free under the law to do what she wants them to do.
It is important that local authorities act in a transparent way in their decision-making processes. My main point of assurance to the hon. Lady is that there is already legislation—principally the Freedom of Information Act, but also the Environmental Information Regulations 2004—that governs the release of information. If necessary, that legislation enables people to seek a review if they are not satisfied by the response of the local authority and, ultimately, to appeal to the Information Commissioner if they remain unsatisfied.
Jim McMahon
If a developer does not want that information to be made public because of the commercial confidentiality of the scheme, surely it would be exempt from release under the Freedom of Information Act.
Gavin Barwell
That is my understanding. I am not an expert on that legislation, but I understand that that would be a judgment for the Information Commissioner to make. The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the problem.
Sometimes developers will argue that the information they provide in order to give the authority a proper insight into the viability of a development is highly commercially sensitive. Therefore, they would not want to see that released in the public domain. If we were to change the law requiring all viability assessments to become public, there is a danger that the quality of information that local authorities would receive as a result would be significantly diminished.
I hope I have provided some reassurance. I will end with two other quick thoughts. There is a read-across from the amendment to the review of the community infrastructure levy, which is currently sitting on my desk, which looks at both CIL and the interaction with section 106. There are some powerful arguments to look at reform in this area so that we are more dependent on a nationally set charge that is locally collected and spent locally and less dependent on individual section 106 contributions, where there is much more scope for the kind of long-running argument that does not necessarily work in the public interest.
Although it is slightly tangential to the amendment, because the hon. Lady was principally concerned with affordable housing I want to set her straight on the starter homes policy. We are very clear on what the policy is, which is to require developers to provide a proportion of homes—we have yet to set out what that will be—at a 20% discount to what the market price would otherwise be. The figures bandied around in London are different because the limit is different in London—this is frustrating to me—so I regularly hear from people who have had colleagues from the Labour party contact them, who say, “Who says £450,000 is affordable?” but that is the maximum limit in London. In New Addington in my constituency, homes sell at well below that, and starter homes will sell at a 20% discount to what they would otherwise sell at in New Addington.
I will not claim for one moment that starter homes will ensure that home ownership is affordable for everyone who currently cannot afford it, but there is compelling evidence—if the hon. Lady is interested, I can write to her with the figures—that it will allow a significant proportion of people who currently privately rent to access home ownership who would not otherwise do so.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Will the Minister update us on the Help to Buy programme? I understand that that has collapsed.
Gavin Barwell
The hon. Lady is wrong. It has not collapsed; it continues to help large numbers of people own their own homes. There were two different Help to Buy schemes: the mortgage guarantee scheme and the equity loan scheme. The mortgage guarantee scheme, which applied to all homes, was basically a market intervention because after the great depression of 2008-09 there was a point in time when people with low deposits were not able to access mortgages. The scheme was an intervention to deal with that. The market has now adjusted and it is possible to access those kinds of mortgages.
The equity loan scheme applies when people are looking to buy a new build property. That scheme is still running because there is a strong public policy benefit. Research evidence shows that something like 40% of those purchases are homes that otherwise would not have been built. The scheme is therefore helping to drive up the supply of new housing, which ultimately is the critical issue we are debating. The publicity the hon. Lady has read—to reassure her, she is not the only person to have got the wrong end of the stick—was about a particular part of the Help to Buy scheme that is coming to an end at the end of this year. The equity loan scheme is continuing, and it will continue through to at least 2021.
I will not go much further, because this is slightly tangential to the main issue, but I want to reinforce strongly and publicly that the starter homes policy will bring home ownership within the reach of a significant number of people who would not otherwise find it affordable. It is not the only answer—other things are required, and I am happy to accept that affordable housing should be about not just helping people to afford to buy, but shared ownership and affordable homes for people to rent. We should not say that the starter homes initiative is not making a contribution to helping people afford a home of their own.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Let me give the Minister a bit of reassurance in terms of our understanding of the starter homes initiative. Opposition Members understand what the words “up to £250,000” mean. We were not suggesting that every single home will be £250,000 under this initiative or £450,000 in London, nor were we suggesting for a minute that the initiative does not reduce the cost of home ownership for a number of people. I do not recall mentioning that.
I was making the point that in lots of our constituencies, reducing a home from £250,000 to £200,000 does not make it affordable housing for many people. Enabling developers to discharge their affordable housing obligations through this mechanism means that money might not be available for other obligations under section 106 of the 1990 Act. Because of the viability of a particular site, we would not know that, because we were not seeing the viability assessment.
Gavin Barwell
It is important to get this on the record. The hon. Lady is quite right that if we set the requirement for starter homes too high, it could squeeze out some other important forms of housing. However, one difference that is worth teasing out is what we understand by the term “affordable housing”. It has been used traditionally in housing policy to mean council and housing association housing. When most of our constituents hear the term, they are interested in how they can be helped to afford a home of their own. To me, policy that makes home ownership affordable for people who otherwise would not have been able to afford it is not the only important type of affordable housing but is absolutely affordable housing.
Dr Blackman-Woods
International uses of affordable housing are usually something like three times average income. In my constituency, that would make a home affordable at about £75,000 or £80,000 if it was one person, and for a couple, double that. That is by international standards. For a lot of people on average incomes, that puts starter homes out of their reach, but that was not the point I was raising.
Now it is my turn to tell the Minister that we are doing a piece of work on what affordability means in the current housing environment. When we have completed that, I will be happy to share it with him. New clause 12 seeks to make viability a bit more transparent. The Government’s own review of the NPPF and guidance came forward with the suggestion of guidance being stronger on the transparency of viability assessments. I direct the Minister to Lord Taylor’s work and ask him to ponder on it. That was, as far as I understand it, an independent review of the Government’s guidance. There is general agreement that it would be really helpful to our whole development system if viability was more transparent. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 14
Review of permitted development rights
(1) Before exercising his powers under section 35(1) the Secretary of State must review the provisions of all General Development Orders made under the powers conferred to the Secretary of State by sections 59, 60, 61, 74 and 333(7) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 granting permitted development rights since 1 January 2013.—(Jim McMahon.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the permitted development rights granted since 2013.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Jim McMahon
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 14 intends to finally hold the Government to account on the extension of permitted development rights. We have heard a lot about our aspirations for quality, decent neighbourhoods and places where people aspire to live and are proud to live. Extension of permitted development rights flies in the face of that, because it allows a free-for-all for developers without checks and balances, local control and long-term stability and quality in mind.
Kevin Hollinrake
I draw the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which I should have done earlier.
Is the hon. Gentleman implying that every single development that is commercial to residential is not done well? In my life prior to entering politics, I dealt with many schemes that developers brought forward because of permitted development rights. They resulted in excellent developments that met market demand, which is key. I do not deny that there will be problems on some occasions, but is he trying to argue that every single development is an inappropriate home not built to the right standards?
Jim McMahon
I suppose the hon. Gentleman could listen to me, or he could listen to the architect who said of the Housing and Planning Bill:
“This new Bill only addresses speed of delivery: short-sighted political gain at the cost of long-term quality.”
The professionals are saying that quality is an issue. I can point to conversions in Greater Manchester, which I know well. Some have used the extended permitted development rights to produce a quality development. That will almost certainly be true, but we can all point to one and try to hold it up as an example of many, when of course that is rarely the case. However, as we are seeing, the Government just do not know. It is okay to shine a light on the evidence provided by professionals, but the Government do not know the answer. If a more regulated planning system were brought back in, council planning departments would definitely be able to get a grip on quality and see it through.
That is all we are asking for. It is not about passing judgment on whether premises should or should not be converted from commercial to residential; it is about ensuring quality, affordability and long-term sustainability and starting to plan communities and neighbourhoods, instead of letting developers get away without paying their fair share. I cannot see why anybody would argue against that. It would highlight the best developers who contribute to community and society. Fair play—they make a profit doing so, and there is nothing wrong with that, but there are some people who do not play the game fairly and who extract as much cash from it as possible, with absolutely no interest in quality or community. Bringing measures back in to take firmer control of that has got to be in the long-term interests of this country and of our towns and cities.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Would my hon. Friend like to point out to the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton that on the internet, one can find the 10 worst permitted development loopholes, and they are truly shocking? I am happy to let the hon. Gentleman see the examples after the Committee has ceased this sitting. They point to some serious breaches of good planning policy that emerge from an overzealous use of permitted development.
Jim McMahon
That is a fair point. The topography of a town like Oldham, in the beds of the Pennine hills, is a good example. Under the current permitted development rights, height restrictions apply only at the start of a development. If someone who lives on a slope builds out to the maximum height allowed, by the time they get to the bottom of the hill, the property could be 10 m high. Under permitted development, they would be allowed to do so, with no thought for the consequence to the people living below. There are issues, not just about conversion from commercial to residential but about the character and nature of our communities and where people live, and the impact that neighbouring properties can have on each other.
We have heard a lot about quality, and about how neighbourhood planning would go a long way towards giving community a voice. The Bill does not do that. It takes away that voice, it takes away control and it takes away the quality that we all aspire to. We think that new clause 14 is important. It is not a probing amendment; we are absolutely committed to seeing it to a vote, and I hope that we get some support on it, because it is in line with the debate that we have been having.
Gavin Barwell
To a degree, we had a debate on the principle of this earlier when we debated clause 8, so I will not rehearse all those arguments. However, I will pick out three or four points from what the hon. Gentleman said and then make one substantive point about the wording of the amendment, which I think is relevant.
I think that I am quoting the hon. Gentleman correctly—he was quoting somebody else; they were not his words—in saying that the allegation is that this is all about speed and political benefit at the expense of quality. I think I captured the quote correctly. There is no political benefit at all; the benefit is providing homes to thousands of people who otherwise would not have them. There absolutely is a debate to be had about quantity versus quality. I suspect that that is an ongoing debate in housing policy, but it is worth putting it on the record that there is no political benefit to the policy. The Government are trying to drive up the supply of housing in this country to meet the urgent pressing need for extra homes. That is what the policy is about.
The hon. Member for City of Durham gave some terrible examples she had seen of how the policy had been misused. As constituency MPs, we all see examples of where people have gone ahead and done things without getting planning, and the enforcement system has not picked it up, and we also see examples of developments that planners have approved that are of appalling quality. Even if we lived in a world where every single change to any building, however de minimis, had to go through a formal planning process and acquire planning permission, that would not be a guarantee of quality, and we should not pretend that it would be.
Ultimately, the argument is about the extent to which members of the Committee believe there is an urgent need to build more homes in this country. I have touched on this before, but several issues have been raised in this debate on planning conditions and permitted development. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw was speaking on Second Reading on the duty to co-operate, but despite the Opposition’s rhetoric, saying that they recognise the urgent need for more homes in this country, they oppose policies that help deliver those crucial homes.
Rather than re-run the argument of principle, I make one point on the wording of the new clause. When we came to clause 8, despite our differences on the principle of permitted development, there was agreement that it was a good clause because it would ensure that data were available not only to the Government but to all of us, to enable us to assess whether the policy was a good policy. The new clause would require a review of the policy before the Government could commence the provisions of the legislation—before we have the data we all agreed were crucial. The hon. Member for City of Durham was nodding gently as I made that point.
The Opposition may well want to press the new clause to a vote as a vote on the principle of permitted development, but its wording is not sensible as it would require that review to happen before we had the crucial data that we all agreed were needed to make a judgment on the policy.
Jim McMahon
I think the Minister has just made the argument for dismissing the driving test. Why not just let everyone get in a car, van or truck and take to the road? Some might crash and some might kill people, but it is fine, because some will not and there is no evidence base. That is a nonsense, of course. We all have examples of good-quality development and bad-quality development, and we can always use a single example to make a point, but the issue is that the controls are not in place.
The Government do not know the answer to the question, which is why we had the debate on putting measures in the Bill to enable us to understand the quantum of the developments, but it is beyond that now. If the argument was that the measure was about kick-starting development to get the economy going and put roofs over people’s heads, because that is what was required at the time, and it was a short-term measure, then there can be a debate about that. There cannot, however, be a compromise on the long-term sustainability and viability of communities, and the affordability or quality of housing.
The measure goes against a lot of what we have been discussing, and it beggars belief that the Government seem happy to continue walking down this road with a blindfold on and no idea of what is in front of them. That is a dangerous way to draw up housing policy, and that is why a vote is important. If we get to a stage at which the Government have better wording, they should bring it forward, and we can have a debate about it. Provided that the wording resolved the issue, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham would support it. However, it is important that the issue is tackled and that the Government show a sense of urgency.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
As the Minister is carrying out lots of reviews, I thought he might like to add another to his list and review the way in which local authorities are able to determine amendments to see whether he can give local planning departments a bit more flexibility in how they deal with amendments, and in particular what they consider to be material or non-material considerations. Does the Department have a view on allowing split decisions to be taken on planning applications? A local authority may say, for example, “We want to approve this application, but there is one bit that we do not like. We are going to approve the rest of the application, but we want this one bit to be changed.” I am simply asking a question of the Minister. Further, does he have a view about local authorities being able to charge additional fees where an amendment means that they have to go out to public consultation again, or a lot of officer time has to be put into determining whether a particular amendment should stand?
Gavin Barwell
The Minister is not particularly welcoming of another statutory requirement to have another review, as the hon. Lady may have predicted, but perhaps I can get a better understanding of her concerns outside the Committee, reflect on those and come back to her.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I am happy to write to the Minister with some of the documentation from the Planning Officers Society, which is exercised about the issue. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Schedule 1
County councils’ default powers in relation to development plan documents
1 The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 is amended as follows.
2 Schedule A1 (default powers exercisable by Mayor of London or combined authority) is amended in accordance with paragraphs 3 to 8.
3 In the heading for “or combined authority” substitute “, combined authority or county council”.
4 After paragraph 7 insert—
“Default powers exercisable by county council
7A In this Schedule—
‘upper-tier county council’ means a county council for an area for which there is also a district council;
‘lower-tier planning authority’, in relation to an upper-tier county council, means a district council which is the local planning authority for an area within the area of the upper-tier county council.
7B If the Secretary of State—
(a) thinks that a lower-tier planning authority are failing or omitting to do anything it is necessary for them to do in connection with the preparation, revision or adoption of a development plan document, and
(b) invites the upper-tier county council to prepare or revise the document, the upper-tier county council may prepare or revise (as the case may be) the development plan document.
7C (1) This paragraph applies where a development plan document is prepared or revised by an upper-tier county council under paragraph 7B.
(2) The upper-tier county council must hold an independent examination.
(3) The upper-tier county council—
(a) must publish the recommendations and reasons of the person appointed to hold the examination, and
(b) may also give directions to the lower-tier planning authority in relation to publication of those recommendations and reasons.
(4) The upper-tier county council may—
(a) approve the document, or approve it subject to specified modifications, as a local development document, or
(b) direct the lower-tier planning authority to consider adopting the document by resolution of the authority as a local development document.
7D (1) Subsections (4) to (7C) of section 20 apply to an examination held under paragraph 7C(2)—
(a) with the reference to the local planning authority in subsection (7C) of that section being read as a reference to the upper-tier county council, and
(b) with the omission of subsections (5)(c), (7)(b)(ii) and (7B)(b).
(2) The upper-tier county council must give reasons for anything they do in pursuance of paragraph 7B or 7C(4).
(3) The lower-tier planning authority must reimburse the upper-tier county council—
(a) for any expenditure that the upper-tier county council incur in connection with anything which is done by them under paragraph 7B and which the lower-tier planning authority failed or omitted to do as mentioned in that paragraph;
(b) for any expenditure that the upper-tier county council incur in connection with anything which is done by them under paragraph 7C(2).
(4) In the case of a joint local development document or a joint development plan document, the upper-tier council may apportion liability for the expenditure on such basis as the council considers just between the authorities for whom the document has been prepared.”
5 (1) Paragraph 8 is amended as follows.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1)—
(a) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (a), and
(b) at the end of paragraph (b) insert “, or
(c) under paragraph 7B by an upper-tier county council.”
(3) In sub-paragraph (2)(a)—
(a) for “or 6(4)(a)” substitute “, 6(4)(a) or 7C(4)(a)”, and
(b) for “or the combined authority” substitute “, the combined authority or the upper-tier county council”.
(4) In sub-paragraph (3)(a) for “or the combined authority” substitute “, the combined authority or the upper-tier county council”.
(5) In sub-paragraph (5) for “or 6(4)(a)” substitute “, 6(4)(a) or 7C(4)(a)”.
(6) In sub-paragraph (7)—
(a) in paragraph (b) for “or 6(4)(a)” substitute “, 6(4)(a) or 7C(4)(a)”, and
(b) in the words following that paragraph for “or the combined authority” substitute “, the combined authority or the upper-tier county council”.
6 In paragraph 9(8) for “or the combined authority” substitute “, the combined authority or the upper-tier county council”.
7 In paragraph 12—
(a) for “or the combined authority” substitute “, the combined authority or the upper-tier county council”, and
(b) for “or the authority” substitute “, the authority or the council”.
8 In paragraph 13(1)—
(a) for “or a combined authority” substitute “, a combined authority or an upper-tier county council”, and
(b) for “or the authority” substitute “, the authority or the council”.
9 In section 17(8) (document a local development document only if adopted or approved) after paragraph (d) insert—
“(e) is approved by an upper-tier county council (as defined in that Schedule) under paragraph 7C of that Schedule.”
10 In section 27A (default powers exercisable by Mayor of London or combined authority) in both places for “or combined authority” substitute “, combined authority or county council”. —(Gavin Barwell.)
See the explanatory statement for NC5.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
Gavin Barwell
Mr McCabe, may I take a minute of the Committee’s time to say thank you as we come to the end of our proceedings in Committee? I thank you and Mr Bone for the way in which you have chaired these proceedings, which I am sure all Members have appreciated. I also thank the officials, the Clerks who have assisted you, Hansard and the Doorkeepers for their support.
I thank all members of the Committee. We have had good debates to which nearly all Members have contributed fully. We on the Government Benches are grateful for the scrutiny of the Bill. I thank my officials for their work on the Bill and the Bill documents, which has been useful in scrutinising the legislation, and certainly for their support of me with their words of inspiration as I have tried to answer questions for members of the Committee.
Perhaps I could single out two people. I learned earlier today that this is the first time my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet has sat on a Bill Committee as a Back-Bench Member. I hope that she has enjoyed the experience, and that the Whips are looking forward to putting her on many more such Committees. Finally, perhaps reflecting on whence I came, I thank our Whips. I have had to do their job for a number of years, and have had to sit through proceedings silently, unable to say anything. I think Members on both Front Benches are grateful for their support and help in getting through our proceedings.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Like the Minister, I thank you, Mr McCabe, and Mr Bone for chairing this Committee with good humour, which is much appreciated. I also thank the Clerks for their excellent service and their help in drafting and tabling amendments in the right order and, in particular, in the right place, so that we could debate them. I marvel at the Doorkeepers. I do not know how they manage to sit through our hours of deliberations with such good humour. They keep us safe and secure. I thank Hansard for turning around a great deal of material in such a short time. I also thank the organisations that gave detailed evidence to the Committee, and those who turned up to give oral evidence. I hope that they think we have done justice to the points they raised.
I thank my fellow shadow Minister for his input, and both our Whip and the Government Whip. The way in which our proceedings have been conducted is a tribute to the way they organised the business. Although they are not all in their place, I thank Opposition Committee members—and indeed Government Members—for their excellent speeches and, sometimes, passion, even though we sometimes disagreed. Finally, I thank the Minister for his responses, which were very helpful at times, and I thank his hard-working civil servants, who have had to put up with all our questions.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
Aleppo/Syria: International Action
Tuesday 13th December 2016
(8 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberNeighbourhood Planning Act 2017 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 13 December 2016 - (13 Dec 2016)
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered international action to protect civilians in Aleppo and more widely across Syria.
The hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), with whom I co-chair the friends of Syria all-party group, joins me in thanking you, Mr Speaker, for granting this emergency debate. We are both concerned that on occasions, motions such as this can appear to be hand-wringing and to focus on the concept that something must be done. We are anxious today to encourage the Government to pursue all avenues and options, as I know they are extremely anxious to do.
The House will be particularly grateful to the Foreign Secretary for responding to the debate himself. On the earlier occasion when you granted an emergency debate on these matters, Mr Speaker, he returned to the House and made his first major speech from the Dispatch Box. I believe his presence signifies the concern of Foreign Office Ministers about the tragedy that is Aleppo today.
I wish to cover three points this afternoon. The first is the current situation in Aleppo. Secondly, I have some specific suggestions for the Government to consider together with our allies, and, thirdly, some observations on how this crisis could develop in 2017 and the action that the international community should take.
I start with the position on the ground today. We are able to monitor what is going through Twitter and other social media to some extent, but in particular, the reports of the United Nations and its agencies, and of the International Committee of the Red Cross, are likely to be extremely accurate. They have reported over lunchtime that there is clear evidence of civilians being executed—shot on the spot. There are dead bodies in the street that cannot be reached because of gunfire. In the last couple of hours, we have heard that probably more than 100 children who are unaccompanied or separated from their families are trapped in a building in east Aleppo and under heavy fire.
We learn from totally credible independent sources inside Aleppo that all the hospitals have been deliberately destroyed with barrel bombs and bunker-busting bombs, and that in case the people in those hospitals were not destroyed by those munitions, cluster munitions, which are anti-personnel munitions, have also been used. There are pop-up clinics in underground locations, which are suffering nightmare conditions, with people lying on the floor and pools of blood everywhere. Doctors and nurses are wearing boots because there is so much blood on the floor, and casualties are moved in and out as fast as they possibly can be because there are grave dangers to them from being in those locations. The ambulances of the White Helmets have been specifically targeted, and there is now no fuel available for them.
In the mid-afternoon yesterday, a 10 km by 10 km zone was the centre of the fighting in Aleppo. It is contracting, and at 10 o’clock this morning it was probably less than half that size. There are approximately 150,000 civilians crammed into that area, and very large numbers of them are children. Large numbers are stranded in the open and looking for shelter. The only food available is dates and bulgur wheat. Water has run out, and there is no electricity. Last night, people were flooding into that enclave. As I have said, there are credible reports of executions and the removal of groups of adult males.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The right hon. Gentleman paints an absolutely grim picture of the current situation in Aleppo. Two years ago, I travelled to Srebrenica with the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). We visited an exhibition in Sarajevo of pictures from Srebrenica and pictures from Syria, and they were indistinguishable. When we hear of summary executions, disappearances of men and boys, unmarked graves and the types of atrocities that the right hon. Gentleman is describing, does he not believe that we risk this being the Srebrenica of our generation?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, which I will come to directly.
The terrified civilians in Aleppo are of course sophisticated, educated people from what was one of the great cities of the world. With 2 million people, it is 6,000 years old and has treasured Islamic civilisation and artefacts within it. A senior Aleppo resident, terrified, said this morning:
“The human corridor needs to happen. If the British Government is serious about fighting terror, they can’t ignore state terror. Doing so creates so many more enemies and if they offer but empty words, nobody will ever believe them in future.”
Ten years ago, this country, along with the entire international community, embraced the responsibility to protect, a doctrine that said that nation states great and small would not allow Srebrenicas, Rwandas and other appalling events such as those in Darfur to take place again. That responsibility was signed up to with great fanfare and embraced by all the international community, great and small. Yet here we are today witnessing—complicit in—what is happening to tens of thousands of Syrians in Aleppo.
That is the situation today. I come to my second point, which is to put specific actions to the Government, which I know they will wish to consider. First, there is an urgent need for humanitarian teams to be deployed and given unfettered access to Aleppo once Government forces there are in control. That is essential if we are to avoid the same circumstances as Srebrenica—the precise point that the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) has just made. There is a very serious danger, from the position I have described, that such events are already taking place, so it is essential that those teams are deployed.
We need to get food, medicine, fuel and medical services into east Aleppo immediately. We also need to have independent humanitarian eyes and ears on the ground, not only to give confidence to terrified civilians—who, I remind the House, are caught out in the open in temperatures that are predicted to fall below minus 4° tonight—but to avoid possibly false allegations of war crimes and breaches of international humanitarian law by Government forces and their military associates. It is not easy to see why Russia and Syria would wish to resist that, unless they do not wish the world to know or see the actions that they are now taking in Aleppo.
The second action that I hope the Government will evaluate and support is organising the evacuation to comparative safety, in United Nations buses and lorries, under a white flag and in a permissive environment, of the people who are wounded or have been caught up in this terrible catastrophe. It is clear that the United Nations has the capacity, with available vehicles, to move north up to the Castello road and then west to Bab al-Hawa, near Reyhanli, on the border, which Clare Short, the distinguished former International Development Secretary, and I visited earlier this year. There are hospitals in Bab al-Hawa, and there are significant refugee facilities on the Syrian side of the border. They are easily resupplied via the Reyhanli crossing by international humanitarian actors, and that route out of the nightmare of eastern Aleppo should be made available as fast as possible.
Britain is in a pivotal position at the United Nations to try to convene an acceptance that that action should be taken. We are hugely respected on humanitarian matters at the UN. Matthew Rycroft, the permanent representative to the UN5 on the Security Council, is extremely effective in what he does. The current National Security Adviser, Mark Lyall Grant, a key United Nations operative for many years, has great convening power, and there are senior UK officials at the United Nations. The head of the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Stephen O’Brien, who worked with me at the Department for International Development, plays a pivotal role. The British foreign service is respected and admired around the world, and, in supporting Staffan de Mistura and Jan Egeland, has an absolutely pivotal role to play in trying to convene the consensus that is now urgently required.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making a powerful and important speech. Does he think the Syrian regime would allow those very necessary humanitarian interventions without counter-attack and disaster?
Mr Mitchell
Yes, I believe that if the Russians could be persuaded at this point that they have nothing to lose from allowing international humanitarian actors into Aleppo, the Syrians would agree. If they do not, the world must ask why they wish to hide from purely humanitarian action.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point about the importance of international pressure. He will have seen as we all did the grotesque story on the front of the Morning Star suggesting that what is happening is the “liberation of Aleppo”. While such scandalous propaganda on behalf of Russia is being put about within the UK, is it not all the more important that we have that international pressure so that we open the eyes of everyone in the world to what is happening?
Mr Mitchell
I confess to the hon. Gentleman that the Morning Star is not on my morning reading list. In view of what he has just said, I am most unlikely to add it.
Will the Foreign Secretary commit today to Britain’s using every sinew of the immensely impressive diplomatic machine I described to secure a consensus on those two actions in these last moments for Aleppo?
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
I am sorry I cannot stay for the whole debate—there is a concurrent meeting of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I agree with my right hon. Friend about the efforts to relieve the situation in Aleppo, but a year ago 20 nations—the International Syria Support Group—sat around a table and produced an agreement on the future of Syria. Does he agree that our efforts must also return to the politics of getting the whole international community into the same place on the future of Syria?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend is right that the support group has proved to be a cumbersome and not entirely effective mechanism, but his central point is absolutely correct.
I come to my third and final point, which is on the House looking to the future. What can we do as part of the international community to bring the catastrophe that has engulfed the Syrian people to an end? By an incredibly unfortunate sequence of events, the international community has so far been completely unable to help. The United Nations has been hobbled by Russian actions, using the veto, which it has the privilege to use on the Security Council, to shield itself from criticism and to stop international action on Syria.
The Kofi Annan plan originally put forward by the UN was, in my view, tragically and wrongly rejected by the American Government. The Russians in their turn have shredded a rules-based system, which will have cataclysmic effects on international law, international humanitarian law and international human rights. The Americans have been absent. Crucially, President Obama made it clear that, were chemical weapons to be used, it would cross a red line and America would take action. Chemical weapons were used and no action was taken by the Americans.
This House, in my view, was ill-advised to reject the former Prime Minister’s motion in August 2013 for British action. I hope the Government keep an open mind about putting another resolution before the House, as is necessary.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for the powerful case he is making and the leadership he is demonstrating, but would he concede that the 2013 motion was not on a comprehensive plan to bring peace, and that if a motion is brought before the House, it should be on a comprehensive, UN-backed plan to deliver peace and not on such a narrow issue?
Mr Mitchell
I hope that, if there is a chance for Britain, with its pivotal role at the United Nations, to support a UN-backed force, if necessary with military action, Britain will very seriously consider it, and that such a proposition will be put before the House of Commons.
I was listing the unfortunate coincidence of events that has hobbled the international community, the fourth of which is that the Arab states in the region are irredeemably split on what should happen in Syria. Europe has become dysfunctional, facing inwards and not looking outwards, and focused on the symptoms of the problem—the refugees—and not on the causes. A resurgent Russia is pursuing its interests. The House should understand Russia’s interests and respect them, even as her actions are rightly condemned, and as we confront it when it breaches humanitarian law, as it has undoubtedly done in Aleppo.
There are only two ways in which this catastrophe will end. There will either be a military victory or there will be a negotiation. There will not be a military victory, so at some point there will be a negotiation and ceasefire to enable bitterly antagonistic foes to negotiate. When that time comes, Britain has the experience, the connections, the funds and the expertise to assist. The great powers must support that negotiation, however difficult it is, and put pressure on the regional powers to do the same. It is essential that we provide, through our position at the UN, the strongest possible diplomatic and strategic support to that process.
There will come a moment, too, when President-elect Trump and President Putin discuss these matters. As is widely recognised, there are indications that the two men can do business. I hope that the United States lifts its veto on Assad being part of any negotiations—Assad is part of the problem, and therefore by definition part of the solution—and that Russia uses its power to stop the conflict on the ground while both combine to defeat ISIL.
Finally, I ask the Foreign Secretary: will he intensify the efforts of his office to collect evidence, especially now, of breaches of international humanitarian law and war crimes, so that individuals as well as states, no matter how long it takes, can be held to account one day for what they have done?
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) on securing this emergency debate. I compliment the right hon. Gentleman for speaking with his customary force and authority, and for the way in which he has spoken up for the people of Aleppo persistently. Labour Members will always remember that he took up Labour’s fight to meet the 0.7% aid target after he became International Development Secretary in 2010. If, following the Chancellor’s words yesterday, we need to resume that fight in the coming years, I am sure that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield will be on our side again.
Since our previous emergency debate on Aleppo just over two months ago, every worst prediction that was made that day has happened. We all warned that the grotesque war crimes being committed by Russia and the Assad regime would only intensify, and so it proved. We all warned of the increasing humanitarian crisis, with thousands of civilians still trapped in Aleppo, desperately short of food, water, medical supplies and shelter. That crisis has only got worse. Finally, we all warned that, if nothing changed, eastern Aleppo would be destroyed by Christmas, and that is exactly what is coming to pass.
It was depressing to read in recent days the accounts of the talks that have taken place in Washington—they are said to have been going on for months—about the technical options for making airdrops of humanitarian supplies into Aleppo. The subject was raised recently in the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South. According to The Guardian, the last meeting on the subject of airdrops collapsed because of fears that, by the time any airdrop took place,
“there would be no one…left to save”.
It was equally depressing and chastening to read the text sent yesterday by a doctor in eastern Aleppo, which he described as his “farewell message”. He wrote:
“Remember that there was once a city called Aleppo that the world erased from…history”.
Although we all condemn Russia and Assad for their actions in eastern Aleppo—we must ensure that one day they are held to account—and we equally condemn Iran and Hezbollah for the role that they have played in the massacre, we must remember the words of that doctor, who blamed not only those directly responsible for destroying his city, but the world as a whole for allowing it to happen. This has been a global collective failure every bit as great as Srebrenica. On that point, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty).
What do we do now? I believe that the answer boils down to four points. First, we must take every diplomatic step to press Russia and Iran to allow safe passage from eastern Aleppo, not just for the remaining fighters and their families, but for medical professionals, journalists and others. Many will have watched the extremely moving “Inside Aleppo” films on Channel 4. They were filmed by a 25-year-old mother and Aleppo citizen—not a camera woman or a journalist—who is married to a doctor whose professional duties have kept them in the city, even after many of the other civilians have fled. It is difficult to imagine the terror that they feel, but we have read their messages for ourselves.
We must make it clear to Russia and Iran that those civilians must be given safe passage from the city or be protected if they remain. I have been told by several sources, including journalists, the UN and the Red Cross, that there is a makeshift building—some might call it the last remaining hospital; others might say that it is simply a building that people have moved into in the last few days—inside which hundreds of children and injured people and 110 medical staff are trapped. Following negotiations with the Russians and the Syrian Government, the Russians have said that while the fighters and their families will be allowed to leave, the so-called civilians and activists will not. The “activists” they refer to are medical staff. Why would medical staff not be allowed to leave? According to the Russians, they must remain in the city, presumably to face the shelling. They presumably have a high chance of being massacred by the regime or at the very least detained. How can it be that men with guns can leave eastern Aleppo, but men with stethoscopes cannot?
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
It might be that the men with guns have a high chance of being killed in some future conflict, whereas the citizen journalists and humanitarian doctors and nurses to whom my hon. Friend refers would be credible witnesses in any future criminal proceedings, and Russia and Syria have every incentive to make sure that their evidence is never given to the world.
Emily Thornberry
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point that, in many ways, echoes what was said earlier about the importance of allowing aid workers and independent people into the area to bear witness to what is going on.
Secondly, once the fighting in Aleppo has ended—an end might well come very soon—how will we get humanitarian relief to the citizens still in eastern Aleppo and to those who have fled elsewhere, particularly as the temperatures begin to plummet and the need for shelter and blankets becomes as great as the need for food, water and medical supplies? As I have said, there is also a need for witnesses to the aftermath. If Russia and Assad continue to block road convoys into the area, surely the Government must finally accept that we have reached the point of last resort—that point at which the previous Foreign Secretary promised that airdrops would be used. If we fear that manned flights might be too dangerous, as does the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood)—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
indicated dissent.
Emily Thornberry
The Minister sits and shakes his head, but if we fear that such flights might be too dangerous, the Government must consider using unmanned drones or GPS-guided parachutes.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I am really concerned about the idea that we might send our aircraft into airspace that is contested and hostile. As I know, they fly low to drop the aid, and they can be taken out by ground fire, not just missiles. I suggest that all those people who wish this to happen sign their names and perhaps travel on the RAF aircraft, because the action would be extremely dangerous.
Emily Thornberry
There is a live debate about this, which is why I also pray in aid solutions such as unmanned drones or GPS-guided parachutes, which can carry much more than unmanned drones. We know that the Government are actively considering all these proposals. If airdrops are not the answer to delivering humanitarian aid, I hope that the Foreign Secretary will tell us what is, because inaction is simply not an option.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I congratulate those who have secured this debate. A UN spokesperson stated this morning that there had been a “complete meltdown of humanity” in Aleppo. If that does not mean that we have reached the point of last resort, does my hon. Friend, like me, want to hear from the Foreign Secretary exactly what that point would be?
Emily Thornberry
I am grateful to my hon. Friend; I could not have put it better myself.
Thirdly, once Aleppo has fallen, attention will at some point turn to Raqqa and other cities where Daesh is currently in control or attempting to take control. Civilians are trapped in those cities as well, and they will be just as vulnerable as the civilians in Aleppo to bombardment, the use of chemical weapons and the humanitarian effects of any siege. To what extent, if at all, will there be co-operation with Russia, Iran and pro-Government forces, if and when their attention turns to fighting Daesh? If the answer is none, how will we stop Raqqa and other cities turning into repeats of Aleppo?
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend refers to other cities in Syria. Is it not clear that the Assad regime and the Russians have focused all their resources on destroying eastern Aleppo and allowed ISIL/Daesh to retake Palmyra? Does that not show their real priorities?
Emily Thornberry
In some ways, that takes me to my fourth and final point. The impending fall of Aleppo must raise the question: what exactly is the Government’s current thinking about Syria? Increasingly across the country, we are seeing what the Foreign Secretary has called moderate rebel groups either defeated by pro-Assad forces or signing truce agreements with them. It has been claimed that more than 1,000 such local truce agreements are now in place. Do the Government believe that the moderate rebellion is still taking place or has any chance of succeeding? If not, what endgame are the Government now working towards?
In September, the Defence Committee published its report on the Government’s military strategy in Syria and concluded that the goal of creating new leadership in Syria that was
“neither authoritarian and repressive, on the one hand, nor Islamist and extreme, on the other”
was too ambitious to be achieved “by military means alone”. That remains a wise judgment, yet the Government seem to be even further away than they were in September from squaring this particular circle.
These are desperately dark and terrifying hours for the people of Aleppo. They are hours of shame and disgrace for the Governments of Syria, Russia and Iran, who have perpetuated this vicious assault, and they should be hours of deep sorrow and reflection for every international institution and Government who failed to stop it happening and did not do enough to help the people of Aleppo while there was still time. Even now, there are still things that we can do. There are still important lessons to learn and important questions for the Government to answer about where we go from here. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will take this opportunity to answer some of those questions today.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. We will begin with an eight-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
Mr George Osborne (Tatton) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) on speaking with such passion and compassion for the citizens of Aleppo, and on bringing to bear his experience as one of the country’s outstanding International Development Secretaries. I also thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this debate; it is good to see my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary here to respond to it.
What we have heard already moves us to tears: the tens of thousands of civilians trapped in Aleppo; the reports today of residents being shot on sight; and the barbarous assault by the Syrian army, Iranian militias and Russian airpower that the Morning Star, as we have heard, describes as a “liberation”. Let me offer my support and gratitude to the incredibly brave people who are risking their lives as doctors and White Helmet workers in that war zone. I support everything that has been said about what we need to do to get aid into Aleppo, or to provide some kind of ceasefire so that civilians can get out of Aleppo.
The whole concept of an emergency debate suggests that this tragedy has somehow come upon us out of the blue and that there is an almost natural aspect to it, but that is not the case. The Syrian civil war has been waged since 2011, so this is something that we could have foreseen and done something about. We are deceiving ourselves in this Parliament if we believe that we have no responsibility for what has happened in Syria. The tragedy in Aleppo did not come out of a vacuum; it was created by a vacuum—a vacuum of western leadership, including American and British leadership. I take responsibility, as someone who sat on the National Security Council throughout those years, and Parliament should also take its responsibility because of what it prevented being done.
There were multiple opportunities to intervene. In 2012, David Petraeus, the head of the CIA, devised a plan for a much more aggressive intervention in Syria, providing lethal support to what was then clearly a moderate opposition in the Free Syrian Army. That approach was rejected. Britain provided support for flak jackets, medical kits and so forth, but it was clear throughout 2012 and 2013 that there was not a parliamentary majority in this House for providing lethal support to that opposition so that they could shoot down helicopters and aircraft, and fire back with sophisticated weaponry.
In 2013, of course, this House of Commons took a decision not to back a Government motion to authorise airstrikes when Assad used chemical weapons, breaking a 100-year-old taboo—we established it in the west and it survived the second world war—that you do not use chemical weapons, as well as crossing a red line that the President of the United States had established.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Gentleman think that such lethal force would have overcome the Iranians, the Russians and Assad? Does he really think that if we had provided more munitions, this was a winnable war?
Mr Osborne
On the narrow point, in August 2013, we were responding to the use of chemical weapons and providing airstrikes as a demonstration that the use of those weapons was completely unacceptable and that a red line had been crossed—and, indeed, that the west had established that red line. Of course, once this House of Commons took its decision, I believe it did have an impact on American politics. We cannot have it both ways—we cannot debate issues such as Syria and then think that our decisions have no impact on the rest of the world. I think that that did cause a delay in the American Administration’s actions and did cause Congress to get cold feet.
This is where I want to begin to draw my remarks to a close, because I know many Members want to speak. The last time I spoke from the Back Benches was in 2003, from the Opposition Benches, when we were debating intervention in Iraq. We all know the price of intervention. My political generation knows the price of intervention: the incredibly brave servicemen and women who gave their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan; the thousands of civilians who died in those conflicts; the cost to taxpayers in this country; the chaos that inevitably follows when there is intervention in a country; and, of course, the division in our society, our families and our communities.
I believe, however, that we have come to a point where it is impossible to intervene anywhere—we lack the political will, as the west, to intervene. I nevertheless have some hope for what might come out from this terrible tragedy in Syria, which is that we are beginning to learn the price of not intervening. We did not intervene in Syria, and tens of thousands of people have been killed as a result while millions of refugees have been sent from their homes across the world. We have allowed a terrorist state to emerge in the form of ISIS, which we are now trying to defeat. Key allies such as Lebanon and Jordan are destabilised, and the refugee crisis has transformed the politics of Europe, allowing fascism to rise in eastern Europe and creating extremist parties in western Europe. For the first time since Henry Kissinger kicked it out of the middle east in the 1970s, Russia is back as the decisive player in that region. That is the price of not intervening.
Let us have our debate, and let us do everything that we can to help the civilians of Aleppo. Let us hope that the new American Administration and the new Secretary of State work with the Russians to get the ceasefire, but let us be clear now that if we do not shape the world, we will be shaped by it.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
I thank those Members who have already spoken and made remarks that I agree with. It is an honour to speak after the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne). I have vigorously opposed so many times in this House everything that he has put to us. Today, I respect his very thoughtful and important contribution.
I rise today with one purpose, which is to persuade the Foreign Secretary that if he chooses to listen to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and take the action that he suggested, he will do so with wide support across this House. Overnight, we have seen reports of the fresh hell that Aleppo has become. We hear this message from the White Helmets:
“100,000+ civilians are packed”,
as the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield said,
“into a tiny area. Bombing and shelling relentless. Casualties unimaginable. Bodies lie where they fell.”
Last night, we heard the final distress call. Today, we decide whether to answer.
The situation in Syria is so dire and the need so urgent that we must not waste further time in deliberation and delay. It is as simple as this: civilians in Syria cannot be left to the mercy of Assad. Ban Ki-moon was very clear in his message yesterday that we all have an obligation
“to protect civilians and abide by international humanitarian and human rights law.”
He went on:
“This is particularly the responsibility of the Syrian government and its allies.”
Like the Secretary-General of the UN, we here all know what President Assad and his allies are doing to the people of Aleppo—and the Government know it, too. A letter of condemnation signed by our Prime Minister last week described the bombing of hospitals and children being gassed. It described these acts as war crimes. These are strong words, but strong words will not rescue a single child while Assad continues to drop bombs on their heads. The Prime Minister rightly condemns the Russians for their
“refusal to engage in serious peace talks”,
but I say it is time for our Government also to rethink their efforts.
As has been said, we can now clearly see the consequences of our inaction. We have asked our Government to step forward with a strategy to protect civilians. Without this, we can see the consequences: so many bodies that the White Helmets can no longer count them, let alone mount a rescue. So our inaction must now become action, which is why, 18 days ago, when I asked Members of this House from all parties to sign a letter to the Prime Minister in support of getting aid to Syrians—by air, if necessary, as a last resort—I was unsurprised, though very glad, that within one day, 100 Members had agreed to put their names to such a request. Very quickly, that number had risen to over 200 and is now 221 if we count all parliamentarians—Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Scottish nationalist, Social Democratic and Labour party, Democratic Unionist party, Plaid, Green; Mr Speaker, who cares what party we are today? Human beings are being slaughtered without mercy, and I say, never mind party policy; that is a sin against nature itself.
So what should the Government do? We know that Russia will continue to frustrate the UN process by using its veto to protect Assad. Strongly worded letters from our Prime Minister and others are worth nothing if we are not prepared to back them up with actual action. First, we need to get the vulnerable out of there. Children, medics, the injured and the disabled urgently need safe passage to somewhere with shelter, food and basic medical facilities.
Secondly, as 221 parliamentarians are begging the Government: get aid in—by whatever means we can. The reality in front of our eyes is this: even to save a single life, aid is required. We know it is there, and even at this late stage we must do what we can to get it to people.
Thirdly, we must protect those left behind. The Government must press with the full capacity of the British legal profession for UN monitoring, or even just British monitoring, of the atrocities now being committed. If we offer Syrian civilians so very little, the least we can do is promise that, however long it takes, Assad will see justice.
We have all heard the Government’s usual lines on this: they say they are doing all they can, they are keeping their options open, and nothing is off the table. That is not good enough. We are calling on the Government to put something on the table. The reality is that by delaying we are not keeping our options open; we are closing them off. Every day we miss a chance to do what is right.
I am sure that the Government will put out another press release telling us how tragic the fall of Aleppo is, but then Assad will move on, maybe to Idlib or somewhere else, and then somewhere else, and the whole thing will play out again; and we will see more bombed-out hospitals, more dead children, more war crimes, and no doubt more well-written press releases from Governments.
So I have two final questions today. First, will the Foreign Secretary support the call of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield for an immediate ceasefire to evacuate the children and medical staff still trapped in the rubble of east Aleppo? Will the Government help make that happen, yes or no? Will they go further and do everything possible to secure a more permanent ceasefire and humanitarian access in Aleppo?
The Foreign Secretary knows that the support is here in this House for airdrops of aid if the Government give it their backing. As I have said, more than 200 hon. Members have signed a letter in support of that; the only obstacle is the question of action from the Government. If that is the wrong option and we need another way to open humanitarian corridors, all I ask is for the Foreign Secretary to come back to this House with a strategy to protect civilians.
Secondly, will the Foreign Secretary commit here and now that the Government will not stand by as the Syrian regime moves on to the next city, because does anybody seriously believe that if we allow Assad to have his way now, he is going to stop?
I want to finish by reminding the Foreign Secretary that, alongside the bombs and the gas, the Assad regime has been dropping propaganda leaflets into eastern Aleppo in recent weeks. These leaflets tell the people there that the world has abandoned them and there is no hope. It is up to us to show that that propaganda is a lie. We must show the desperate people of Syria that there are still people in this world who have not forgotten them—people who will honour the commitments we have made in international law and will stand with them against barbarism.
Aleppo may have just hours left, but there are still souls alive in Syria who we can help. If we do nothing—if we just stand by and watch—thousands more people in Syria will die in agony, and millions in Britain will live with the shame of our inaction.
The Foreign Secretary sits on the Treasury Bench. For more than six years, I have sat here on the Opposition Benches with my Labour friends, and I am deeply proud of my party. Yet I have to tell the Foreign Secretary that if he chooses to act—if he chooses to offer a hand in friendship to people in Syria—there will be no Front Benches or Back Benches, no Government Benches and Opposition Benches; there will simply be all of us here—British citizens, representing the British people, wanting him to act, not in the worst of our country’s traditions, but in our best, and wanting him, on behalf of all of us, and for the sake of those in Syria who cannot escape and who desperately need safety, in our name and for them, begging him, to lead.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. The time limit on Back-Bench speeches will for now be reduced to six minutes.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I would very much like to see a humanitarian corridor going to eastern Aleppo, but may I talk about the practical requirements needed to establish such a route, and to get people to safety without anyone fighting to achieve it? I will give a few thoughts based on my experience of frequently having had to do that job in the 1990s.
Everyone present knows that this would be a very difficult operation and would require, at least, Syrian Government and Russian approval. Clearly the route must be free from air and ground attack. Without this, establishing a safe route into and out of Aleppo would be impossible. That is the first, and probably most vital, prerequisite for achieving success, and I suppose our diplomats are working overtime on such matters as I speak.
I also take it as a given that this operation would be done under the United Nations flag. Of course, therefore, every vehicle would be emblazoned with the UN cypher, and be operating under the moral authority of the world’s forum, but in truth, forces fighting on the ground may not be under effective control of even their own side. In such circumstances, small fighting groups often act independently and, if so, they could cause huge loss of life.
In Bosnia I used small teams led by a liaison officer to prove that we could use routes before allowing convoys to go down them. This was dangerous work and it was a job that involved convincing every commander of every roadblock that it was to be open. I have to say that if we were to suggest such a thing, we may well have to send our officers on the ground to do it. I would support that.
Of course there also has to be a plan for the worst case when things go wrong. In Bosnia I could send my own troops in, but we cannot send troops into Syria. These convoys would be on their own, and they would be dependent on Syrian military and militia goodwill, and of course that of the Russians.
If we are successful and get a humanitarian convoy out of Aleppo to a place of safety, we will be responsible for the people in that convoy. We have heard already today of people being “executed.” I hate that word; they are murdered. Execution is a judicial process; those people have been murdered. We would have responsibility for ensuring these people’s safety.
Establishing a safe humanitarian corridor can be done, given determination and the will and consent of belligerents. We cannot fight our way in—well, we could if we were up to it, but we are not—but let me be clear: this will not be easy and it requires a huge number of preconditions to be met.
Finally, may I remind this House that if Members suggest that we should lead humanitarian convoys into Aleppo, we will bear responsibility for whatever happens, good or bad?
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
The shadow Foreign Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), said that what is happening in Syria shames the Assad regime, Iran and Russia; it shames all of us in this House and every political party in this country. It shames the democratic world, the United States, and the United Nations, and if we do not do anything about it—let us not kid ourselves that Assad will stop here; Idlib will be next—that will be the end of the rules-based global order we thought we had achieved after the horrors of Srebrenica, with all the grave consequences that will entail for our future peace and security.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Bradshaw
I will not give way for the moment.
There have been so many missed opportunities. As the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), said in his excellent speech, many people across the world have been calling for action against Assad since he started slaughtering his own people five years ago. In August 2013, after the international outrage at his use of chemical weapons, we had the chance, but we blew it; the Conservatives blew it, we blew it—every political party in this House blew it. The former Chancellor was absolutely right when he said that that had a direct impact on what the United States did then, with President Obama fatally withdrawing from the red line he had drawn on the use of chemical weapons, with absolutely horrendous consequences, not just now in Syria, but for the future of our world to come.
At any stage since that calamity, the Government could have come back to this House with proposals for safe areas, no-fly zones and, most recently, aid drops, but they did not. Just two weeks ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury made it quite clear that we would support airdrops. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), hid behind the excuse of not having parliamentary authority, but he did not even seek it, which has been a pattern of this Government over the past few years. As a desperate aid worker told the BBC yesterday, it might now be too late.
We now have the disgusting spectacle of a combination of far right and far left from around the world, united only in their contempt for democracy and human rights, celebrating what they call a “liberation”. Why do we constantly forget the lessons of appeasement, whether from the 1930s or more recently from the Balkans? Statements on Syria from Conservative Ministers have sounded just like the ones I remember from when they were dealing—or not dealing—with Milosevic as he rampaged through Bosnia. When will we understand that dictators such as Assad and Putin only respect strength and the credible threat or use of force? When will we realise that Russia’s strategy is to weaken and divide the free world and that driving the biggest refugee flows into Europe since world war two is a deliberate part of that plan? When will we admit that Putin is already achieving what he cannot achieve militarily through cyber-warfare and propaganda?
The motion that we are debating is welcome, but it is pathetic. It refers to the House considering “international action” in Aleppo. There will no international action, because there is no political will, either here or in the other countries where such will is necessary.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Is my right hon. Friend as anxious as I am? With Putin and Russia linked to interference in the American election, with the bombing of Syria leading to a refugee crisis in Europe and with many central European countries looking inward, like we are, Putin’s expansionist tendencies and desire for a warm port should make the Foreign Secretary think carefully about the actions from this point on onwards.
Mr Bradshaw
I completely agree. We have not even begun to wake up to Russia’s cyber-warfare. Its interference in the American presidential elections is now proven. It probably interfered in our own referendum—we do not have the evidence for that yet, but it is highly probable. It will certainly be involved in the French presidential election. There are already serious concerns in the German secret service that Russia is already interfering in the upcoming elections. We have to wake up to this, but when?
Finally, the tragedy today is the tragedy of the benighted people of Aleppo issuing desperate, and probably futile, last-minute appeals for help to the outside world. The tragedy tomorrow will be all of ours for failing to stop this happening and for the consequences. Shame on us.
Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)
There is no doubt that the civilian atrocities taking place at the hands of Assad and Putin in Aleppo are among the worst that we have witnessed in decades. As a teenager watching the horrors of Rwanda or Srebrenica, I used to think, “Why don’t they do something?” Well, “they” are now us, and what are we doing? We have turned our face away. It is three years since this place voted not to respond to Assad’s use of chemical weapons on his own people. It is 15 months since little Alan Kurdi was found face down on a beach in Turkey. It is a year since we rightly voted to take action on ISIS in the east of Syria and nine months since Jo Cox was granted an urgent question on breaches of the then ceasefire. It is two weeks since we stood here and discussed aid drops and safe passage. What have we actually done to save a single civilian life in Aleppo? Nothing.
We are watching a fascist dictator, backed by a corrupt global power, use chemical weapons and barrel bombs against his own people for daring to want a better life and a better Government. Have we turned away because of more important local issues or because of the siren call to first look after our own? When we talk of “our own”, that should not stop at our constituency boundaries or, I am afraid, at the white cliffs of Dover. All humanity is “our own” and we have a responsibility and a duty to act. We are not so poor as a nation, financially or morally, that we should turn our backs on what we see on distant shores, not least because it will eventually find its way to us, whether in the form of terror on our own streets or refugee families seeking sanctuary in our estates. We cannot be frozen by the guilt surrounding well-intentioned military action of the past, as the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne) so eloquently said. If we are left disappointed or ashamed by difficult and lengthy struggles in Iraq, we must learn the right lessons, which are there in black and white in Chilcot, that when the potential for military action arises we should not commit until it is clear that it can be achieved. We should properly prepare for what comes afterwards and work better with regional partners. Those are the lessons to learn. We should not turn our backs and leave innocent citizens to the bombs and chemicals of despots.
The world is getting smaller by the day and we must play our part in it. We must decide what that part is and what duty we owe to humanity. That duty now looks to be two things. First, as we have heard today, we must get people out immediately. Medics, children, mums—citizens—are trapped and we have to evacuate them as soon as possible. We must get humanitarian aid in as a matter of emergency. We have to urge international action to call an immediate ceasefire. As the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) said, we must identify the war crimes and bring people to account. Secondly, we must pledge never again to turn our backs, never again to be ground down or put off by the length or difficulty of the struggle, never to give in to moral equivalence between brutal fascist dictatorships and a people’s struggle for self-determination and freedom. We must pledge never to be so determinedly full of self-indulgent self-loathing for the west that we do not believe that we can play a positive role for the good of the world. Never again should we lack a sense of responsibility to humanity, wherever it is and however hard the struggle.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow a wonderful speech, but we have said “never again” so many times. We mean it when we say it, but then, a few months or years later, it comes to nothing. It is this House’s responsibility to stand up and show hope for the future, optimism and a way through the current problems, but like my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) I feel a sense of sorrow, shame and anger about where we are today.
James Morris
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful point. When the historians look at this situation, does he agree that it will probably represent a catastrophic failure of western policy that has significantly changed the world for the worse? It is inevitable that a distinct reckoning will come at some point for the United Kingdom and the United States of America.
John Woodcock
The hon. Gentleman is right that there will be a reckoning. The question now is about when it will come, on what grounds we will fight and whether, even at this last stage, we will be prepared to stand up for ourselves and the values that we preach in this House but are so rarely prepared to defend when push comes to shove.
Although it will in no way aid what little career I have left in my party, I want to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Hatton—
John Woodcock
In truth, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne) gave the speech that should have been made at the Opposition Dispatch Box, showing a level of understanding about the issues that makes me hope that he has a future in his party and that he will return. Although great, the problems that we face in this country pale into insignificance compared with other problems we face. There is the threat of a tyrannical regime in Russia that has effectively created a global system that has rules but no consequences. We must understand how we have enabled that to happen if we are to have any hope of being able to right this situation before it is too late.
Let us remember how moderate the 2013 proposal was. The regime had used chemical weapons and we said that there must be a red line. There was absolutely no thought-out plan, but the idea that we should—[Interruption.] I will deal with the Government side in a minute. There was the idea that we should do nothing, which is what we did, because there was no thought-through plan. Last week, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), showed modesty and frankness about the Government’s failure to get that vote through the Commons. The most lamentable and damning part of the former Prime Minister’s legacy is that he rushed into that. I still feel sick at the idea of the then Leader of the Opposition going from that vote into the Whips Office and congratulating himself and them on stopping a war. Look what is happening today and what has happened over the past three years—the slaughter shames us all, no matter on what side we sit and no matter what our actions were at the time. We are shamed as a nation by this.
We then saw the Russian move into the country, with no UN mandate and no request, yet we allowed it to happen. President Obama said, “Oh well, they’ll come to regret that.” The Russians are not regretting it, because they have been able to show through that and through the highly discriminate slaughter—I was going to say indiscriminate, but it is not—they are perpetrating on citizens that they are able to get away with pretty much anything at the moment, without any sense that there will be come-back. Of course we should talk about the need for justice, bringing people to account and to courts, but the Russians do not respect this. There is no way that they are going to give up their people to bring them to trial. So for all the talk now, rightly, about what extra aid we can bring and what, finally, we can salvage for the people who are left in Syria fearing for their lives, this will ultimately come down to whether we can restore a world with consequence or whether, as the hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) suggested, we are now seeing the irretrievable breakdown of the United Nations, just as the League of Nations was destroyed in the 1930s.
The UN is broken over this. People can say, “Let’s have a UN-backed resolution”, but there is no way that Russia currently, when it fears no consequence, is going to bow to the will of the rest, so we have to restore a sense of consequence. Of course that will be difficult, and people will say, “Oh my goodness, you’re inflaming the situation. Oh look, you’re going to start world war three”. However, Russia is not a country that wants a war, but it will continue to push as long as it knows that it will meet no resistance.
Where will this happen next? Will it be a NATO nation? Will it be on our shores? Let us not forget that the Russians have redrawn, by force, the borders of a European country for the first time since the second world war—and what we have done? Not very much. I understand that the Prime Minister is focused on the UK’s exit from the European Union, and rightly so, but this is not a world where we can have one focus and we can leave the difficult decisions beyond the European borders to other people. With genuine respect to the Foreign Secretary, I say that I have seen his understanding on these issues and I have seen him nodding along, but at the moment we have understanding without the capacity to act. So I implore not simply him, but the Prime Minister to look up at what is happening, to understand the role of leadership that she has in this country and on the world stage, and to let us restore a sense of dignity, rules and consequence to the global order.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
As I stand here speaking to the House, I feel humbled but wracked with guilt: guilt that tonight I get to go home and kiss my children, while Syrian parents are burying theirs; and guilt that I am not on the front line with my medical colleagues from the Red Cross, whom I stood with for many years, shoulder to shoulder, in many a humanitarian crisis. Those colleagues are pulling bodies out of wreckage, at certain risk of murder. They are desperately fighting to save lives, without resources, using rags to stop bleeding and with eyes streaming from chlorine gas. I have guilt when I ask myself whether in Britain we on these Benches have done enough for the innocent people of Syria and I cannot put my hand on my heart and say that we have.
My guilt is tempered only by the hope that today my voice, along with those of colleagues from both sides of the House, may be heard and action will be taken. I have said it before and I will say it again: the sound of a parent losing a child is an international language. It penetrates one’s skull—it is a dagger through the heart—but it is a language that we are not hearing here in this Chamber. Why have we not heard it? Why do we sit here with inaction? We are close to a time when all we will be able to say is, “It’s too late.” But we stand here today with a last chance for the Government to be able to say, “We did something.” Something is better than nothing—to date, all we have is nothing.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
I was in the House in 2013, when we voted in this House to do nothing. At that time, 2 million women and children were in camps, 5 million Syrians were displaced within Syria and Assad had slaughtered 150,000 of his own people. If we as a nation will not take action, the UN will not take action and all the most powerful nations in the world will not take action, what hope did those people have and what hope do they have today?
Dr Allin-Khan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. With the greatest of respect, let me say that I was not in the Chamber at that time and I am talking about what we can do now and the responsibility that we have to humanity here today. Many of us, from both sides of the House, have called again and again for humanitarian aid drops and been met with, “Air drops are a last resort”. The time for last resort has come and gone. I am calling today for a strategy from the Government on how they will protect the civilians left trapped in Aleppo, many of whom know their fate and many of whom have been begging their loved ones to kill them because they fear what will happen to them if they are captured. Today is the day when we need action. We need negotiations now for provision to be put in place for those in Aleppo to leave and get to a safe haven. That city was once thriving, just like our own, but it has been reduced to rubble and death. The only thing that separates them from us is where they were born. What makes their lives worth less than ours? What makes their children’s lives worth less than ours? We will be worth less if we just stand by. One question we need to ask ourselves is: in the twilight of our own lives, will we be able to look at ourselves in the mirror, in the privacy of our own minds, and know we really did all we could? Our choice is simple: will we be governed by fear or will we be led by our conscience?
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I spoke earlier of my experience visiting Sarajevo and Srebrenica two years ago and of the exhibition that I saw, but one thing that will never leave me was entering a musty room in a mortuary where bags full of bodies and skeletons were still being examined 20 years after that crisis. These were people whose graves had been disinterred and attempts had been made to hide the evidence, and their families were still not able to get closure on the atrocities committed at that time, when the world stood by. When I hear the stories of men and boys being disappeared, of summary executions, of mass graves and of attempts to hide the evidence and to kill those who were witnessing the evidence, I have all the same fears that we will be looking in one of those mortuaries 20 years from now, wondering just what on earth we did.
That leads me to reflect on the decisions that we in this House have made. I have to reflect on whether the decision I took in 2013, with other people in this House, was the right one. I sat through that entire debate, and I did not feel that the Government came forward with a comprehensive plan or that they had clarity about where they were going, but I have to accept that our decision may well have been wrong.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne) that the real question was: why did we not act in 2011? Why did we not act right at the beginning of this conflict? Why were we trying to make decisions when already hundreds of thousands of lives had been lost and when already this conflict had spiralled out of control? We have to look at not just one decision, but the collectivity of the decisions that we took over time.
Toby Perkins
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and for the contribution that he is making. I have felt incredibly proud to listen to many of the speeches that colleagues have made during this debate. I hope and pray that the actions that follow this debate are as great as the speeches. Once this two-hour debate is finished, we will have a five-hour debate on the Neighbourhood Planning Bill. Does he, like me, have a sense of how ludicrous we will look when we are discussing that?
Stephen Doughty
Absolutely. I also fear that many will ask where the rest of the House is today. Where is the Prime Minister? Where is the Leader of the Opposition? [Interruption.] I know that the Leader of the Opposition was here, but in a such a debate, we should have senior people in our country standing up and taking part and taking responsibility for the decisions of this House.
All our hand wringing will do nothing to solve the problems that we face today and that the citizens of Aleppo face right now.
I wish to turn now to Russia. I agree with much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) said about Russia. We have to end this fetishisation of Russia by both the populist right and the left and make it face up to the consequences of its action. We must stand up against what it is doing and make it recognise that there are consequences for stepping over these lines and that there will be a response. I must ask the Foreign Secretary a sincere question. We have heard the Government say that they have been doing all they can to bring action against Russia, but the EU High Representative, Federica Mogherini, said this week:
“No, we didn’t discuss at all sanctions”—
at the EU Foreign Affairs Council—
“and there was no member state asking for additional work on sanctions”—
against Russia. I would like some clarity from the Foreign Secretary on what efforts have been made on this matter. Those sanctions were having an impact. What other member states support him?
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern over the incoming US Administration and some of the individuals’ relationships with Russia? Does it not highlight the need for the UK Government to press seriously on the sanctions issue?
Stephen Doughty
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, much of what the new President-elect has said about Russia is deeply worrying and should concern us all, not least whether he is willing to stand up for NATO allies and against aggression in the east of Europe.
I wonder why we have not done more to support the efforts of other countries in the United Nations. We talk about the failures of the UN Security Council, but there are other means by which we can authorise action. The “Uniting for Peace” resolution process has been used before, and Canada has been pushing it this week. The General Assembly took a vote and made a decision. Why are we not at the forefront of leading those efforts when the Security Council fails? I fear that if we do not take such action we will see the breakdown of all those systems of international agreement.
Fundamentally, we can make a difference today. I make this appeal to the Foreign Secretary: what are we doing to secure a ceasefire, even a ceasefire of a few hours, to get out the injured, the women and children, the aid workers and those others who are trapped? The UN is there and ready to assist. It can get the people out, but we need the agreement of Russia and others. If the Foreign Secretary is saying that we cannot do airdrops, what can we do with our military assets to provide air cover for UN aid convoys leaving Aleppo? UN convoys have been attacked in the past, so what can we do to provide the assurance that they will not be attacked leaving the scene of this atrocity? What can we do to provide access for neutral humanitarian monitors—those people from the International Committee of the Red Cross and other organisations—to ensure that the evidence is not destroyed and that those who are responsible for these atrocities cannot cover up what they are doing?
What can we do to ensure the evacuation of the White Helmets—people who have been responding and doing amazing work there on the ground? I have read some disgraceful things in recent days about the work of the White Helmets. I can tell Members that they are not true and that those people are helping to save lives. I am proud that we are supporting them, and that Jo Cox supported them and that her foundation supports them now. Any suggestion that those people are doing anything other than a good job is simply unacceptable.
Finally, we must look at the precedent. If we see what is happening in Aleppo today, we can see that it will happen also in Dara, Raqqa and Idlib. If this is the approach that we are going to take and we are not going to stand up at this moment, we will only see these kind of atrocities played out again and again over the weeks and months to come. We must stand up and show that we have some common humanity. We have to do the extraordinary and step outside our natural caution and our fear of these events. People are dying right now and we need to act.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I thank the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) for securing this debate and you, Mr Speaker, for granting it.
The war in Syria and the slaughter of more than 450,000 innocent civilians, overwhelmingly by Assad’s barrel bombs, is without a doubt the 21st century’s most shocking and deplorable bloodletting. The carnage has been unparalleled since Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The international community’s response has been lamentable. Parliament’s reaction to events, which started in 2013, has been feeble. Assad, Russia and Iran’s response has been criminal and the repercussions and shock waves will be felt for decades.
What we need to hear from the Foreign Secretary today is this: what are the Government doing with their allies to push for a meaningful immediate ceasefire and safe passage for any remaining civilians, of which there are believed to be between 50,000 and 80,000? I have a 15-year-old son. He is nearly my size, but—he will not thank me for saying this—he is still a child. If he was leaving Aleppo, what chance would he have of getting through Assad’s soldiers and surviving that experience? There are hundreds of thousands of civilians out there who are worried about their children.
We heard from the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who is no longer in his place, about his concerns with airdrops, which clearly cannot be undertaken lightly. We need to hear from the Foreign Secretary what recent acts of consideration the Government have given to airdrops and the solutions that do not involve pilots advocated by the Opposition. Are those airdrops relevant to other parts of the country? Even if they are not relevant in Aleppo, other parts of Syria are clearly still under siege and may benefit from airdrops.
The Foreign Secretary needs to tell us what the Government are doing in relation to documenting human rights abuses. From a sedentary position, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), has indicated that the Government are working on that issue. I hope that we can hear as much as possible about that. The Government, for very obvious reasons, may not want to reveal how that is being documented, but we do need to hear what work is being done.
We also need to hear what work can be done to hit the Russians where it really hurts them. Clearly, we will not engage in military action with the Russians, but what we can do—the Government will have an opportunity with the Criminal Finances Bill—is hit them in their pockets. Many Russians love to spend their money in the UK. They love to buy properties here; love to buy their cars here; and love to send their children to school here. That is an area where the Government can do something. The Magnitsky amendment that is being proposed to the Criminal Finances Bill is about seizing the assets of foreigners who have committed gross human rights abuses. I want to hear from the Foreign Secretary that the Government will support that amendment, because we know that many of the Russians involved in Syria will have assets here that we could seize.
The Government of Syria have tied themselves to Russia and Iran, which see it to their advantage to encourage Syria’s atrocious behaviour and so perpetuate Assad’s reliance on their support. Assad’s position, for the time being at least, is secure. What new initiatives can the UK, working with its allies, offer to help bring the fighting to an end. Some call for the creation of an enclave in eastern Syria, which would be free of Assad and ISIS forces and which is, as I understand it, where the Kurds and the UK and French special forces are active at the moment. Could such an enclave provide part of a solution?
Only after the violence stops will people begin to recover from the trauma of this horrible war and only then will it be possible for Syrians to think and talk productively about how to begin transforming Syria into a country in which all its people can live in security and dignity. The UK must be prepared, if it is allowed, to play its part then. Will we be ready?
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
As we have heard, in the opposition areas of Aleppo, people are fearing retribution for all—men, women and children alike. There are reports of extra-judicial killings, mass detentions and arrests. Just a few minutes ago, the BBC reported that the UN’s human rights office said that it has reliable evidence that in four areas 82 civilians were shot on sight. We all fear that this is just one example.
All this adds horribly to the imperative for urgent international action. With hindsight, we can see that when in 2011 the peaceful Syrian democracy movement was largely ignored by the international community, it was inevitable that others, wedded neither to peace nor to democracy, would step in. The regime’s response was predictable, not least given the vicious response of the President’s late father, Hafiz al-Assad, to previous uprisings, such as the one in Hama in 1982, where reportedly 20,000 people were killed, the vast majority of them civilians, and the city was destroyed by heavy weapons.
Some years ago, a very close relative of mine spent some time in Syria, working in Damascus in the education system. She tells me that the memories of Hama were very live even at that time, 20-odd years later. Terror was being used as a deliberate part of the regime’s armoury, as it has been since the Ba’ath party seized power in 1963.
The White Helmets now report that tens of thousands of people are trapped as indiscriminate attacks, both ground and air attacks, continue with even greater ferocity, following on from the previous inhuman attacks on the very weakest points, deliberately targeting hospitals, water and food supplies, and aid convoys.
My colleagues in Plaid Cymru support the calls for an immediate ceasefire and safe passage for civilians and rebels out of Aleppo.
The international community has largely failed the people of Syria so far. One redeeming aspect is this Government’s current policy of commitment to material aid. I am happy to salute them for that. Does the Foreign Secretary therefore agree that now is not the time to cut the foreign aid budget?
I fear that the current inhuman conflict is sowing the seeds of future horrors in Syria, the middle east and western Europe, so, irrespective of the humanitarian argument, it is very much in our interest that we take action on the side of humanitarianism, democracy and eventual peace.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for calling me. I follow on from the many excellent speeches that we have heard in today’s debate. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), I have visited—in my then role as chair of the all-party group on genocide prevention, alongside you, Mr Speaker—Rwanda, Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo and, more recently, South Sudan, and I have seen there the long, painful process of rebuilding in countries where genocides have taken place.
One of the many problems when genocide and war crimes take place is that there is a fog of war around them. I remember living and working in Brussels during the Rwanda genocide and not really understanding, as I was reading the newspapers in French, what was happening between Hutu and Tutsi, who were the good guys and who were the bad guys, but seeing the people fleeing from Rwanda and later from Zaire, now DRC.
In the Syrian conflict, however, there has been no lack of information. Everything has been appearing on social media. People have been live tweeting their own suffering and their own death. That is why the citizen journalists and the humanitarian workers are more feared by the regime and by the Russians than the rebel fighters. We have seen the images—images that I personally would rather not have seen—of dead children who were murdered in Homs and Hama in 2011 and 2012. We in the west, in particular the US and the UK, drew a red line by saying that we would intervene if chemical weapons were used. That fatal vote in August 2013, as the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne) said, has had long and very significant consequences.
Our inaction created the political space for the Russians to move in and to offer to decommission the chemical weapons. We have all seen how successful that decommissioning process has been—we have watched as sarin gas, chlorine gas and napalm have been dropped on schools and hospitals in Aleppo and throughout Syria. We have seen the Russian propaganda campaign of misinformation and their pretence of being honest brokers when the west failed or stood by.
Our inaction also opened up military space—Assad released the jihadis from jail to go out and create mayhem in his country. It served as a recruiting sergeant for 30,000 jihadi fighters from more than 100 countries to go and fight for Islamic State, and it served to create the geographical space where Daesh could claim its caliphate, and groom and lure our own young people to go over there and waste their lives as jihadi brides or jihadi fighters. They now find themselves stuck there in the horror of a nihilistic death cult.
The result has been political space captured by the Russians and military space given to Islamic State-Daesh, enabling them to create mayhem in the region and to export it to Turkey and to Iraq where, let us not forget, Mosul has been under Daesh rule for two years, notwithstanding the long and painful efforts of a coalition trying to take back the space in Iraq. The export of chaos from Syria has resulted in 11 million refugees, 7 million of them in their own country, and 400,000 dead. We cannot claim that we did not know what was happening. That toll has been the result of our own political inaction.
It is a bitter irony that this country went to war in Iraq over weapons of mass destruction which were subsequently found not to be there, possibly having gone over the border to Syria, where we see that they have been used. Now, when we see weapons of mass destruction being used in Syria, we are not prepared to take action. How weak, how diminished, how futile is the rules-based international order. We see Secretary of State Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, telling the US Secretary of State to “stop whining”. That is the contempt in which Assad and Putin hold western powers in the region.
When the Foreign Secretary replies to this debate, will he tell us how the workers of UK charities who are currently in east Aleppo will be evacuated and rescued? They have not been spoken about in the debate. When we had our first debate on Syria in October, I contacted Bana Alabed and Omar Ibrahim, who was a neurosurgeon working in east Aleppo. Bana Alabed is still alive.
Alison McGovern
My hon. Friend is making a characteristically detailed and important speech. Will she say a little more about the fate of civilians who have put themselves at risk?
Mary Creagh
Absolutely. Civilians have put themselves at risk as citizen journalists, going out while the bombs are falling and filming what is happening. There is also solidarity between our national health service and Dr David Nott, whose foundation is doing excellent work, training people in Turkey to go back into the hell hole that is Aleppo or that is Idlib to perform life-saving surgery.
I have been in contact with Omar Ibrahim during this debate and I have been telling him what we are doing. He has live tweeted to us and shared what he is doing; it is only fair to live tweet back. I said that we are calling on the US and Russia to create safe corridors for humanitarians and civilians to leave. His response is, “It will take a lot more than calling.” These are people facing imminent death or torture from the pro-Assad regime. We have seen the pictures of the 100 or so civilian men and boys in that compound with the Syrian army general in front of them. We do not know their fate. We are back to Bosnia, back to Srebrenica. When we say never again, we must put force behind those words.
I would like to conclude by asking the Foreign Secretary what the Prime Minister will do at the EU Council this weekend. Will she work with our European allies and our NATO allies to make sure we get a speedy humanitarian resolution to this conflict?
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
I would like to start with a quote from a constituent’s letter. Dr Amer Masri left Damascus a few years ago and now works as a researcher in Edinburgh. He says:
“It is a shame for the free world to see the massacres and mass executions happening to the civilians that are trying to flee Aleppo right now and no action is being taken.
I am very, very disappointed and heartbroken that the free world has left civilians who chanted the values the west believes in like freedom, democracy and dignity, and they are left starving and facing the Russian, Iranian and Assad regime brutality alone. We are left alone.
I urge the UK not to bomb Syria but we need aid drops. It is not too late. There are besieged areas in Damascus suburbs, besieged areas all over Syria. Use these planes to create safe corridors to protect the civilians—not to bomb them.”
I cannot add to the many comments that have been made on both sides of the House that sum up the despair and frustration that people in this country and others feel about the situation in Aleppo. However, I want to reflect on the fact that it is just over a year since we had a vote in this House on whether to join military action in Syria. Those of us on the SNP Benches opposed that motion, yet we were assured that if we voted to join that military action, we would cut off the head of ISIS, provide air support for 70,000 ground troops and be part of co-ordinated military action that would lead to and enhance a political solution. It is now terrifyingly obvious that none of those things has come to pass.
Another thing suggested was that joining that military action would give this country and this Government greater leverage in trying to influence events as they unfolded in Syria. It seems terrifyingly obvious that that is not the case either, and I am sure that there are many in this House, and many throughout the country watching their television screens, whose main feeling is one of frustration at the apparent impotence of our Government when it comes to getting involved and doing anything.
I think that some people—perhaps not those sitting on the Government Front Bench, but certainly some people in the Foreign Office—need to go on an assertiveness training course. They need to speak a lot more loudly and more emphatically than they have thus far. I would like to see this country leading, not following; not being a bystander watching the discussions of others, but getting involved, getting our hands dirty and trying to sort the problem out. After all, if this problem was not caused by France and our own country, whose problem is it? We have a responsibility to the world to show leadership, and I hope very much that we will do that.
Along with many in this House, I am very angry at, and opposed to, the actions that Russia has taken militarily in recent months. However, I would say this to the House: the way forward is not going to be to demonise President Putin, to try to move to a new cold war or to try to pretend that Russia does not have legitimate interests in the region. I would like to see firm but emphatic engagement with the Russian authorities and an insistence from this Government that they need to be part of the equation and part of the plan.
We should call Russia to account and insist that humanitarian aid is prioritised and that corridors are allowed so that it can be delivered. We should stand up and be seen to be doing that. Let us get on the planes. Let us have the shuttle diplomacy. Let us be seen to speak out for the people of this country, to lead international opinion and to put pressure on the Russians and others who are trying to make a bad situation worse.
We also need to call out the Turkish Government on their actions in this affair, because they have been none too helpful. Turkey’s support for the al-Nusra front has created a fig leaf of credibility for the Russian military’s excuse that the people of eastern Aleppo are somehow in a terrorist enclave that needs to be liquidated. That is unhelpful, as is the hostility of the Turkish Government to pretty much any sentiment expressed by the Kurdish population in the region.
So, let us take action now to deliver the humanitarian aid, to make sure there is a ceasefire that can be policed and, most of all, to make sure that war crimes, if they have been committed, will be recorded and that those responsible will be brought to book in the future.
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman, whom I am about to call, needs to sit down by 3.23 pm so that I can call the Foreign Secretary, from whom I think the House will very much want to hear.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Here we are once again: once again congratulating the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) on securing an emergency debate on the situation in Syria; once again hearing from both sides of the House of the atrocities and the unimaginable horror of life in the city of Aleppo; once again asking the same questions to the Government. Where is the head of the snake that our bombs were going to cut off? Why is the United Nations so powerless in the face of this disaster? Why is it that we can drop bombs, but not bread?
In the time I have, I want to reflect on the situation on the ground, on some of the practical solutions we have heard about and on the role the Government can play. We hear that the Assad forces are on the brink of seizing control of the city, but in doing so it seems they are playing out the ancient saying: they have made a desert and called it peace.
Patrick Grady
No, I have very little time.
Quite how the word “victory” could apply to the almost utter destruction of a city and to the death and displacement of so many people is beyond me and, I suspect, most of us. The destruction continues, with both sides responsible for atrocities and horror. The number of people displaced within the country and over its borders is greater than the population of Scotland and just slightly greater than the population of London.
While we recognise the humanitarian contribution the United Kingdom has made, there must be more it can do. That must extend to the welcome it provides to the Syrian refugees who make it to the United Kingdom—20,000 refugees from Syria over the lifetime of this Parliament is simply not enough. It would be helpful to hear from the Government how they want to work with humanitarian organisations on the ground in Syria and in neighbouring countries. Local organisations have a much deeper reach and much better understanding of the immediate situation than multilateral or bilateral agencies.
In Aleppo itself, as many Members have said, we now surely require an urgent and specific response. We on the SNP Benches have repeatedly called for aid drops, and the Government have repeatedly said that that would be an option of last resort. Well, what is the penultimate resort? What is preventing these aid drops? No food has been delivered to Aleppo for seven months. What alternatives are the Government pursuing?
We have heard repeatedly of the risks and of the difficult logistics of aid drops, but we have also heard of the proposals from graduates at the University of Aleppo about how the United States joint precision airdrop system could be deployed. I have asked the Minister written questions about that. It would be helpful to hear from him what discussions the UK is having with the US and other allies about the applicability of that system, and whether it presents a more secure way of delivering aid by air.
The Minister might also be aware of proposals in recent days from members of the Disasters Emergency Committee and other non-governmental organisations for use of an air bridge system to deliver aid by helicopter to safe landing sites identified by the White Helmets and others. In their letter to the Prime Minister, the agencies cite the UK’s role in the 1948-49 Berlin airlift, when over 2 million tonnes of cargo were delivered to 2 million residents of west Berlin. Will the Prime Minister be responding to that letter from some of the most respected aid agencies in this country?
The agencies also make the point that UN Security Council resolution 2165 authorises the UN to undertake cross-border aid delivery without the permission of the Syrian Government. Indeed, the International Syria Support Group, of which Russia remains a member, called on the World Food Programme to use air bridges and airdrops if land access continues to be denied. So what steps are the Government taking to be ready when, or if, the situation stabilises?
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Yesterday I spoke at a conference for Syrian refugees living in my constituency and across Edinburgh, and I met an accomplished artist from Aleppo, Nihad Al Turk, who berated me for the lack of action on all our parts. Has my hon. Friend just described practical steps that we could take at this stage of last resort so that perhaps the next time I meet this gentleman, and other Syrian refugees, in Edinburgh I will have something concrete to say?
Patrick Grady
I thank my hon. and learned Friend. That is the point: concrete, specific proposals are brought forward and we get told, “No, they’re not practical—they’re not possible.” So what are the alternatives? How will this aid otherwise be delivered?
As other Members have said, this situation brings into question the entire multilateral system and the role of the UN Security Council in its seeming inability to respond to the regime. The Government will be aware of statements signed by faith leaders, and a statement co-ordinated by Amnesty, supported by over 200 civil society organisations, calling for a greater role for the General Assembly of the United Nations and a special emergency session of the assembly
“to demand an end to all unlawful attacks in Aleppo and elsewhere in Syria, and immediate and unhindered…access”
for humanitarian aid. Will the UK Government support this call? As I said in the previous debate, the UK’s position on the Security Council is supposed to be one of the great advantages of the Union—Britain’s force in the world—so how is that diplomacy going to be used as a force for good?
SNP Members have repeatedly said that if we can drop bombs in Syria, we should be able to drop bread. The need is great, and the technology and the solutions are there. If stability comes, irrespective of the horrific circumstances, then aid must be allowed in. The Government must be preparing now so that as soon as an opportunity arises they can show leadership and begin to help people to rebuild a city and their lives, which currently lie in ruins.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) for securing this debate on a matter that the whole House feels so strongly about. I listened very carefully to all the speeches and found myself greatly in agreement with much that has been said by Members on both sides of the House.
After five months of siege and almost a year of bombardment, we are now reaching the end of the siege of Aleppo, and Assad’s forces are doing their utmost to stamp out the last embers of revolt. The dictator’s militias have carved paths of destruction through crowded streets destroying hospitals, severing water supplies and herding thousands of people from their homes. I will come in a minute to what we have tried to do as the UK Government, what we continue to do and what we will do in future. I will also, of course, discuss the tragic limitations that we have faced in our actions so far.
First, it is worth going back and remembering how this tragedy has unfolded. As long ago as July, the regime sealed off eastern Aleppo and then defeated two abortive efforts to break the siege. Notch by notch, Assad tightened the noose. The last UN convoy entered eastern Aleppo on 7 July. The last food rations were handed out on 10 November. The last functioning hospital was targeted by an airstrike and knocked out of action on 19 November. Some 275,000 men, women and children were then trapped in eastern Aleppo without food, medical care, or even, in many cases, electricity and water. In this piteous condition, they endured ceaseless attack from air and ground, notably by barrel bombs dropped from Syrian military helicopters.
I know that time is short, but it is worth reminding the House of exactly what a barrel bomb is and why it makes such a hideous weapon. Imagine a metal drum filled with petrol and explosives, and laced with nails and jagged shards of metal. These objects—[Interruption.] People watching and listening around the world may not know what they are. These objects are loaded on board helicopters, which then hover over civilian areas. The men on the helicopters simply light the fuses of the barrels before rolling them out of the door, leaving them to fall to the ground where they shred and incinerate any human being with range. There is no guidance system or targeting. Barrel bombs have no military purpose; they cannot be dropped near a frontline for fear of striking friendly forces. Their sole purpose is to murder civilians. Scores of these awful weapons have been used against the people of eastern Aleppo by Assad every day.
The collapse of the rebel-held districts began on 26 November and has gathered pace. In the areas recaptured by the dictator, we have already heard reports today of hundreds of young males being separated from their families and marched away to an unknown fate. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights today reported that civilians have been “killed on the spot”.
As this tragedy has unfolded, the Government have sought to reduce the suffering with every diplomatic and humanitarian lever at our command. I must tell the House that we have used every effort at the UN. Even today, we are, along with the French, calling for an emergency meeting of the Security Council. I know that our excellent ambassador, Matthew Rycroft, will be conveying at the UN many of the sentiments expressed in the House.
On 8 October, we tried to secure a UN resolution that would have urged a ceasefire. It demanded that
“all parties immediately end all aerial bombardments of…Aleppo”.
That resolution was vetoed by the Russians. On Monday of last week we tried again, throwing our weight behind a draft resolution co-sponsored by Egypt, Spain and New Zealand that urged a seven-day ceasefire in Aleppo to allow the evacuation of casualties and the delivery of aid. Once again, Russia vetoed the resolution, joined by China. I think that the House will join me in condemning those in Moscow and Beijing who would not allow the people of Aleppo even a seven-day respite. I must say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield that I have had information from Aleppo—I am sure that other Members have, too—that even today the Russians are blocking the evacuation of the injured and of medical staff from the very zones they are attacking.
Stephen Doughty
Given what the Foreign Secretary has said about Russia and China’s behaviour and their failures, what will the consequences be for Moscow and Beijing?
Boris Johnson
We are gathering all the information that we think will be necessary for the prosecution of those guilty of war crimes, but the diplomatic pressure must continue. It was asked earlier what we are doing in the EU; I can tell the House that the UK stood up at the last meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council and argued for tightening sanctions against Russia in respect of Syria as well. I wish that the rest of the EU would follow suit.
Last Saturday I broke off a visit to the middle east to fly to Paris to discuss these matters with Secretary Kerry. I pay tribute to John Kerry for his efforts, but they have not prevailed. We jointly demanded that the “regime and its backers” allowed the UN to deliver aid “with immediate effect.” Assad has doggedly refused to allow the UN to deliver supplies to hundreds of thousands of people, many of whom are now starving. He is content for his own people to be reduced to starvation, even though there are UN warehouses full of food within easy reach.
Alison McGovern
What specific action to protect civilians will the Foreign Secretary tell the Prime Minister that she should propose to our European colleagues when she goes to the European Council next week?
Boris Johnson
What the Russians need to do—this is what our European colleagues should do as well—is to institute an immediate ceasefire. It is up to the Russians, and, I am afraid, to the Assad regime, to institute a ceasefire. I will come in a minute to the deficiencies and problems that our decision in 2013 left us with today. Many Members have sought to find fault with the UK Government and what we have tried to do. Given that we are contributing £2.3 billion of aid, many Members have asked an entirely legitimate question: why we do not fly in aid ourselves? Labour Members have asked that very question: why do we not drop aid on eastern Aleppo from the air? Many have spoken in favour of airdrops. In recent weeks since we last discussed this matter in the House, we have studied that option with great care. Working with my colleagues across Whitehall, and working with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and the RAF, I must tell the House that we have come up against some hard realities.
Mr Bradshaw
When the Foreign Secretary complains, as he repeatedly does, about Russian behaviour and Russian vetoes, does he understand that he sounds exactly like the Conservative Foreign Secretaries in the early 1990s who said exactly the same thing about the Balkans? We subsequently had a Labour Government who showed leadership, assembled a coalition and got American support to do something to stop the genocide. What is he doing?
Boris Johnson
That comes a little ill from a Labour Member because the right hon. Gentleman remembers fine well that the Labour party was whipped to oppose any action in 2013.
I want to return to the current situation because Members have asked some very reasonable questions that I think I must answer.
Boris Johnson
I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me if I make some progress, because I have very little time left.
For airdrops to be accurate, they must be conducted at low level and low speed. Russia has deployed its most advanced jet fighters and surface-to-air missiles in Syria, which makes it impossible for us to carry out airdrops without Russian permission. Even if Russia were to give its consent, our aircraft would still have to fly over areas of Syria that are hotly contested by a multitude of armed groups, including Daesh and al-Qaeda. They would make every effort to shoot down a British plane, and a lumbering, low-flying transport aircraft would be a sitting duck. We came reluctantly to the conclusion that airdrops over Syria, under those conditions, would pose too great a risk.
When it comes to drones and other devices, we still face the problem that the Syrians and the Russians control the airspace. Of course it is possible that circumstances might change, so I will not rule out any option for delivering aid today, but nor will I give false hope. As things stand, we would be risking the lives of our aircrew if we tried to drop supplies into eastern Aleppo.
I pay tribute to those who have made brave efforts to evacuate wounded children. All those efforts depend on Russia and the Assad regime, and it is up to them to agree a truce. By far the most effective way of delivering aid would be for them to give permission to the UN to distribute the supplies that are piled high inside its warehouses. As long ago as December 2015, Russia voted in favour of UN resolution 2254, which urged all parties to
“allow humanitarian agencies rapid, safe and unhindered access throughout Syria”.
Russia must now obey the very resolution that it supported and compel Assad to allow the UN to feed his people—[Interruption.] I say to Opposition Members who are objecting to this that if we take the pressure off Russia, we are serving the purposes of the Assad regime.
Boris Johnson
I am afraid I will not.
There is another inescapable reality that Members must accept. On 29 August 2013, this House voted by 13 votes not to use force against Assad, even after he had poisoned hundreds of his people with sarin nerve gas. We, as a House of Commons and as a country, vacated the space into which Russia stepped, beginning its own bombing campaign on behalf of Assad in 2015. Ever since that vote, our ability to influence events in Syria, to protect civilians or to compel the delivery of aid has been severely limited. The dictator was left to do his worst—along with his allies, Russia and Iran—and the bloodiest tragedy of the 21st century has since unfolded.
I must say—the House should listen to this—that Assad’s conquest of Aleppo will not mark the end of the war. The victory will turn to ashes in his mouth, because even if he reimposes his rule over the rubble of that city, about two thirds of Syria will remain outside his control. Millions of Syrians are viscerally hostile to the rule of a tyrant who has the blood of hundreds of thousands on his hands. Already Daesh has taken the opportunity created by Assad’s assault on Aleppo to surge forwards and capture again the ancient Roman city of Palmyra. Assad has repeatedly said that his aim is nothing less than the re-conquest of “every inch” of Syria. If he is allowed to pursue that goal, I fear that this war will continue for more years, and victory will still elude him.
My question to those who ask what we would do—let us turn the question around—is: do Russia and Iran want to stand behind Assad in this futile and indefinite struggle to subdue Syria? Do they want to be with him siege for siege, barrel bomb for barrel bomb and gas attack for gas attack, as the tyrant reduces his country to ashes? In the months or perhaps years ahead, does Russia still wish to be dispatching warplanes to bomb Syrian cities while casting votes in the Security Council on behalf of Assad, a man for whom it has no great regard?
Alison McGovern
The Foreign Secretary mentions the vote in 2013; I will live with that for the rest of my life. May I ask again the question that I asked him earlier? There is no pressure on Russia at the moment, so why does he not tell the Prime Minister to go to the European Council and propose action that is led by the UK and supported by our European allies?
Boris Johnson
I can tell the hon. Lady that we are doing everything that we can within the constraints we face. I have described the restrictions on military options, which I think most people in this country understand.
Boris Johnson
I am afraid that I must now wind up.
I hope that Russia will see sense and join us to secure the transition away from Assad that is the only hope for a peaceful Syria. It is up to them—the Russians and Iran—and they have the future of Syria in their hands. This is one of the darkest hours in Aleppo’s four millennia of recorded history. One day, that city will rise again, and one day, Britain will be among the countries that help to restore Aleppo to the greatness it once had. That day might seem far off now, but it will come all the faster if the Russians and the Iranians do the right thing, abandon their puppet, and promote the peaceful and political solution that is the only way forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered international action to protect civilians in Aleppo and more widely across Syria.
Mr Mitchell
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Following the emergency debate, may I seek your advice? There has clearly been a profound re-examination of some of the arguments that led to the result of the vote in August 2013, when Parliament was recalled during a recess. Will you advise me whether there may therefore be a case for the Government to come back to the House with a substantive motion to reflect the changed circumstances since that time?
Mr Speaker
It would absolutely be open to the Government to return to the matter, and to put before the House a substantive motion for a debate and a vote. Such an opportunity most certainly exists.
Mary Creagh
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During my speech, I requested that the Foreign Secretary describe the actions he has taken to evacuate the staff of UK-based humanitarian organisations. He failed to answer that point. Will you, on behalf of the House, seek answers from the Foreign Secretary on that specific point, which is of the utmost gravity and urgency? [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
All I can say to the hon. Lady is that I have just heard the Foreign Secretary indicate from a sedentary position that he will write to her. Might I politely ask that the Foreign Secretary place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House, because I think his answer will be of interest not only to the hon. Lady, but to many Members on both sides of the House?
Mr Speaker
I am not sure there is anything further, but I will indulge the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr Speaker
He might. I say to the right hon. Gentleman and any other Member who feels that his or her point has been inadequately addressed, or not addressed at all, that I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will study what has been said by colleagues and that, if he feels there are points that are unaddressed, he will write to all such colleagues. I am quite sure that the Foreign Secretary will do that.
We have to leave it there for now. We cannot continue the debate at this time, although there is plenty of scope for doing so subsequently.
Neighbourhood Planning Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Ordered,
That the Order of 10 October 2016 (Neighbourhood Planning Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:
(1) Paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Order shall be omitted.
(2) Proceedings on Consideration and proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion, at today’s sitting, four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this order.
(3) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion, at today’s sitting, five hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this order.—(Gavin Barwell.)
Neighbourhood Planning Bill
Tuesday 13th December 2016
(8 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberNeighbourhood Planning Act 2017 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 13 December 2016 - (13 Dec 2016)
19:40 - The House divided: - Ayes: 161 / Noes: 274 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:53 - The House divided: - Ayes: 157 / Noes: 279 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 3—Review of compulsory purchase—
“Before exercising his powers under section 35(1) the Secretary of State must carry out a review of the entire compulsory purchase order process.”
This amendment ensures that there is clarity on appeal routes, pre-completion and pre-occupation conditions.
New clause 12—Rates of interest and advance payments—
“Within 14 days of the Neighbourhood Planning Bill receiving Royal Assent the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer must bring forward outstanding regulations relating to Clauses 192 to 198 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 and Clauses 19 to 21 and 33 to 35 of the Neighbourhood Planning Bill.”
The Housing and Planning Act includes measures requiring further regulations in order to come into force. This new clause requires that, once the Neighbourhood Planning Bill receives Royal Assent, these regulations should be brought into force to ensure that all farmers, business owners and landowners benefit from the Government’s commitment to improve interest rates on late payments as soon as possible.
Amendment 26, in clause 15, page 14, line 12, leave out
“as well as, or instead of, compulsory acquisition”
and insert
“or compulsory acquisition, but not both”.
This amendment would ensure that where an acquiring authority seeks temporary possession rights it cannot at the same time also seek permanent possession rights. It would not stop the acquiring authority at a later date seeking permanent acquisition rights via a fresh compulsory purchase order should it be required to complete the project.
Government amendment 21.
Amendment 27, page 25, line 36, leave out clause 28.
This would remove changes which would prevent landowners who have land compulsorily purchased for a particular purpose seeking additional compensation should the land end up being used for a different purpose. It ensures that, where the original calculation of compensation that was paid did not take into account the possibility of the development that the land is now being used for, the claimant receives the correct level of compensation.
Gavin Barwell
Government new clause 6 deals with the ability to claim compensation for temporary severance when a material detriment claim has been referred to the upper tribunal. This will arise when the acquiring authority has taken possession of the part of a claimant’s land that it wants before the tribunal has determined the claim, and the tribunal then decides that it must take more of the claimant’s land. The tribunal will be able to award compensation for any loss suffered by the claimant as a result of the temporary severance of their land while the matter is being determined.
A provision to ensure that the compensation is claimable is already contained in paragraph 28(5) of schedule 2A to the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 when the acquiring authority is proceeding by notice to treat and notice of entry. The Housing and Planning Act 2016 should have included an equivalent provision in schedule A1 to the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981, but that was not spotted at the time, so new clause 6 fills the gap.
Government amendment 21 is a consequential amendment to the definition of “acquiring authority” in section 172 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 on the power to enter land to survey it in connection with an acquisition proposal. The amendment aligns the definition of “acquiring authority” with that in clause 14, so that the power to enter and survey land can be used in connection with any proposal to take temporary possession of land under that clause. The new definition still works for authorities intending to acquire the land permanently. I commend the amendment to the House.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
New clause 3 calls for a comprehensive review of the entire compulsory purchase order process. There was clear consensus among the witnesses at the Public Bill Committee evidence sessions that the current CPO system is not fit for purpose. It is convoluted and puts people off using it, which in turn has a negative impact on the delivery of development. Colin Cottage of the Compulsory Purchase Association commented:
“The existing system is not helpful for reaching quick solutions. In fact, in many ways it encourages people to be fighting with each other from the outset.”––[Official Report, Neighbourhood Planning Public Bill Committee, 18 October 2016; c. 64, Q114.]
He said that ultimately that causes uncertainty and additional cost. Richard Asher of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors said:
“I believe, and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has always believed, that codification of the whole of the CPO rules, which go back to 1845 and are highly complex, would be a sensible way forward”.––[Official Report, Neighbourhood Planning Public Bill Committee, 18 October 2016; c. 64, Q113.]
He said that he wanted a review of the system as it stands. Labour strongly believes that the legislation should be updated to enable the greater use of CPOs as a tool to drive effective regeneration and development strategies and to work in partnership with developers to ensure that we get the new homes and development that we need.
More than 100 years of conflicting statute and case law makes up the current CPO legislation, so small changes will not have a significant effect. Indeed, in Committee the Minister reflected on the fact that the changes, welcome though they are, would not be a game changer. I therefore ask him why the Government continue to make small changes to the CPO system bit by bit, rather than bringing forward legislation to allow us to review it and make it fit for purpose.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
I wish to speak to new clause 12 and amendments 26 and 27, which are in my name.
On new clause 12, both the Housing and Planning Act 2016 and the Bill contain welcome measures to make it clear that an acquiring authority should make payments of compensation in advance—that is the important bit—of taking possession of land. They also provide a mechanism for improving the rates of interest on late compensation payments, which is important because it will hopefully encourage acquiring authorities to pay in advance, and to pay a reasonable interest rate, rather than delaying payment.
Those measures require further regulations to bring them into force. As soon as the Bill becomes law, those regulations should be brought forward without delay to ensure that landowners and business owners benefit from the Government’s previous commitment to improve interest rates on late payments.
On amendment 26, I welcome the Bill’s provisions to allow acquiring authorities to take land on a temporary basis. That will provide much-needed flexibility within the compulsory purchase system and stop acquiring authorities having to take land on a permanent basis that is required only temporarily. However, they should not be allowed to take land on both those bases. If, having taken land on a temporary basis, an acquiring authority finds that it needs to take it on a permanent basis, that should be subject to a second notice to treat and a compulsory purchase procedure.
Finally, amendment 27 is the most important, in my view. It would remove clause 28, which repeals part 4 of the Land Compensation Act 1961. That repeal will prevent landowners who have had land compulsorily purchased for a particular purpose from seeking additional compensation should the land end up being used for a different, more lucrative development. I will briefly try to explain that to the House.
The general principle of compulsory purchase is that if someone’s land is being compulsorily acquired, they should be paid the same price as if that land were being acquired on a voluntary, willing-seller willing-buyer basis in the private commercial sector. Abolishing part 4 of the 1961 Act will mean that if the land subsequently has a different use—for example, if the planning zoning changes so that it suddenly becomes extremely valuable because it could be developed for housing or commercial purposes—the person having his land acquired will not get the benefit of that uplift. As a chartered surveyor—I declare that in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—if I were ever selling land that I felt was likely to have such an uplift, I would always insist on an overage clause being placed on the sale, not for 10 years but for 20 or 25 years. During that time the vendor would get 50% of the value of the uplift.
I say to my hon. Friend the Minister, loud and clear, that in clause 28 he is enabling acquiring authorities to acquire land on the cheap at the expense of private landowners, and I think that is unfair.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I apologise for missing the beginning of the debate—I was chairing a Select Committee.
Robert Neill
I am sure it was a very important and fascinating minute, Mr Deputy Speaker, particularly as the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) was speaking—I have great regard for her.
I support my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) and the amendments in our names. We put them forward in an endeavour to be constructive. They reflect areas where the Government have taken valuable and worthwhile steps. New clause 12 is built on the fact that they rightly increased the rates of interest, but it is important that there is not a lacuna between the enabling legislation and the practical application of the regulations. The Minister might say, “There is another means whereby I can achieve the same objective as the new clause,” in which case my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds and I will be perfectly happy, but it is important to flag that up, particularly because the Treasury has to deal with the regulations, although I could be wrong about that. We would not want anything to fall between the gaps and prevent the Government’s good intention from being delivered in practice.
Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)
Does the hon. Gentleman have any idea of the time limit? How long would it be before that measure comes to an end, during which time the Government would be bound to give that additional compensation?
Robert Neill
We are putting the ball in the Government’s court in that regard. We have the commencement date for the relevant provisions. It seems to my hon. Friend and I that the regulation to implement them ought to follow at the time of commencement, or as close as practically possible thereto. That is what we are seeking to achieve, so that there is a smooth transition.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
My hon. Friend rightly points out that the Government have agreed to the provisions, and therefore that Treasury approval has presumably been given because the measure will cost a certain amount of money. It would therefore be logical that, as soon as the Bill comes into force, the provisions should come into force. That is the strength of our joint proposals.
Robert Neill
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I could not put it better and need not say more on that aspect.
The key point on amendment 26 is that the word “certainty” is fashionable in the current political climate. Businesses want certainty about a number of things, and the proposal is another example. They may well have to make contingency arrangements to relocate all or part of their operations. It is obviously much better for them to know at the earliest stage what is to be acquired on a permanent basis and what is to be acquired on a temporary basis. If it is temporary, they can plan accordingly. Nothing stops the acquiring authority from coming back for a second bite of the cherry, but businesses—it need not be a large business, and could be a small or medium-sized enterprise or a family firm—would not be left in limbo about their long-term future.
My final point is on amendment 27, and the situation is as my hon. Friend rightly says. I respect his professional expertise as a surveyor, and my experience as a lawyer leads me to the same conclusion. My experience in the local government world leads me to expect that of any local authority. My local authority is active and has a good investment fund in property in Bromley. If we acquire by private treaty, we expect to enter into overage payments. It would be the norm. We are seeking to address an equality-of-arms argument.
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
I understand the point the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) are making, but are they talking about a one-way ratchet? If the “different purpose” helpfully referred to in the Member’s explanatory note to amendment 27 meant that the land was worth less than the original purpose, would the landowner get a lower compensation, or is it a one-way ratchet?
Robert Neill
It is a one-way ratchet because it is designed to prevent somebody in a monopoly bargaining position from putting unfair pressure on the owner. If somebody has compulsory acquisition powers, they are not obliged to go through the free bargaining process. That is why the ratchet deliberately goes in that direction. It would prevent what I hope responsible acquiring authorities would not generally do. However, there is a risk that instead of using compulsory acquisition as a last resort, which is what we all want, acquiring authorities have a perverse incentive to say, “We will use the compulsory powers early on in the process, because otherwise, if we acquire by private treaty, we might be forced into an overage.” We would not want that where the powers or the agencies of the state are potentially bearing down on individuals or small businesses. That is the thinking behind the amendments and new clauses.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I sounded shocked because I had not realised you were here at the beginning.
John Redwood
I was in at the beginning. I have come because this an important subject and I want to support my colleagues in saying that where land is being compulsorily acquired, the aim should be to ensure that the owner gets the open market value that they would have got had they been a voluntary seller in the private sector market without the distortion of the public sector purchaser. As my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) indicated, that surely means that if there is hope value in the land, it should be included in the price. It might be possible to take care of hope value with an overage, or it might be that we can express a capital value of the hope value and clean the whole thing up in one go. Either way, it needs to be sorted out, and I hope that will be confirmed by the Minister. I believe that that is the intention.
As to the Opposition argument, I think that sometimes the best is the enemy of the good. We already have 17 pages of additional legislation on compulsory purchase, and if the Opposition thought that something needed fixing or improving, this was their opportunity to table amendments to do so. The new clause is the Government’s best fix for the current legislation. I think we can do it by means of amendment to existing law. We need not redesign the whole thing. A redesign could create added hazards and complexities and bring scope for mistakes.
Rob Marris
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the Housing and Planning Act 2016. This is the second time that this issue has come before the House, so the idea that we do not want additional legislation or the review process proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) looks a bit thin, given that this is our second bite of the cherry in primary legislation.
John Redwood
I think we have agreement. I am saying that this is a process of continuous review and incremental improvement. The Opposition are entitled to join in—this Bill was another opportunity for them to do so—although I am pleased that we have been spared a complete rewrite of the whole legislation, as that might not have produced extra advantages and would have brought with it all sorts of hazards. I support the Government in what I assume will be their wish not to proceed with new clause 3.
Gavin Barwell
This has been a short debate on a technical but important area of the Bill that cuts to the core of our belief in this country in the importance of people’s property rights and the rightly very clear restrictions we place on the circumstances in which the state can compulsorily acquire people’s property.
I will start by responding to the official Opposition’s new clause 3. The hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) explained to the House why she believed there should be a fundamental review of compulsory purchase law. A similar new clause was debated in Committee. She also made this point in the debate last week on the affirmative regulations arising from the Housing and Planning Act 2016. I suspect that compulsory purchase is one area on which it is easier to agree on the need for fundamental reform than on what that fundamental reform should be. She is right that most of the people who gave evidence to the Committee, while supporting what the Government were doing, believed that there was the potential for more far- reaching reform, but there was no consensus on what it should be.
The Law Commission looked at this issue, and what the Government did in the Housing and Planning Act, and what we are doing in the Bill, reflected its conclusions. It came up not with a complete rewrite of the law, but with a focused set of reforms. To come to the point raised by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris), the reason we are coming back to this is that when we consulted on the previous legislation, people raised some fresh points around which there was a consensus, and that is why the Government have proceeded.
Let us see what impact the reforms in the 2016 Act, which are only just being implemented, and the reforms in the Bill will have. I hope that they will make it easier for people to use compulsory purchase when it is necessary to do so, and make the process a simpler and clearer one. We will then be in a better position to consider whether any further reform is necessary.
Gavin Barwell
My hon. Friend is nodding, and I hope he will therefore withdraw new clause 12.
My hon. Friend went on to raise one of the more difficult points in the new temporary possession regime. As he said, amendment 26 would permit either temporary possession or permanent acquisition of a particular parcel of land, but not both at the same time. A balance has to be struck between certainty for the landowner—he made that point very powerfully—and flexibility for acquiring authorities who are tasked with providing what is often vital national infrastructure.
For linear transport schemes, it is not always possible to determine the precise line of a route at the time of taking compulsory powers. The final details might not be confirmed until a late stage. The acquiring authority must always work within the lines of the limits of deviation, but it will often be necessary to occupy much of the land temporarily in order to construct the scheme, but only take permanent possession of the land that is actually built on. Where this is required, clause 15(3) currently provides flexibility for an authorising instrument to authorise temporary possession of land needed for carrying out construction works, as well as compulsory acquisition of the land needed permanently for the actual scheme, although clause 15(3) does not of course enable temporary possession or compulsory acquisition of the same land at the same time.
On the other hand, I would not wish, for the reasons my hon. Friend so eloquently set out, to give carte blanche to lazy acquiring authorities who cannot make up their minds early enough about what land they need on a permanent basis and what land they need temporarily just to carry out the scheme. I hope it will satisfy him if I say that I propose to issue guidance on what an acquiring authority would have to demonstrate before the confirming authority, which would be the relevant Secretary of State, confirmed an order that attempted to authorise both temporary and permanent acquisition of the same land. With that reassurance, I hope my hon. Friend will withdraw his amendment.
Finally, amendment 27 seeks to ensure that part IV of the Land Compensation Act 1961 would remain in force. The majority of those who responded to the Government consultation on further reform of the compulsory purchase order system in March 2016 were in favour of repeal of part IV, as was the Law Commission. I reassure my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), that compensation under the ordinary rules already reflects the full market value of the land at the valuation date with all its present and future potential, including any hope value for future development—a point he made very forcefully.
The balance has moved more in favour of repeal since the reform of the planning assumptions for compensation in the Localism Act 2011, as these specifically take the conditions as known to the market at the time into account. I accept however that the arguments for and against repeal are finely balanced. In favour of repealing part IV is the argument that it introduces an element of uncertainty and unknown risk about liability for compensation for the acquiring authority, which leads to increased cost for the public sector, for example often through insurance premiums. The Government believe that repeal of part IV will reduce the risk and uncertainty, while maintaining the principle of fair compensation.
My hon. Friends the Members for The Cotswolds and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) have argued passionately that the repeal of part IV would create uncertainty for claimants. Under part IV, a claimant is treated as though they have retained their investment and interest in the acquired land so that they can benefit from any increase in value generated by a subsequent planning permission. My hon. Friends argued that that reflects commercial practice in that overage clauses are routinely included in land transactions.
The perceived clash between commercial practice and the compensation rules might be reconciled if after the repeal of part IV, landowners pressed for overage clauses when negotiating with acquiring authorities over the sale of their land. That might enable deals by agreement to be struck without recourse to compulsory purchase. That is what all of us should aspire to: that acquiring authorities agree deals voluntarily with those who own land.
Robert Neill
That is a helpful point. Could the Minister provide some assistance by way of guidance for acquiring authorities to press them into adopting that kind of good practice?
Gavin Barwell
I am happy to look at that. I was just about say that the Government are not at present wholly persuaded by the arguments of my hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Chislehurst and for The Cotswolds, so I ask them not to press their amendments on this occasion. As I said, however, the arguments are finely balanced and I look forward to them being explored further in the other place. I am certainly happy to reflect on whether we could strengthen the guidance for acquiring authorities to seek to achieve normal commercial deals in the way that my hon. Friends have described.
Robert Neill
I take it that the Minister is not ruling out returning to the matter if more evidence can be put forward.
Gavin Barwell
As I think I have made clear, we want to proceed with the maximum possible consensus on the right way of getting a set of rules on compulsory purchase that are fair to the taxpayer, the acquiring authority and landowners.
John Redwood
When the Minister drafts that guidance, he may like to include the obvious point that if those whose land is subject to compulsory purchase can reach a voluntary agreement, it will probably speed up the compensation and reduce the legal costs. There is something in it for both parties if the local authority has goodwill towards landowners. Some of our local authorities have such goodwill, but others do not. That is what the guidance must address.
Gavin Barwell
My right hon. Friend makes a perfect point on which to end this section of the debate. The point is that compulsory purchase should be a last resort. We should encourage all acquiring authorities to seek to secure land that is needed for major infrastructure projects or redevelopment schemes on commercial terms, which is quicker and cheaper and avoids all the legal costs, as he said. What we are legislating for here should be a last resort for when it is overwhelmingly in the public interest and necessary to acquire sites in order to allow projects to go ahead. With that, I hope that hon. Members will not press their amendments and that we can proceed to the next part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 6 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 1
Guidance on clustering of betting offices and pay day loan shops
“(1) Before exercising his powers under section 36(1) the Secretary of State must issue guidance to local authorities on the granting of planning for permission change of use to betting offices and pay day loan shops.
(2) This guidance must set out the manner in which policies in neighbourhood plans and local plans about the number, density and impact of betting offices and pay day loan shops shall be taken into account when determining applications for change of use, to prevent a deleterious effect on the neighbourhood or local area.”—(Graham Jones.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Planning Applications: award of costs—
“(1) Where a planning application for development meets the terms of subsection (2), and is—
(a) refused by a local authority, or
(b) an appeal under section 78 of the TCPA 1990 which is dismissed,
the planning authority may apply to the Secretary of State for an award of costs to reimburse the expenses incurred by individuals who submitted objections to the unsuccessful application or appeal.
(2) A planning authority may only use this power if the following conditions are met—
(a) the unsuccessful application or appeal concerned a new commercial or residential development; and
(b) the application or appeal was unsuccessful, at least in part, due to its incompatibility with the relevant approved neighbourhood development plan.”
New clause 4—Sustainable development and placemaking—
“(1) The Secretary of State must issue guidance setting out how the principles of sustainable development and placemaking can be—
(a) reflected in neighbourhood development plans;
(b) used by local authorities to support neighbourhood planning.
(2) “Sustainable development and placemaking” means managing the use, development and protection of land and natural resources in a way which enables people and communities to provide for their legitimate social, economic and cultural wellbeing while sustaining the potential of future generations to meet their own needs.
(3) To support this aim local planning authorities should—
(a) identify suitable land for development in line with the economic, social and environmental objectives so as to improve the quality of life, wellbeing and health of people and the community;
(b) contribute to the sustainable economic development of the community;
(c) contribute to the vibrant cultural and artistic development of the community;
(d) protect and enhance the natural and historic environment;
(e) contribute to mitigation and adaptation to climate change in line with the objectives of the Climate Change Act 2008;
(f) promote high quality and inclusive design;
(g) ensure that decision-making is open, transparent, participative and accountable; and
(h) ensure that assets are managed for long-term interest of the community.”
This new clause would clarify in statute that neighbourhood planning should be focused on the public interest and in achieving quality outcomes including placemaking.
New clause 5—Neighbourhood Planning: Payments to support production of plans—
“(1) Where a parish is designated as a neighbourhood area under the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012, and where the parish council agrees to forego some or all of the relevant Community Infrastructure Ley Monies, the Local Planning Authority may make available the amounts foregone to support the parish council in the production of a Neighbourhood Plan or a Neighbourhood Development Order.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) the relevant Community Infrastructure Levy Monies are those that will be payable to the Local Planning Authority under Regulation 8 of the CIL (Amendment) Regulations 2013 if the Neighbourhood Plan or Neighbourhood Development Order, when made—
(a) provides for the number of houses specified for development in that neighbourhood area under the relevant Local Plan, and
(b) those houses are built.”
This amendment would require Local Planning Authorities to make advances available to parish councils to support the production of Neighbourhood Plan or a Neighbourhood Development Order. The advances will equal the amount of income that the parish council agrees to forego out of the CIL revenues that would otherwise be paid to them by the Local Planning Authority once the housing specified in the Plan or Order is built.
New clause 7—Planning decisions: involvement of neighbourhood planning bodies—
“In place of section 75ZB of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as inserted by section 156 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016) insert—
“75ZB Responsibilities of decision-makers in respect of Neighbourhood Development Plans in the exercise of planning functions
(1) In considering whether to grant planning permission or permission in principle for development which affects land all or part of which is included within the area covered by a made or emerging Neighbourhood Development Plan, the local planning authority must—
(a) have regard to the desirability of upholding the policies and proposals contained in the Neighbourhood Development Plan;
(b) send a copy of the application to the relevant neighbourhood planning body;
(c) allow the relevant neighbourhood planning body a period of 21 days from receipt of the application to make recommendations about how the application should be determined; and
(d) take into account any recommendations made under paragraph (c).
(2) Where a neighbourhood planning body recommended against the application, under subsection (1), and the following conditions are met, the local planning authority may not approve the application without first consulting with the Secretary of State.
(3) The conditions mentioned in subsection (2) are—
(a) the development is not classed as a householder development;
(b) the development is not on a site identified for the proposed development in the relevant neighbourhood development plan.
(4) Consultations with the Secretary of State under subsection (2) must follow the procedures set out in provisions 10 to 12 of the Town & Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009.
(5) In this section—
“emerging Neighbourhood Development Plan” means a Neighbourhood Development Plan that has been examined, is being examined, or is due to be examined, having met the public consultation requirements necessary to proceed to this stage.
“householder development” means proposals to alter or enlarge a single house, including works within the curtilage (boundary/garden) of the house.
“neighbourhood planning body” means a town or parish council or neighbourhood forum, as defined in section 61F of the 1990 Act (authorisation to act in relation to neighbourhood areas).””
This new clause would require planning authorities to consult neighbourhood planning bodies on decisions to grant planning permission. Where a planning authority wants to approve a major development against the wishes of a neighbourhood planning body, the planning authority will be required to consult the Secretary of State before granting permission.
New clause 8—Delivery of housing development—
“After section 74 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 insert—
“74A Delivery of housing development
(1) The Secretary of State may make provision, by a development order, for regulating the manner in which applications for planning permission for housing development are to be determined by local planning authorities with regard to the assessment of a five year supply of housing land.
(2) A development order issued under subsection (1) may in particular—
(a) define a methodology to be used by local planning authorities to assess a deliverable five-year supply of housing land, including confirmation of types of sites that may be included;
(b) specify the minimum period of time after which, if a local authority has not demonstrated a five-year supply of housing land, the presumption in favour of sustainable development should be applied in accordance with paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework;
(c) set out the desirability of upholding policies and proposals of made or emerging neighbourhood plans, where these are positive towards housing development, notwithstanding any lack of a five-year supply of housing land in the local authority area in which the neighbourhood plan is wholly or partly situated.
(3) In this section “five year supply of housing land” means specified deliverable sites identified as sufficient to provide five years’ worth of housing against the area’s housing requirements (see paragraph 47 of the National Planning Policy Framework).””
The proposal would empower the Secretary of State to issue a development order to: clarify the means by which housing land supply is assessed; define the minimum amount of time before a local planning authority’s failure to meet its housing targets results in its local plan being “out of date”; and specify that neighbourhood plans should be taken into account notwithstanding the lack of a five-year supply of housing land.
Amendment 1, in clause 1, page 2, line 3, at end insert—
“(c) it has been examined by an independent examiner who is registered with the Royal Town Planning Institute.”
This amendment ensures that the examination of a neighbourhood plan is conducted by an RTPI registered examiner.
Amendment 2, in clause 2, page 2, line 19, at end insert—
“(3C) To support Neighbourhood Plans, the Secretary of State should set out the weight that should be given to approved neighbourhood development plans at key stages in the planning process.”
This amendment gives weight to the Neighbourhood Plans at key stages along the process and not just at the post- referendum stage.
Amendment 3, in clause 3, page 2, line 28, at end insert
“after consultation with the local area involved.”
This amendment ensure that any changes to a neighbourhood development order or plan are first subject to consultation with the local area involved.
Amendment 4, in clause 4, page 4, line 7, at end insert
“providing that the subsequent area is not smaller than a parish or town council area or local authority ward.”
This amendment ensures that the size of a neighbourhood area is not smaller than a parish or town council area or local authority ward.
Amendment 7, in clause 5, page 5, line 10, at end insert—
“(c) reasonable payments made by local authorities for the purpose set out in paragraph (a) and (b) shall be recovered from the Secretary of State’s department.”
This amendment allows for the full recovery of costs of assisting with the development of a neighbourhood plan to be recovered to the local authority.
Amendment 5, page 5, line 11, at end insert—
“(2BA) Such statements of community involvement must include a right for members of the community to make representations.”
This amendment would give local people and communities a statutory “right to be heard”.
Amendment 6, page 5, line 11, at end insert—
“(2BA) Such statements of community involvement shall include measures to enable local parish councils to be set up in a streamlined and speedy manner.”
This amendment would make it easier for new parish and town councils to be formed.
Amendment 8, page 5, line 21, after subsection (3) insert—
“(4) Section 120 of the Localism Act 2011 (Financial assistance in relation to neighbourhood planning) is amended as follows—
(a) at the end of subsection (2)(a) leave out “, and” and insert “subject to the condition that such assistance is prioritised for bodies or persons in deprived communities, and”,
(b) after subsection (3)(b), insert—
“(ba) a deprived community is defined as being any area which is among the 20 per cent most deprived Lower Layer Super Output Areas according to the most recently published English Indices of Deprivation,
(bb) prioritised financial assistance is defined to mean that no less than 50 per cent of the total value of the financial assistance provided under this section is provided to deprived communities.””
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to prioritise deprived communities when making available financial assistance to support the development of neighbourhood plans.
Amendment 23, page 5, line 21, at end insert—
“(4) To support Neighbourhood Plans, all councils should have a Local Development Plan in place by December 2017.”
This amendment ensures that Local Plans are in place so Neighbourhood Plans can be made in line with the strategic aims of Local Plans.
Amendment 24, in clause 6, page 5, line 26, at end insert
“which must consider the current and future housing needs of the whole population including older and disabled people”.
Amendment 25, page 6, line 7, after “strategy” insert
“which must consider the current and future housing needs of the whole population including older and disabled people”.
Amendment 28, page 6, line 21, at end insert—
“(3) In section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 ((determination of applications for planning permission: general considerations) after subsection (4) insert—
(5) No grant or other financial assistance shall be payable by the Secretary of State in connection with development of land in the circumstances set out in subsection (6) below.
(6) The circumstances are where a development plan document includes any of the following policies—
(a) the removal of the Green Belt designation from land in order to accommodate 10 or more dwellings;
(b) the designation of land that falls within a designated National Park, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, or Site of Special Scientific Interest to allow major housing development;
(c) the designation of land that falls within a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest to allow major housing development.
(7) The Secretary of State must by regulation set out—
(a) what constitutes “major” development for the purposes of subsection (6) (c); and
(b) any exceptions to subsection (5).””
This amendment would have the effect of preventing the Government from making payments under the New Homes Bonus scheme for developments proposed in development plan documents on land (i) where the Green Belt boundary had been redrawn or (ii) within a National Park or Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, where a development is considered to be “major”. The amendment also allows the Secretary of State to set out exceptions to this provision within policies or guidance, which would include the NPPF.
Amendment 10, in clause 10, page 10, line 19, at end insert—
“(c) they must set out a timetable to review the need for technical documents.”
Government amendments 17 to 19.
Amendment 29, in clause 11, page 10, line 35, at end insert—
“(4) Such Statements of Community Involvement must outline—
(a) the links between Neighbourhood Plans and Local Plans; and
(b) consultation arrangements for Parish and Town Councils in the drawing up of Local Plans.”
This amendment outlines the relationship between local and neighbourhood plans and the role parish and town councils would play in their development.
Government amendment 22.
Amendment 9, in schedule 2, page 42, line 15, at end insert
“must consult the relevant lower-tier planning authority.”
This amendment ensures that district councils are consulted before a county council writes a local plan for their area.
Graham Jones
I want to speak to new clause 1, tabled in my name and those of many hon. Members from across the House, and planning guidance on the clustering of betting offices and payday lenders. Fixed odds betting terminals have been described as the crack cocaine of gambling and plague our high streets. Members have witnessed innumerable issues following the explosive growth in betting shops on their constituency’s high streets. Given the number, clustering and impact of betting shops, it is high time that there was clarity in planning law on this significant problem, which my moderate new clause seeks to address.
Research by the Local Government Association reveals a clear correlation between high-density betting shop clustering and problem gambling. Betting shop loyalty cards show that 28% of people living within 400 metres of betting shop clusters are problem gamblers, compared with 22% of those who do not live near a cluster. Research from the Institute for Public Policy Research shows that problem gambling, exacerbated by clustering, costs secondary mental health services and the taxpayer £100 million a year. Further academic research has revealed that clustering disproportionately affects vulnerable communities. The poorest 55 boroughs have more than twice as many betting shops compared with the most affluent 115 boroughs. There has been an adverse impact on our high streets. Those findings were summed up by Mary Portas, who said that
“the influx of betting shops, often in more deprived areas, is blighting our high streets”.
I remind some Members who might disagree that the Portas review was set up by Conservative Members when they were in the coalition Government, in the previous Parliament.
To date, deficiencies in the legislative framework have hampered efforts to address the effects of clustering on local communities. We have only to walk down any high street in a deprived area to see clusters of payday lenders and betting shops, which are affecting the vitality of our high streets.
Rob Marris
I support my hon. Friend’s excellent proposal. He, like me, will be aware that for some people gambling is an addiction. This House has repeatedly passed measures in relation to addiction to alcohol and tobacco to restrict the availability of those legal products. Surely, that is all he is seeking to do here: place restrictions, through guidance, on the availability of a legal product, to cut down on its availability and lessen its attraction to addicts.
Graham Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I could add that we also have planning frameworks and guidance in place for things such as supermarkets, so why not do the same for betting shops? It seems remarkable that we can pick on supermarkets—
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
There are far more pubs and fast-food takeaways per square mile in poorer areas than betting shops. Does the hon. Gentleman also want to restrict them, to protect the people in the poorest communities?
Graham Jones
I presume the hon. Gentleman has done an impact survey and a geographical study of the number of alcoholics and whether they live near pubs and of the number of people who may be obese because they live near takeaways, but he did not offer that information, so I presume that he has no argument and is just trying to make an invalid point. [Interruption.] Caring about this issue is caring about the people who go into these bookmakers and get caught by these FOBTs, because there are clusters and these things are attractive. We also have to look at the impact on the viability of our high streets, on communities and on other retailers.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
Is it not also true that there is a traumatic impact on the children and families of those who spend money on these terminals? Should we not also be conscious of that?
Graham Jones
Absolutely, we should be. A societal concern about this issue is about licensing, where we have the review, but this debate is about planning, because it is about clustering. That issue is separate from licensing and whether we have a limit of £2 instead of £100, or whatever the Government’s review decides. Licensing is one aspect, but today we are here to discuss the completely different issue of the impact of clustering and density and the planning provisions, or the lack of them, in legislation that allow significant clustering on our high streets. We have all read about the situation in Newham, where bookmakers face bookmakers of the same franchise.
John Redwood
Can the hon. Gentleman give the House some idea of how many would be a reasonable number on a high street, so that we know what he is talking about?
Graham Jones
The right hon. Gentleman makes my point for me; he shows why this is a modest proposal, as it asks the Secretary of State to make that designation. It is not for the Opposition or for me to prescribe this, but for the Secretary of State to provide that clear guidance to local authorities. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making his point, because he, along with his Conservative colleagues in government, will be able to decide what the density, impact and clustering should be. I hope that he joins me in the Lobby when this is pressed to a vote.
Philip Davies
As the hon. Gentleman seems so concerned about evidence and facts, can he tell us whether the number of betting shops is going up or down?
Graham Jones
The issue is not whether the number of betting shops is going up or down, but whether ordinary people are affected by the consequences of this product. If there are 1 million smokers now but 999,999 tomorrow, the number is going down, but still, as Philip Morris said this week, this is a disease. No matter whether the number is going down or up, the people who are affected should be our primary concern.
Rob Marris
We are discussing a planning issue, and no doubt my hon. Friend will be aware that the density is decreasing in some neighbourhoods, whereas it is increasing in others. That is precisely the sort of thing that the new clause and the pursuant guidance would address.
Graham Jones
Absolutely. The new clause asks the Government to provide clarity. It is not a prescriptive. It does not say that the number should be x, y or z. It asks the Government to produce clear guidance for local authorities.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for speaking quite a bit of sense. I do not often disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), but he is wrong on a few occasions. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the key issue is the proliferation of fixed odds betting terminals and not betting shops per se? It is quite in order for local planning authorities to bring forward supplementary planning documents to address specific issues such as antisocial behaviour; it is normal in planning law.
Graham Jones
The hon. Gentleman is talking about the licensing aspect and the planning aspect. The answer is both. What we want is licensing. The Government are reviewing that and the number of fixed odds betting terminals in a bookmakers. I do not want to prejudice the outcome of that review or the Government’s decision. What we are talking about is the failure of the planning system, because we are dealing with planning in the Bill. The straight answer to the hon. Gentleman, with whom I am familiar, is that it is both. It is not one or the other. It is licensing and planning.
Too often, it seems that neither central Government nor local government have the capacity or the will to take responsibility in planning law for the proliferation and concentration of betting offices and payday loan shops on the high street. I want to stress here that new clause 1 is also about payday lenders. The current planning legislation is very weak at best. Any Member knows from looking down their high street and speaking to their councillors that planning law is weak on this issue, so local councillors on planning committees often err on the side of caution and grant permission to bookmakers, because their budgets are under pressure and they do not want to lose appeals. Therefore, there is a secondary reason why clarity is really important—why the law must be tightened up.
Despite the protestations of the Government and the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), article 4, which is often used by the Government as a reason in law to assist local authorities in dealing with this matter, is totally fallacious and unhelpful. Local authorities do not use it. It is not the tool that the Government say that it is. It is completely counterproductive, because it just adds to the confusion of local authority members on planning committees. They are unsure about the law and whether they can act, which is why they often grant planning permission for bookmakers.
In theory, a direction under article 4 can require bookmakers to seek planning permission, but in practice, a direction must be justified according to the strict criteria, can be overturned by the Government and is likely to be legally challenged. Its cost and complexity mean that councils are unwilling to utilise such measures. Not many local authorities use article 4. I have not made a freedom of information request recently, but when I speak to Local Government Association members and local authorities, no one tells me that they find this aspect of the law suitable for the purpose for which it was designed.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I am sure that the House will be aware that the reason local authorities very rarely use article 4 is that they can be involved in paying substantial sums in compensation for using that power.
Graham Jones
Absolutely. That returns to the point that I have just made, which is that we need clarity. The new clause is an opportunity to bring clarity. It is not about the Opposition trying to be prescriptive. If Members read new clause 1, they will see that it asks the Government to come forward with what they think is reasonable. It just clarifies the law and takes up the point that we do not have clarity now. It will bring clarity, so the consequences on planning committees in making decisions and compensation claims are there for all to see. That is why the LGA, the all-party group on fixed odds betting terminals and local authorities have all demanded a clearer framework for granting planning permission to these types of development, so avoiding the problem of clustering. The new clause does exactly that, and I intend to press it to a vote.
By setting out guidelines that lay down parameters for quantity, density and the impact of those businesses on the high street, central Government will assist local authorities in their efforts to ensure that proposals for new developments are approved on public interest grounds. Accordingly, this cross-party proposal seeks to address these concerns by injecting greater accountability and responsibility into planning considerations.
John Redwood
I am still trying to learn how the measure would work. Is there a danger that, if it were adopted, there would be more betting shops in other communities that currently do not have them, because there would be a spread-out effect and more people would have easier access to betting shops?
Graham Jones
I reject that argument. It does not stand up. As I said, I shall seek to divide the House on new clause 1. The nation wants action on FOBTs, betting shops and payday lenders, and this is the opportunity.
Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I welcome the opportunity to talk about neighbourhood planning, not betting shops. I shall speak to new clauses 7 and 8, which attempt to deal with the problem of undermining a very good policy that the Government have pioneered. The good policy is that of neighbourhood planning, which embodies the spirit of localism by giving local communities control over where development takes place. People are empowered to take responsible decisions about development. It changes the terms of the conversation from communities resisting the imposition of development to one where communities ask themselves what they want in their area. Where communities have taken neighbourhood plans forward, they have produced more housing than was anticipated in local plans. Neighbourhood plans are therefore not a means by which development can be resisted. Rather, they ensure that communities have a proper say in where development should go.
The basis on which communities have been encouraged to embark on neighbourhood plans is that for a period of 15 years they will be able to allocate sites where development will take place, and sites where development will definitely not take place and which will be protected green spaces. Many hon. Members, including me, appeared before our local parish or town councils and encouraged them to take forward neighbourhood plans on the basis that they would be protecting themselves from future development if they did so.
These neighbourhood plans are a very good thing, but they are immensely burdensome on local communities. It is volunteers who draw up the plans, and the process takes years. We are probably making it unnecessarily complex, with much inspection of the plans; they have to go through many hoops. The responsible volunteers who sit on the neighbourhood planning committees to draw up the plans often face a great deal of criticism from parts of their community that may not want development on sites whose suitability the committees have to assess. The individuals concerned put a great deal of time and effort into the plans.
West Sussex was one of the earliest counties to produce neighbourhood plans. When they were submitted to referendum, support for the plans was very high among the local communities. One of the thorniest questions in planning is what happens when communities are confronted with development that they really do not want. We embarked on the policy of neighbourhood plans with confidence that they may be a means of settling that question in a way that produced local housing in the area. One small village in my constituency, Kirdford, has only 120 houses at its centre. People there actually produced a neighbourhood plan for another 50 houses—a very big number of additional houses—because that was what they wanted, and they wanted that housing to be affordable and for local people.
Rob Marris
Reading new clauses 7 and 8 carefully, I am not sure they cover the situation to which the right hon. Gentleman has adverted. Briefly, in the Tettenhall area of my constituency, the local neighbourhood plan had a more than 50% turnout on a referendum in July 2014; the local neighbourhood plan goes through; there is then an application for a site called the Clock House; the local authority refuses planning permission; the case goes to the Planning Inspectorate in Bristol, which, in a 17-page decision, makes two brief references to the neighbourhood plan—and allows the appeal. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure me that new clauses 7 and 8 would deal with the local neighbourhood plan being overturned by the Planning Inspectorate in contradistinction to the planning authority—in this case, Wolverhampton City Council, which refused the application?
Nick Herbert
It may be a weakness in these new clauses that they may not deal with a situation where the Planning Inspectorate takes such a decision. I will not be tempted down a line I have pursued in the past, which is to question whether we should have a Planning Inspectorate at all under the provisions of localism; indeed, one Conservative manifesto promise was to abolish the power of the Planning Inspectorate to rewrite local plans, but we seem to have lost sight of that.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend just expand on that point? Why is he no longer in favour of abolishing the Planning Inspectorate? In my experience in Sutton Coldfield, it adds precisely nothing to the process.
Nick Herbert
I am very glad to be pushed into a more moderate and Conservative position on this issue than the one I previously took. What I am focused on is ensuring that the Planning Inspectorate takes the right decisions should such developments be called in, and, more particularly, that local authorities take the right decisions in the first place. We should be minimising the number of appeals that have to go to the Planning Inspectorate because a wrong decision is made or because a decision appears to be in breach of national policy, and that means getting the national policy right. My contention is that national policy should give primacy to made neighbourhood plans, because these have been approved in local referendums.
John Redwood
Has my right hon. Friend also come across cases, which I am now seeing, where the local plan clearly has a five-year supply of land, but because it is concentrated in a major settlement—to concentrate the infrastructure and the development gain—an appeal can still be lost in another village, which naturally wants to protect itself because the development the local community agreed to was going to be concentrated in a new settlement?
Nick Herbert
Yes, my right hon. Friend makes the point very well.
The first way in which neighbourhood plans can be vulnerable to speculative development—even when it was thought that they would protect areas—is when there is not a sufficient five-year land supply in the local authority. The problem with that is that the five-year supply is not always properly in the hands of the local authority, but depends on the ability and willingness of local developers to build. Developers are undoubtedly gaming the system so as to secure speculative development applications and planning permissions, in a way that is deeply cynical and that is undermining the principles of localism and community control.
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is very good to give way on this matter. Does he agree that in mid-Sussex, which he and I both represent, we have seen some extraordinarily unscrupulous behaviour by the house builders, who have been gaming the situation and abusing the plans, and thus have done something very bad for Government policy by undermining the credibility of a really good idea?
Nick Herbert
I strongly agree with my right hon. Friend. The actions and behaviour of developers in mid-Sussex have also caused a delay of the plan, which has delayed the building of essential new housing as well as undermining neighbourhood plans.
There is a problem with the measure of the five-year land supply, which should be assessed in an accurate and honest way and not in a way that is capable of being gamed by the developers.
The second way in which neighbourhood plans can be overridden is when local authorities do not have a plan. Clearly, that is not a satisfactory situation, and the Government are seeking to address it. The problem is that this allows for a free-for-all in the area. Apparently that free-for-all can include neighbourhood plans, in the sense that when the local authority is drawing up its plan, it can override the neighbourhood plans not just with the allocation of strategic levels of housing, as was always envisaged, but with the requirement that neighbourhood plans wholesale are rewritten, as has been suggested to some communities in my area. Neighbourhood plans can also be overridden because the needs of a local plan, which often now have to provide far more housing than was originally intended, are said to come first. Those are problems for the principle of responsible neighbourhood plan making and local democracy.
Mr Jackson
Is my right hon. Friend aware that in its call for evidence in October 2015, the Local Government Association invited the Government to look again at the methodology for five-year land supply in local planning authorities? Does he not think that it might be considered potentially quite draconian to put a de facto moratorium into this Bill?
Nick Herbert
I am not proposing a moratorium, because I think it is essential that we build houses in this country and, as I have said, neighbourhood planning has produced more housing than was expected.
There is a real danger that if we undermine public support for neighbourhood planning we will undermine the principles of localism and will not get people to participate in neighbourhood planning in future. As I have seen in my constituency, neighbourhood planning, about which people were slightly cynical in the first place but became enthusiastic, is now being described in a very detrimental way, and some communities are saying that they will not go ahead with neighbourhood plans.
Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)
I very much agree with my right hon. Friend, as he knows, and he is making an impeccable defence of the position, but may I urge him to correct one tiny point? It was never envisaged in the first place that there would be a sequence that involved a neighbourhood plan first and a local plan second. It was, on the contrary, envisaged that all local authorities would proceed immediately towards the new-style local plans. It is a gross dereliction of duty on the part of those that have not thus proceeded. He is therefore right, and my hon. Friend the Minister is right, to press forward with new-style local plans everywhere without delay.
Nick Herbert
Yes, I agree with my right hon. Friend. The authorities should come forward with the plans. It is also true, though, that sometimes the plans have not come forward, as in mid-Sussex and in Arun, because they have been sent back by the inspector, and the inspector, in causing delay, has allowed a situation where the housing number increases. That then puts at risk all the areas that created neighbourhood plans with an allocation that they thought was accurate according to the original assessment in the draft plan, but now is not so. It is not just the fault of local authorities that plans have been delayed, and it is undesirable that we have a situation where the cart has come before the horse.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) is absolutely right that it is a gross dereliction of duty. My local authority is in that category, and the net result is that we do not have a single neighbourhood plan, despite the fact that I have written to every single clerk and every single town and parish councillor in my constituency. We need to put powers in the Bill to make sure that every local authority has a local plan, so that the good people in our constituencies can go forward with their local plans in the confidence that they will not be derailed by speculative developers.
Nick Herbert
I agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that if the Government are willing to listen to this argument, as I believe they are, and come forward with proposals to deal with the situation—should the measures I have tabled not be the right way to do so—we will rebuild confidence in neighbourhood planning and it will proceed.
The measures I have tabled work as follows. New clause 7 addresses the first problem I set out. It would require planning authorities to consult neighbourhood planning bodies on decisions to grant planning permission. Where a planning authority wanted to approve a major development against the wishes of a neighbourhood planning body, the planning authority would be required to consult the Secretary of State before granting permission.
The five-year land supply is dealt with by new clause 8, which would empower the Secretary of State to issue a development order to: clarify the means by which housing land supply is assessed; define the minimum amount of time before a local planning authority’s failure to meet its housing targets would result in its local plan being out of date; and specify that neighbourhood plans should be taken into account, notwithstanding the lack of a five-year supply of housing land.
I very much hope that the Minister will respond to the new clauses in the spirit in which I have tabled them. There is a genuine problem here, but it is capable of being addressed without undermining the need to build more houses in this country. We must respect local communities that do the right thing and embark on the plans, because there is a real danger of undermining localism and communities if we do not act to ensure both that the principles of neighbourhood plans are upheld and that made neighbourhood plans that have been approved by the local population in a democratic vote cannot be overturned by speculative developers.
Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is being most generous in allowing interventions. Does he have the problem that I have in my constituency, namely that the district council has very nearly, but not quite, given sufficient permissions for the set number of dwellings for the planning period, but the developers given the permissions do not make the building starts, so when the next scheming developer comes along, the district authority says no, but the planning inspector says yes, because the area has not built up to the number? Building is in the control of the developers, but the permissions are in the hands of the council.
Nick Herbert
My right hon. and learned Friend puts the point incredibly well. That is exactly how developers are able to game the system and why the way in which we calculate the five-year land supply is fundamentally flawed and is giving rise to this injustice. The loophole has to be closed, and I very much hope that the Government will do so.
Mr Mitchell
I apologise for troubling the House twice in one day, not least since I only very rarely intervene in this area of public policy, but in Sutton Coldfield we are absolutely astonished and mystified by the Secretary of State’s unwise and illogical decision to lift the stop imposed by his predecessor on the plans from Labour-controlled Birmingham City Council to build 6,000 new houses on Sutton Coldfield’s green belt. I should make it clear that we are strongly in favour of building more homes in Sutton Coldfield. My excellent local councillors—11 out of 12 of them are Conservative—have consistently sought to ensure that, where appropriate, we build new homes, because we are conscious that we want our children and grandchildren to benefit in the same way as my generation has, but those homes have to be built in the right places.
Mr Jackson
I am fully supportive of, and sympathetic to, my right hon. Friend’s concerns about the 2016 Birmingham local plan. Nevertheless, as of March 2016, 216,000 homes have already been allocated in emerging and existing approved local plans.
Mr Mitchell
I am coming directly to that point, but let me go back to parsing, for the benefit of the House, what the Secretary of State said at the developers’ lunch. First, he said that this was a local decision. It is not a local decision; it is made by Birmingham City Council, which is one of the largest authorities in Europe, and the views of my constituents—100,000 residents of the royal town of Sutton Coldfield—have been completely blocked out. Our 2015 manifesto stated that we would
“ensure local people have more control over planning and protect the Green Belt”.
The action that the Secretary of State has allowed flies absolutely and categorically in the face of that. Entirely ignored are the 100,000 citizens of the royal town of Sutton Coldfield, virtually all of whom are totally opposed to the development. They have marched in their hundreds and protested in their thousands, and 11 out of 12 Conservative councillors have opposed the process.
We have the largest town council in the country. It is totally and unanimously opposed to the development, but it has not even been consulted. Will the junior Minister commit to going back to Birmingham City Council and suggesting—I do not think he has the power to force the council to do this—that common decency expects it to go back to the 24 elected members of the largest town council in the country, formally consult them and listen to what they have to say?
Labour has been trying to build around and emasculate the royal town of Sutton Coldfield for 30 years—it refers to us as “North Birmingham”—and, thanks to the Secretary of State, it now might well succeed. My 100,000 constituents have been totally and completely disfranchised. That is the very definition of the tyranny of the majority over the minority, and the Department and the Secretary of State have now made themselves complicit in this.
On the second point that the Secretary of State raised, neither the council nor the Department, and certainly not the inspector, has looked at the patently obvious alternatives. There could be a much more comprehensive regional approach, which the excellent Conservative mayoral candidate for the west midlands, Andy Street, has spoken up for. There are superb plans to build a Wolverhampton garden city, almost all of which would be on brownfield land, to provide 45,000 houses. There are small brownfield sites in Birmingham that have specifically not been included for consideration. We in Sutton Coldfield came up with the very reasonable proposal that there should be an eight-year moratorium on building 6,000 homes on the green belt while the other 45,000-plus were built on brownfield sites. That approach would enable the Government and the council to review the extent to which building on the green belt might be needed or acceptable. However, the proposal was rejected, without even any consideration by the inspector.
The Campaign to Protect Rural England made an excellent submission in February, which I sent to the Minister on 16 August. It made many excellent points that have not been addressed. I point out that when Birmingham was controlled by a coalition of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, Tory councillors had plans to build the same number of houses as are now proposed by Labour-controlled Birmingham City Council, but without needing to encroach on the green belt. By definition, there are not even exceptional circumstances for building on the green belt, let alone “very exceptional circumstances”, which were the words used by the Secretary of State.
I accept of course that these are Labour plans, but Sutton Coldfield has been grievously let down. I believe that we were and are entitled to expect the protection of the Government, based on their manifesto commitment, and I am deeply disappointed that we have not been able to rely on that. The transport problems on our side of the Birmingham conurbation that will be caused by the development will be acute and horrific. There is no guarantee that the Labour council will spend the necessary money on infrastructure for these new builds. There was no proper consultation with the relevant health services and authorities, although the council was obliged to carry that out.
The Government have got themselves into a mess on the green belt by trying to face both ways at the same time. With this decision, they have massively shot themselves in the foot. My right hon. and hon. Friends will not trust the Department on issues involving the green belt, about which many of them are extremely sensitive, because of the ludicrous nature of this decision. Building more homes, which we all want, will therefore be much more difficult for the Department.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on making a very cogent case. Does he accept that the reason the green belt has a high designation is that such areas are very special—they are green lungs in and around our great cities? Once they are built over, they are very difficult to recreate.
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend puts the argument eloquently. That is exactly what my constituents feel. The west midlands has less green-belt land than many parts of the country, which is another reason why there should have been a much more holistic and imaginative approach, rather than this appalling scheme.
Amendments 28 and 29 offer the Government a chance to show good faith with regard to our 2015 election manifesto. I do not propose to trouble the House by pressing them to a Division, but I warn the Government that if they do not accept the principle behind what I am saying, if not the amendments, not only will they have great difficulty on house building, because they will not be trusted on the green belt, but I have no doubt that the other place, which has a strong history of looking at these matters, will oblige this House to think again.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I rise with three purposes, the first of which is to support my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), whose new clauses I have put my name to. The purport of what he said is clearly right. Those of us who were in on the birth of neighbourhood planning and believe in it are troubled by things that have happened more recently, among which are those that he described. Clearly some remedy is needed.
The only thing that I want to add to what my right hon. Friend said so clearly and well is that the written ministerial statement that we have now seen is an admirable way to deal with those issues. Clearly we will want to ensure that the statement is observed in the observance and not in the breach.
Gavin Barwell
It may help the House and my right hon. Friend if I let him know that I have written today to the chief executive of the Planning Inspectorate and to chief planning officers across the country to draw their attention to the guidance.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I am delighted to hear that. I wish I could be absolutely confident that the inspectorate will always listen to the guidance it receives from Ministers, but I hope that it will on this occasion. If it does, I believe that the written ministerial statement will do the trick that we were trying to perform with the new clauses. If it does not, I am sure the Minister will come back with further evolutions of planning policy, of which, effectively, the written ministerial statement is a part.
Secondly, I want to refer briefly to the powerful speech made by the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) on new clause 1, which relates to clusters. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), I usually do disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), amiable and enthusiastic though he is, and this is one of the many occasions on which I disagree with him profoundly. It is a very sad spectacle to see our fellow citizens—I have watched them do this—moving from payday lending shops directly into betting places. Nothing could be more deleterious to the things that this Government hold dear and that my party has fought for over many years—since the days when my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) first brought out “Breakdown Britain” and “Breakthrough Britain” to try to restore the stability of family life and workfulness in households that suffer all too often from a desperate effort, as part of a chaotic lifestyle, to improve their lot through betting, which is a snare and a delusion.
It is extremely reprehensible that there has been a focus on building payday lending and betting shops right by each other. It is also extremely reprehensible that betting shops have been built in the poorest areas. If they were built in the middle of the richest areas of our cities, one would object to them much less, because people there can afford to bet. I am therefore very much on the side of the hon. Member for Hyndburn and those, including hon. Friends of mine, who have signed his new clause to try to ensure that the Government come forward with measures to limit such clustering. The reason I shall not join him in the Lobby this afternoon is solely that the new clause would require the Government to do so before going forward with the rest of the Bill, and I cannot accept that. I hope that Ministers will respond by taking forward the spirit of the new clause without that caveat.
Graham Jones
I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s generous comments. The Government are taking forward licensing, but this is probably the last chance to deal with the planning element, which is not part of the Government’s review—those are two separate entities. I wondered whether that was the point he was raising.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I do not think this is the last chance anybody will have to reflect on the planning element, partly because the Bill will be considered in another place and partly because history shows that there is roughly one planning Bill a Session. As we can never get these things right, there is a process of continuous revision. It is also partly because I hope that, as part of the licensing review, the Government will look at the issue of clustering—it might be possible to approach it in that way—and partly because it is open to the Minister to produce the kind of guidance that the new clause seeks without turning that into a precondition for moving forward with the rest of the Bill.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I see the Minister nodding and hope that, apart from my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, we can move by consensus in that direction.
The third reason—the main reason—why I rose was to speak to new clause 5, which I tabled. I am grateful to the Minister for meeting me and talking through the proposition. I tabled the new clause in the hope not that it would be accepted immediately, but that it would induce the Department to bring forward an array of policies—I doubt it can be just one—to solve a particular problem. The new clause would help to solve it in a particular way, and I hope that the measure might come back in some form as a Government amendment in the other place.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I am listening intently to the excellent speech of my right hon. Friend and neighbour. Does he agree that the planning process is often not clear, especially regarding the points that he mentions? In my area—the Purbeck District Council area—people have a lot of different views about how many houses there should be. Two numbers have been suggested, but we cannot find anyone who can agree on a number without fear of going to the planning inspector. The lack of clarity, or the lack of guidelines or of regulation—I do not know what it is the lack of—leads to chaos, anger and confusion.
Sir Oliver Letwin
My hon. Friend illustrates very well the point I am trying to make. There is actually perfect clarity on that subject in the local plan that his local authority and mine have jointly drawn up, but an expert is needed to interpret it for the neighbourhood. We cannot expect the parish council to know the answers to the questions, and if it asks inexpert people, it will get conflicting answers—very possibly more than two wrong answers if it consults more than two inexpert experts. A certain amount of money is required so that the parish council can employ a genuine expert who can give it good, clear answers to questions. As I have said, a second person is also needed—quite a different sort of person who can imagine for the neighbourhood what things could look like. By putting those together, we can overcome the obstacles to neighbourhood planning.
Unfortunately, those people do not come for free; they have to be paid for. Over the years, the Department has rightly produced funds to enable parish and town councils and neighbourhood forums to employ people, but unfortunately the funds were based on the presumption, which is now mercifully falsified, that neighbourhood planning would be slow to take off, and that very few plans would be produced at any given moment.
I am delighted that the number of neighbourhood plans is very great, and I hope it will be much greater—I hope that they become the norm and that tens of thousands arise in our country in the coming years. However, I very much doubt that the Chancellor of Exchequer, who faces one of the most difficult fiscal situations in our history, will come up with the funds required to meet that need, given the other priorities he faces. New clause 5 would find a solution to that problem and provide the money to employ experts on behalf of neighbourhood planners in parish and town councils. It would do so by using an existing pool of funds, as there is already a provision to share the community infrastructure levy that arises from each house built. Under the law, 25% is due to the parish or town council in the area where the neighbourhood plan is drawn up.
One problem is that the CIL money comes in after the houses are built, whereas the money is needed before—it is needed even before the neighbourhood plan is in place so that experts can be employed to help its production. The question is how we advance those funds. The new clause suggests that we could, through the Bill, put beyond doubt a local planning authority’s lawful ability to advance sums that would accrue to the neighbourhood when the neighbourhood plan is up and running and the houses are built for the purpose of employing experts to assist in the production of the neighbourhood plan. In that way, the houses could be built and the money could come in from the community infrastructure levy, meaning that the local planning authority could be repaid.
Despite the helpful way in which the Minister has engaged in the discussion, I do not say that the mechanics of the proposal are perfect. I hope he is willing to look at it in detail as part of a range of options for solving the problem to which I allude. I hope that, when the matter is considered in the other place, the Government will come forward with their own vastly superior, rock-solid measure to solve the problem. Otherwise, neighbourhood planning could be stymied not just by the problems that my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs cited, but by an inability to pay for the expertise required.
Rob Marris
I know you have kindly expressed an interest in my occupational history previously, Mr Speaker. At one point very briefly many years ago, I practised planning law. I remember two things about it. First, it is incredibly technical. Secondly, as adverted to by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), it seems to change. Like criminal law, we seem to have an annual Bill on planning or matters relating thereto before Parliament. This year we have had a bumper year and two Bills, one of which is now the Housing and Planning Act 2016.
I hope we can have a brief discussion at least on amendments 24 and 25, which are part of this group, and which urge planners to take into account the needs of older people and people with disabilities. That is important anyway in terms of equalities, but it is relevant to planning matters when we have a changing population. The population is getting older. With that, but not just because of it, it also has a higher rate of disabilities, some of which are susceptible to being accommodated, in both senses of the word, within the planning system.
I cannot resist making some brief remarks about the speech of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). I remember, as he might or might not, that before 1974, when I was a lad, Sutton Coldfield was not part of Birmingham. It was subsumed within Birmingham—against its wishes, I suspect, but I was not that old, so I do not recall—in 1974 and now has the town council. I was not clear—I might have nodded during his speech when he referred to the 6,000 houses—whether Sutton Coldfield has a local neighbourhood plan. He rightly referred to the concerns of Sutton Coldfield residents—concerns shared by residents elsewhere, I am sure, including in my natal city, Wolverhampton, which I represent and where I live—that there should be sufficient housing for coming generations.
The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned the 45,000 houses and Wolverhampton garden city. Wolverhampton is already a garden city, of course, having as it does more trees than almost any city in Europe, relative to its size, but we welcome more gardens and more people, and we are trying to build. As he might know, however, and as I know from visiting relatives in Sutton Coldfield, it is an awfully long journey, temporally, from Wolverhampton to Sutton Coldfield, so it cannot be a Sutton Coldfield overspill. On a more serious note, however, I find it strange that he berates Birmingham City Council for its spending on transport infrastructure, when Governments of which he was a member and which he continues to support—broadly—have cut its total income in the last six years by over 40%. He is right that there are transport infrastructure problems in the urban west midlands and within the city of Birmingham, as administratively constituted, including in Sutton Coldfield, but some of those problems—not all of them, but some of them—come from the huge Government cuts that he broadly supported.
Mr Mitchell
None of what the hon. Gentleman says detracts from my central argument. The important point about Wolverhampton garden city, which the Conservative mayoral candidate in the west midlands, Andy Street, makes so eloquently, is that we need a much more holistic, regional approach to ensure that the needs of his constituents and mine are met in a sensible way.
Rob Marris
I agree. I suspect that all candidates, including the Labour candidate, for the West Midlands Combined Authority mayoralty agree with the holistic approach and devolution, but we always have problems, in the House and in our constituencies, when trying to agree on what local means, as the right hon. Gentleman has eloquently set out. Someone from Bromsgrove, for example, might see Birmingham as all one place, whereas those of us who grew up in the region know that there are districts within Birmingham, and then there is the royal town, which is now part of the administrative sub-region of Birmingham City Council, many of whose 100,000 residents would not I suspect—he can correct me if I am wrong—consider themselves as Brummies, just as those of us from the black country would not consider ourselves Brummies, although we are in administratively different areas.
On the speech by the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), I have sympathy with new clauses 7 and 8, and I hope that if the Government want to take them forward, they will address the issue—one that I do not think they currently address but which I suspect he would support—that I raised when he kindly allowed me to intervene. Tettenhall district, in my constituency, was a separate entity until 1966, when it was folded into Wolverhampton, which in the millennium itself became a city but which before had been a metropolitan district borough. Tettenhall district, which I have the honour to represent, had a local neighbourhood plan. People, including close friends of mine, worked incredibly hard on it and knocked on an awful lot of doors, and in July 2014, the turnout—from memory—was over 50% in the referendum on whether to adopt that plan, and it was overwhelmingly adopted.
I do not expect the Minister to comment on a particular application, but I use this as an example. I have raised it in the House before, because I and the residents of Tettenhall have a real beef about it. The local neighbourhood plan set out certain parameters for how housing might be incorporated. The good people of Tettenhall are not opposed to new housing, just as the good people of Sutton Coldfield are not opposed to new housing—it just depends on where it is. Labour-controlled Wolverhampton City Council acceded to the demands of the local neighbourhood plan and the two wards in Tettenhall, which have between them six Conservative councillors, and to the surprise of some agreed that the planning application for the site known as the Clock House should not be given planning permission. It was refused by the city council. The developers, McCarthy & Stone—many Members will have come across them, with their retirement home juggernaut—then put in an appeal to Bristol. I am speaking now as a lay person, because I have not practised planning law for a very long time, but the planning inspector in Bristol totally ignored the local neighbourhood plan. He did not say, “We disagree with the local neighbourhood plan” or that “other factors override what is in the local neighbourhood plan.” The long written decision, which overturned the city council’s decision to reject and allowed the application to proceed, made almost no reference to the local neighbourhood plan.
Graham Jones
My hon. Friend mentions that the Minister has said that a Bill is coming down the track, so I would like to draw attention to new clause 1. There is a Bill coming down the track, and we have an opportunity to include new clause 1 in it.
Rob Marris
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because that segues me nicely into the next and final section of my speech, which is about new clause 1. I hope that the Government will accept it, but if not, it looks as if we will have a Division tonight. I believe that new clause 1 is quite mildly worded, and the Minister may say that he accepts its spirit. As for the possible restriction on the rest of the Bill coming into force—that this provision might be a block, which was raised by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin)—if the Minister says to my hon. Friend that he agrees with the spirit of the provision and wants the guidance, but fears that it will act as a block, that would be great. In that case, I suspect that we will not have a Division. The Minister will guide us on that.
The content of new clause 1 seeks to have the Secretary of State “issue guidance”, not to make detailed rules about whether a betting shop or payday loan shop should be open in a given high street. If the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) visited his salad days again, having been to school in the west midlands, and went back to Dudley borough, he would see the transformation there as in other black country boroughs in respect of clusters of payday loan shops and betting shops. Those clusters are not helpful to community cohesion, or to some of the most disadvantaged people in our society.
My hon. Friend and I have made it clear that, in asking the Government to issue guidance, we are not seeking to ban payday loan shops or betting shops, but to restrict the density of them. What seems to be happening—this is anecdotal; I have no statistical evidence to present—is that we are getting a clustering of such outlets in different areas, which is often, but not always, deleterious to those areas. We have an over-concentration of them. The same thing was happening, until the law was changed, with off-licences. Older Members might remember when getting a licence to sell alcohol was quite difficult because there was an unofficial density system operated by planning authorities. That went out the window, and every place—including petrol stations, for goodness’ sake—seemed to get licences to sell alcohol. We saw the same over-concentration with attendant social problems in some places, and we are rightly rowing back from that.
My hon. Friend wants guidance—I fully support him—so that we can row back from over-concentration of payday loan shops and betting shops. Part of this problem comes from a mistake made by the Labour Government, and some Back Benchers pointed out to them at the time that fixed odds betting terminals were bad news and should not be encouraged. I have to say, to my chagrin, that my own Government did not listen, just as they only partially listened—some longer-standing Members and you, Mr Speaker, will remember this—when there were proposals for 16 super-casinos. There was a lot of to do on the Labour Back Benches at the time, and we got it down to two super-casinos. On fixed-odds betting terminals, we made a mistake.
Graham Jones
I take my hon. Friend’s point that the Labour Government were responsible for bringing in the Gambling Act 2005. In trying to be responsible about the problem we face, does he agree that the Government should accept that their own 2011 Portas review talked about clustering and density as being a problem? We are now five years on from that; time has passed and mistakes have been made. We need to tackle those mistakes today, not tomorrow, next week or next year.
Rob Marris
I agree with my hon. Friend. We need to learn from our mistakes, just as I hope any Labour Members who were on the Front Bench in 2005 when they were pushing fixed odds betting terminals have now done their mea culpas and recognised that they made a mistake then, because it is still rebounding on many urban constituencies around the country, including mine. We need to row back from that, but part of the mechanism, which is being reviewed, for doing so is not, and cannot be, the subject of this Bill. We can address another part of it, however: the over-concentration and the guidance which this Government ought responsibly to be issuing. They ought to have the statutory authority to do so within primary legislation, which is the very reasonable measure put forward by my hon. Friend in new clause 1. I hope that the Minister can support the spirit of it, if not the exact wording.
Mr Jackson
I begin by declaring an interest: for six years I have been honorary vice-president of the Local Government Association. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin). I hope his amendment finds success in the other place. I also want to mention the doughty champion, the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones), who, together with my hon. Friends the Members for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), has been very much at the sharp end of this important debate, as indeed I was at one time with my “stop the FOBTs” campaign in Peterborough city centre.
I ask the House to look at the wider context of the practical implications of new clauses 7 and 8, and also amendment 28 tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). We were all elected on a manifesto commitment to increase the supply of housing, and we all, I think, agree with the national consensus that we are in the middle of a housing crisis at present. We also need to look at this Bill within the wider context of generational fairness and social equity between those who own capital and those who wish to acquire capital. That is an important issue. I strongly welcome the likely publication in January of the housing White Paper and I hope that this important debate and Bill feed into that.
In that context, I draw the attention of the House to a useful paper published today by Daniel Bentley for the Civitas think-tank, “Housing supply and household growth, national and local”. It examines housing supply projections and puts a nominal figure on the real impact of the housing crisis. My right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) put his case in his usual erudite and well thought-through way, but my challenge to him and others is this: will their new clauses and amendments improve the position? The projected housing supply for the county of Sussex in 2015-16 did not even meet 50% of the figure for projected annual household formations from 2014 to 2039. Few local authorities are meeting those targets. Even the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has used the conservative figure of 220,000 new homes being needed to keep pace with population change over the period to 2039. Some estimates, including those in the paper, suggest that the figure may be as high 330,000. I will not proceed down the path of discussing immigration, but, according to the Local Government Association, 49% of household formation over that period will come from net migration, so it is a big issue.
In 2015-16, we physically built only 163,940 new homes, although more were created through 5,000 conversions and 35,000 changes of use. In the 30 fastest-growing non-London local authorities only five managed to outstrip the difference between housing supply and housing growth by percentage increase: Dartford; Uttlesford; Aylesbury Vale; Slough; and Ashford. Of the 30 non-London local authorities with the highest population growth, in nominal terms only eight built enough houses to meet long-term need. While not perfect, the national planning policy framework has helped in some respects. Oxford, for example, has produced only 66% of its need based on population growth, but thanks to its duty to co-operate with other local authorities, such as South Oxfordshire District Council or Vale of White Horse District Council, it is meeting its targets on a sub-regional strategic housing level, which is good.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs and I have crossed swords before on the NPPF way back in 2012, but we must not put in the Bill a potentially wide-ranging and draconian measure that would effectively stymie the building and development of appropriate homes. We all have horror stories about the Planning Inspectorate. For example, the village of Eye near Peterborough was grossly overprovisioned with residential accommodation, with the inspectorate completely ignoring the hundreds of petition signatures, public meetings and so on, but we are where we are with the current system. Nevertheless, the NPPF already sets out the appropriate weight to be given to relevant policies between neighbourhood plans and the adoption and development of local plans, structure plans and site allocation plans.
New clause 7 would discriminate against local planning authorities that produce timely, robust local plans and that have adhered to the correct procedure for consultation, public inquiries and the Planning Inspectorate. We must bear it in mind that there might be an inadvertent consequence.
Nick Herbert
I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend, and I do not want him to traduce the intention of the new clause, which is not to prevent house building, but to ensure that neighbourhood plans are protected. I repeat my earlier point: neighbourhood plans have produced more housing than was anticipated. As he took such an interest in Sussex, I should point out that many district councils in West Sussex, including in my constituency, are producing housing far in excess of the south-east plan to meet local demand.
Mr Jackson
I pay tribute to the neighbourhood plans being produced by volunteers in my right hon. Friend’s constituency and throughout our country. They do an excellent job and I support the policy four-square. My point is about opportunity cost: is this approach going to have a detrimental effect on the Government’s strategic housing objective, which is to deliver large-scale housing for people who need it? When we look at the age of people buying their first house and at the availability or otherwise of affordable housing across the country, we see that this proposal has the potential to undermine the authority of the local planning authority to meet wider, long-term strategic housing and planning objectives. These things are already in place via the emerging or adopted local plan. The proposal will inevitably give rise to conflict between the local planning authority and the neighbourhood planning bodies, with the possible perverse consequence that we will see the establishment of neighbourhood planning bodies merely in order to thwart development.
Let me move on to deal quickly with new clause 8. I used the correct word “moratorium” in respect of the use by the Minister of development orders. On the specific issue of five-year land supply, again, this proposal seeks to put a draconian policy in the Bill, rather than, as I suggested in my intervention—my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs was generous in accepting interventions—waiting for a response from Government, by means other than primary legislation, to do as the LGA has suggested, which is to review the policy and look for a more consistent and better understood methodology for both developers and local authorities in respect of the policy under the current auspices of the national planning policy framework.
At the moment, we still have a robust system that tests the efficacy of five-year land supply through planning appeals and local plans. We should encourage greater incentives from local planning authorities. It is as well to make the point that, in some parts of the country, they lack the appropriate resources to carry out the proper work in that respect.
My final point is about amendment 28, which was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield. I can understand the anger, passion and resentment that he articulated in his usual powerful way, but this is probably the most inappropriate amendment, because preventing payment of the new homes bonus when we already have strong protections in place for the green belt and other designated areas to prevent inappropriate development will have consequences.
Mr Mitchell
This may be my lack of understanding of planning matters, but can my hon. Friend explain how a Government who say they are committed to protecting the green belt then pay people a subsidy to build on the green belt, rather than paying them a bigger subsidy to build on brownfield sites, while protecting the green belt? Perhaps he can explain that conundrum.
Mr Jackson
My right hon. Friend makes a good point, but I am saying that we have less than benign financial circumstances and, were his policy to be followed, the city of Birmingham might lose £54 million in income through the new homes bonus. There are other ways in which we can toughen protections for the green belt, while allowing discretion for some exceptional sites. I made the point in my intervention that 216,000 homes had already been placed in emerging and completed local plans in the green belt by March. I accept that there is a problem, but I am not convinced that this amendment will sort the issue out.
In reducing the income stream and funding to local planning authorities, the perverse ramification may well be that those hard-pressed authorities cannot therefore put in the effort to properly manage well-funded speculative developers with their land grabs. There might also be an impact on rural housing schemes, which are very important and necessary for many of my hon. Friends.
For those reasons, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends—I think they have already acceded to my request—not to push these matters to a vote. Ministers will have heard the points that have been raised on both sides of the House and will correctly identify methods to ameliorate the problems that have been raised.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
I rise to speak to new clause 2 tabled in my name and to support new clauses 7 and 8 tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert).
The aim of new clause 2 is to permit the Secretary of State to impose what would in effect be penalty costs on appeal. My constituency of Eddisbury has a wealth of picturesque villages, located in the most beautiful settings and with excellent schools. These villages are now finding that they are the target of a large number of planning applications, which are often totally against the emerging or adopted neighbourhood plan.
In Cheshire West and Chester, which has a five-year land supply, the council has rightly turned down those applications as being against the neighbourhood plan, yet developers persist in appealing. Local councils and the Planning Inspectorate have to spend valuable resources dealing with appeals that fall squarely against the ambitions and the principles of the neighbourhood plan.
My local parish councils, just like those in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs, have embraced neighbourhood planning. They have committed months of work—sometimes even years of work—to this and have relished the fact that they can bring forward a mix of housing that includes, for example, first-time starter homes as well as executive homes. They want to see starter homes, so that people can get on to the housing ladder and live in the community in which they have grown up, and they want to see smaller homes—bungalow-style homes—for the older people in my constituency who want to downsize. Given the part of Cheshire in which we live, developers invariably build five-bedroom executive homes. My local parish councils have relished the fact that they can plan for a mix of homes that allows for a varied community and enables people to remain in the community in which they have lived and grown up.
Like Arundel and South Downs, we have seen an increased offer and an increased acceptance of housing coming forward. None the less, we still see attempts by developers to drive a coach and horses through those neighbourhood plans. The aim of the new clause is to ensure that there is a financial disincentive in respect of appeals. It raises the prospect of a serious financial penalty for those developers seeking to have a go, as it was described in earlier contributions.
Constituents feel that their rural villages are under siege and that, at every point, their wishes as expressed and adopted in neighbourhood plan are being ignored. The new clause seeks to allow the full recovery of costs, with an additional punitive element, where it is clear that the refusal has been on the basis of the application being against the local neighbourhood plan. These speculative appeals impact on local council resources, and developers constantly feel that they can effectively try to push and break the plan, and it is deeply frustrating.
Sir Nicholas Soames
My hon. Friend is speaking for many of us whose councils are constantly abused by the disgraceful behaviour of house builders. In my constituency—I intend to deal with the matter at some length—they have spent a very great deal of time and money trying to undermine the local plan.
Antoinette Sandbach
It becomes almost a war of attrition. The behaviour of developers appears to be designed to break local neighbourhood plans, so that they can drive through their ambitions, which ignore the wishes of local people and go against the commitment shown by local communities in producing those plans.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is my constituency neighbour. As we are in the same part of Cheshire, I can confirm everything that she is saying. Does she share my concerns that, as things stand, planning law is stacked far too much in favour of the developers and that there are not enough tools in the armoury of local authorities and neighbourhood plans to resist them?
Antoinette Sandbach
That is the very reason that I tabled new clause 2. I wanted to give the Secretary of State an additional power in relation to costs when developers try to drive a coach and horses through neighbourhood plans. That is also why I support new clauses 7 and 8 tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I agree with much of what my hon. Friend says. When she drew up her new clause, did she think about encouraging the planning inspector to award costs to the local authority where the developer was turned down at appeal and the conditions in her new clause were met? I have one case in my constituency where the council had to pay the developer’s costs, even though the council had won.
Antoinette Sandbach
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. That seems a very strange case indeed. I am aware that councils often do not apply for costs and, when they do, they get only a proportion of their costs back, not their full costs. By tabling the new clause, I hope to give additional powers to rectify that position and to discourage developers from such behaviour.
The Minister will be aware that I have campaigned long on this issue because of the actions of developers in my constituency. I know that there are issues affecting the Cheshire East half of my constituency, which does not have a local plan. Where communities have worked hard and put in place their neighbourhood plans, it is deeply frustrating for them to be put at risk because the methodology for calculating the five-year housing land supply was not correct. It seems ironic that Cheshire East used exactly the same methodology as Cheshire West and Chester, whose five-year land supply was accepted, yet that of Cheshire East was not. I can only assume that that is because there was no build-out of the housing that was described in earlier contributions.
I support new clause 8 because where a defect in the five-year supply is caused by the failure of developers to build out that causes the problem. The council has granted planning permission, but the developments are not being started. For those reasons, I support these new clauses.
Philip Davies
I should say in passing that I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) on her new clause 2, and with my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) on new clause 7. I particularly agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) on amendment 29. He is absolutely right and he may or may not know that I faced exactly the same situation in Bradford as he did in Sutton Coldfield. The Minister has put a stop on the core strategy plan of Bradford Council, but I hope for a much more favourable outcome from those deliberations than my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield received. I assure my hon. Friend the Minister that I will feel equally aggrieved should the decision be as it was in Birmingham.
I want to speak about new clause 1, and in doing so I should begin by referring people to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) made it clear once again that he is the biggest devotee in the House of Donald Trump. He quoted him, as he usually does, when he referred to fixed odds betting terminals as the “crack cocaine of gambling”. Anybody who knows anything about this subject knows that the term was first used by Donald Trump in the 1980s to refer to video keno games, which he saw as a threat to his casino businesses. Ever since he first used the phrase, any new form of gambling—in fact, every new form of gambling—has been referred to at various times as the “crack cocaine of gambling”. That has included casinos themselves at certain points and lottery scratchcards—name any form of gambling, and I can point to somebody who has called it the crack cocaine of gambling. So, of course, fixed odds betting terminals have been called the same—not because they are considered to be that, but just because the same old phrase is trotted out every time we have a new form of gambling.
Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Philip Davies
No, I am going to press on. I will take some interventions in a bit, but I will press on, because other people wish to speak.
In his briefing notes on the new clause, the hon. Gentleman said he wanted to deal with the proliferation of betting shops. I know he would not want to mislead the House deliberately, so I will say charitably that he does not understand the meaning of the word proliferation. I will try to help him out. The dictionary defines proliferation as the rapid increase in the number of something. The hon. Gentleman is trying to tell us that we have a proliferation of betting shops. Well, the facts are the exact opposite.
The number of betting shops in the UK peaked in the mid-1970s, at about 16,000, and it has dropped since then. It was 9,128 in 2012. There are 8,709 this year. I suspect—in fact, I can virtually guarantee—that there will be fewer next year and fewer the year after that. There is not a proliferation of betting shops in this country; there is a reduction in the number of betting shops, and that reduction is getting steeper and steeper every year. These firms employ people, including lots of younger people and lots of women. I know that the Labour party no longer cares about working-class people, but when it did, these firms were an essential part of a working-class community.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
Would my hon. Friend prefer the word “clustering”? I know he did when he was an esteemed member of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. In its report of 2012, it recognised the consequences of encouraging the clustering of betting shops and said that it was
“a local problem which calls for a local solution.”
Does new clause 1 not want to empower people to use that local solution?
Philip Davies
No, the new clause is all about being against betting shops. It is a solution looking for a problem.
The reason there is concern about fixed odds betting terminals is a chap called Mr Derek Webb. The hon. Member for Hyndburn knows him very well, but for those who do not know him, he made millions—tens of millions and maybe even hundreds of millions—out of making gambling machines. When the Labour party allowed bookmakers in 2005 to introduce fixed odds betting terminals, Mr Derek Webb was so concerned that he wanted his machines to be installed in betting shops, and the bookmakers turned him down—probably the biggest mistake they have ever made in their business. So he has made it his business ever since to make sure that his machines cannot be in betting shops and people have to go to casinos where they are installed. That is basically what all this is about. It is, in effect, a rich man’s grudge match. He has spent millions trying to get these machines out of betting shops for no other reason than vindictiveness; that is the long and short of it. He set up the Campaign for Fairer Gambling on the back of this issue. He has spent millions. He gave half a million pounds to the Lib Dems in the previous Parliament, trying to buy their support, and he has now started giving a great deal of money to the Labour party in the hope of buying some influence with it.
Graham Jones
What would be the hon. Gentleman’s comments on Channel 4’s exposés on “Dispatches” and on the BBC’s “Panorama” where people just made up fake news?
Philip Davies
That bears no relation to the facts. We all know that people can make a hour-long TV programme and portray anything in any way they want to if they are so determined.
Philip Davies
I am going to press on if my hon. Friend does not mind.
These are the facts, whether people like them or not. The average time that somebody spends on a fixed odds betting terminal is about 10 minutes. Their average loss in that time is about £7. These machines make a profit of about £11 an hour; people may say that that is excessive, but I do not believe it is. The rate of problem gambling in the UK has not altered one jot since fixed odds betting terminals were introduced—it is still about 0.6% of the population, as it was before. The biggest problem-gambling charity in the UK, the Gordon Moody Association, was established in 1971, 30-odd years before fixed odds betting terminals were even introduced in the UK. The idea that we will eliminate problem gambling by getting rid of fixed odds betting terminals is for the birds. People who have a gambling addiction will bet on two flies going up a wall if they get half a chance. The answer is to solve their addiction, not just to ban a particular product in a way that will make not one blind bit of difference.
In this House we have an awful lot of upper-class and middle-class people who like to tell working-class people how they should spend their money and how they should not spend their money.
Graham Jones
I came here from a factory where I was on £10 an hour. I went straight from the factory into Parliament. I am not one of the middle-class or upper-class people the hon. Gentleman is talking about. Unlike him, I am one of the normal working-class people.
Philip Davies
It is a shame that the hon. Gentleman has become so detached from his roots, along with the rest of his party. Perhaps Labour would not be in such a mess if it stuck a bit more closely to its working-class roots.
I was astonished to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) talk about all those people in West Dorset going from payday loan companies into betting shops. It is a while since I have been in West Dorset, but it has clearly changed an awful lot since the last time I was there.
Sir Oliver Letwin
My hon. Friend misunderstood me. My point was that I do not have this problem in leafy West Dorset: the places I have seen people go directly from payday lenders into betting shops are in inner-city areas, where there are people far harder pressed than most, though not all, of my constituents. That is the worry.
Philip Davies
I will be interested to find out about my right hon. Friend’s habit of spending lots of time in inner-city areas where he watches people’s activities going between betting shops and payday lending companies, but we can discuss that later.
Philip Davies
No, I will not.
I did not come into Parliament to ban people from doing all the things that I do not happen to like myself. I think that our duty in this House is to try to protect people’s freedoms, even the freedom to do things that we do not choose to do ourselves. Unfortunately, there are lots of people in this House who do nothing other than try to ban people from doing all the things that they personally do not happen to like themselves. Many people in this House do not like gambling and betting, and want to stop anyone else doing it.
As I made clear in an intervention, there are far more pubs in poorer communities, per square mile, than betting shops. How many Members of this House want to restrict the number of pubs so that poor working-class people do not waste their money down at the pub? None, or hardly any. Why? Because MPs like a drink themselves, and they do not want to ban anybody from doing anything that they happen to like themselves. There are far more takeaway food outlets per square mile in poor working-class areas than there are betting shops. How many Members want to ban all those takeaways? None. Why? Look at everyone—we all like a good takeaway ourselves, and do not want to do ourselves out of it. This is all about people in this House telling other people what they should and should not be doing in a rather patronising way that does not give a very good image of this place. They do not want to stop people doing things that they themselves like doing—only the things that they do not happen to like.
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
My hon. Friend is putting a very sincere argument. I know he holds these views sincerely and his integrity is beyond question. I do not want him to ban anything he does not want to ban, but on this occasion I am happy to do it for him.
Philip Davies
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend.
If people are not allowed to bet on a fixed odds betting terminal, the idea that they will all of a sudden not bet at all is for the birds. What will they do? I will tell the House. They will go from the roulette machine in a betting shop, where staff are keeping an eye on them and intervening when they show concerning behaviours and referring them to problem-gambling charities for help, but they will not just stop gambling. They will go on to the internet, and play exactly the same roulette game, but for unlimited stakes and unlimited prizes. Why on earth do people in this House want people to go from a product that has a stake limit and a prize limit, in a place where there are people keeping an eye on them, on to the internet, where there are unlimited stakes and prizes? That is complete nonsense.
Rob Marris
I caution the hon. Gentleman on that point. I do not know what he did, but I remember that when I voted for the ban on smoking in workplaces, one argument put forward by opponents was that people would still continue to consume tobacco, and just do so in a different venue. That is manifestly not the case. The number of people giving up smoking or smoking less has increased very considerably because of that legislation. I am not saying that it is entirely due to the legislation, but the consensus among medical experts is that the legislation has been a major contributory factor in people’s abandoning or lessening personally harmful behaviour.
Philip Davies
The problem with the hon. Gentleman’s argument is that smoking has gone down in this country every single year, without fail, since 1975—every single year, without fail, whether before or after the smoking ban. It was therefore inevitable that after a ban on smoking it would go down, because it would have gone down if there had been no ban. That cause and effect argument does not wash with me, I am afraid. People who bet will go on to the internet.
To give another argument, The Times had an article based on information from the Gambling Commission showing that 16% of under-16s were gambling every week. What were they gambling on? It was not fixed odds betting terminals—they were not going into betting shops. They were gambling on fruit machines, and largely on national lottery scratchcards. People can purchase those scratchcards at 16. They can gamble at 16 on the national lottery.
Who argues against that in this House—who argues against young people getting into gambling at the age of 16 like that? I do. I think it is an absolute outrage that people can play the national lottery at 16. If we believe that gambling should be allowed only at 18, that should be the case for all gambling. But who is arguing against playing the lottery at 16? No one. Even though young people are getting into gambling on scratchcards, people do not complain. That is not because they care about the people losing money; it is because they are concerned about the people winning the money. The money from the lottery goes to good causes, so people think it is fine for others to get an addiction to scratchcards. Although they do not like to say so, and so dress it up by saying they are concerned about problem gamblers, the fact is that what lies behind measures such as the new clause is that people do not like the people who are winning the money. They do not give a stuff about the people who are losing the money. That is the sad thing.
How much did Derek Webb give to problem-gambling charities when he was accumulating his hundreds of millions of pounds? Perhaps he did give some money, but I am not aware of anything. The bookmakers give millions and millions—about £6 million a year—to problem-gambling charities to help people with their treatment, and that would be under threat if we did away with these betting shops.
Fiona Bruce
Is it not correct to say that betting shop managers have an obligation to stop a gambler if they think that that person is gambling irresponsibly, and therefore there is a reason why we should stop the proliferation of betting shops in the same locality?
Philip Davies
The problem with that is something that used to be called competition, which the Conservative party used to be in favour of, many moons ago. I know that it is an old-fashioned view in the Conservative party to believe in competition, but some of us still do. Self-exclusion for people who have a problem now applies across different betting shops. If someone self-excludes in one shop, it will apply in every shop in the locality, so I think my hon. Friend’s concern has been allayed.
The point I want to make before I finish is that if the choice was between having a betting shop in a town centre—in Bradford or in Shipley, for example—or having Marks & Spencer or Next, I would say every single time that the local authority should look to give planning permission to Marks & Spencer or Next, because it would do much more to regenerate the high street in Shipley than another betting shop would. Absolutely—I would be with the hon. Member for Hyndburn, every single day of the week. But the reason why betting shops have gone from the side streets to the main street is that retailers have been abandoning the high street—they have been walking away from it. The choice is now whether we have a betting shop or a closed-down, boarded-up shop down the high street. It is not a choice between a betting shop and a wonderful retailer that will do this, that and the other to the local community; it is often a choice between a betting shop and no shop whatsoever.
I would say that in a local community it is far better to have a betting shop employing people, and looking out for people who are gambling to make sure that they do not bet with a problem, than to have a boarded-up shop, which is the alternative. The Government should be very wary about doing something that will further reduce the number of betting shops when it is already going down, even without any intervention. I hope that the House will support my hon. Friends with their new clauses but reject new clause 1.
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Members might be relieved to know that I shall be extremely brief. I rise to speak to my amendments 24 and 25, although I should say that there is not a new clause or an amendment that we have heard about today that I disagree with. I thank the many Members on both sides of the House who have supported my amendments.
My hon. Friends will know that I am a passionate champion of the vulnerable. I have often spoken about disability and social care issues, and today is no exception. I doubt that anyone in the House would disagree that safe, secure, affordable and appropriate housing is a basic requirement for everyone. I also doubt that many would disagree that we face an unprecedented housing challenge. When the supply of housing is tight, some in society must make do with seriously inappropriate housing. I am pleased to report that 90% of all new housing developments in London must meet building standards category 2, which concerns accessible standards, and that the remaining 10% must be totally wheelchair-friendly. That is fantastic and exactly as it should be, but no similar requirement applies outside London.
My amendments would require local planning authorities to consider the needs of elderly and disabled people when identifying strategic priorities for the development and use of land. They would support the national policy guidance on new developments outlined in the national planning policy framework. They would also, by enabling independent living, support the Government’s commitment to halving the disability employment gap. Furthermore, they would reduce pressure on the social care sector and the NHS by providing more suitable accommodation for elderly people and keeping them safe in their homes for longer. In itself, achieving that is one of the biggest challenges that this country faces, and we have talked an awful lot about it recently.
The Government are tackling the housing challenge head-on. I look forward to the imminent White Paper, but as we rise to this challenge, we must not inadvertently replace it with a different kind of challenge by failing to recognise the need for accessible housing. My amendments purely seek to safeguard against that.
With an ageing population and more people living longer, with complex needs, the demand for accessible homes is set to increase rapidly. By 2030, the number of people aged 65 and over will have increased by 50%. In the next 20 years, the number of disabled people is set to increase from 11 million to 15 million. Estimates —conservative estimates at that—show that 3 million more accessible homes will be needed by 2035. Today, we have 11.9 million disabled people in the UK, yet only 6% of the housing stock currently provides the four bare-minimum standards needed to allow a disabled person to visit, let alone live there. The number of people aged 85 and over is expected to double in the next 23 years to more than 3.4 million.
Older people should be able to live safely and with dignity in good-quality, warm and safe housing. We know that most older people want to retain their independence and to stay in their homes for as long as possible. Not only should we actively support that, but if we want to tackle the crisis in social care—it is a crisis—we must do so. The cost of hospitalisation and social care for older people, such as those who have suffered hip fractures, most of which are caused by falls but could be prevented if there was more suitable housing, is £2 billion a year.
Dr Poulter
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Most older people live outside London, and the demographics of local authority areas show that a higher proportion of older people live outside the metropolitan areas, which is particularly important in relation to her amendments. The preventive measures she mentions are an important aspect of social care. Will she elaborate a bit more about how early intervention could save money for the NHS and the social care system?
Heidi Allen
Absolutely. I see that particularly in my constituency of South Cambridgeshire, which has one of the fastest growing elderly populations. We are spending money hand over fist by acting after the event. If we can keep people safe in their homes, it does not take a genius to see, given the pressures on the NHS at the moment—hip fractures alone cost us £2 billion a year—that there are hundreds of ways in which the money could be better spent.
The amendments could have a far-reaching impact. Research by charities such as the Papworth Trust and Habinteg shows that disabled people who have a home that works for them are four times more likely to be in paid employment. If we are as serious as I believe we are about halving the disability employment gap, we need to get serious about these amendments.
I have highlighted the issues that every Member of this House knows we face and the impact that the lack of accessible housing is having and will continue to have on our economy and, more importantly, on our society. My amendments would impose no additional cost on the Government. Indeed, they would save the Government, and thus the taxpayer, a huge sum. All they ask is that we put into law the guidance already provided in the NPPF.
All I am asking is that planning authorities must consider the needs of the whole population. What arguments against the amendments could there possibly be? I do not accept that they will place an additional burden on developers, and thus a cost on the consumer. The additional cost of making a home accessible from the outset is absolutely minimal. Having run my own manufacturing business, I know how powerful competitive necessity can be to drive costs down.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an important point about the affordability and accessibility of a property in which people are to live. Will she include the energy efficiency of homes in what she is encouraging developers and local authorities to consider so that elderly people can live in homes that are warm as well as accessible?
Heidi Allen
My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. This is all about thinking about things before we have to fit them retrospectively. It is vital that we have warm and efficient homes that save money for elderly people.
Some might argue that if central Government agreed to legislate through my amendments, that would take power away from local authorities. However, the amendments would not remove any local power at all; if anything, they would bolster it.
National demographic changes are happening now. We need more accessible housing and I believe that we have an opportunity to act now. This is about how we make this country one that truly works for everyone.
Sir Nicholas Soames
I have been bullied by the Whips into making only a very short intervention, so I am not able to expand on the extensive views that I wished to favour the House with. However, I thought that I should not let the moment pass without my thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) for his immensely touching description of betting shops, which, as we all know, are havens of peace, tranquillity, excitement and—
Sir Nicholas Soames
Yes, virtue. They are great places to be, and they make a tremendous and important contribution to the money-lending business. I say to my hon. Friend that he was extremely patronising about my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) who, like myself, has probably spent many, many happy hours in gambling shops, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley knows I have. I have nothing but the very highest opinion of them. My hon. Friend gave us a particularly touching exposition and I hope the House will pay no attention to it.
I thank my hon. Friend the Housing and Planning Minister for his courtesy, kindness and consideration, and for the immense efforts he makes on behalf of all of us to try to ensure that we have a fair planning system in this country.
I, of course, support amendment 28, which was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for the imperial town of Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). I am delighted that he will not pressing it to a Division, but I am completely on his side and thought he made a powerful case. The decision that his constituents have had to cope with is certainly very unpleasant.
I am really speaking to support my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), who is my close friend and parliamentary neighbour. He and I are currently struggling as Mid Sussex District Council is undergoing an examination in public. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, Mid Sussex has made 14 parish and town council plans, which is something of a record. That is an extraordinary achievement. The local communities have worked immensely hard, with great credibility and integrity, only to find that all their efforts are constantly undermined and challenged by the most unscrupulous building lobby it has ever been my pleasure to have to deal with.
At the examination in public, at which my right hon. Friend and I appeared on the second day, I was astonished to see the range of what the builders produced. They had bogus development forums that had been rushed together to try to present them as reputable. Their lobbying is aggressive and, in my view, totally unacceptable. Even our local enterprise partnership is chaired by a builder. They seek to interfere, very unhelpfully, in the work of the planning authorities.
My hon. Friend the Minister knows of the infamous application by Mayfield Market Towns to build a completely unwanted new settlement to the south of my constituency and partially in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs. It has been turned down time after time. No one wants it and it is not in any plan, yet the builders continue to chip away at the fabric, integrity and credibility of the plans.
In supporting the very sound and sensible new clauses tabled by my right hon. Friend, all I wish to say to the Minister is that I hope he understands that councils such as Mid Sussex are fighting a losing battle. There need to be clear rules and a clear understanding that there is a spirit that is entered into, because at the moment the house builders act quite outside the spirit and intention of the law. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) said in her excellent speech, it is quite unacceptable that all this hard work is undone by some completely unacceptable lobbying.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
I am pleased to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames). I rise to support the provisions in the Bill that will identify and build the houses that the country and my constituents badly need, and to speak in support of new clause 7.
The Bill addresses many key areas to help to deliver the home building agenda. However, speeding up the delivery of homes and increasing their number should not inevitably come at the cost of valuable green-belt land. Unfortunately, the draft Greater Manchester spatial framework, which is currently under consultation, relies heavily on the release of green-belt land, particularly in my constituency, with more than 8,000 houses planned on Cheadle’s green belt. My residents, especially in areas where neighbourhood plans are in progress, are extremely concerned about that. We have ambitious home building targets, but when delivering new homes, we must look at the long-term sustainability of development, rather than offering up our green spaces for easy wins for developers. We must be ambitious, direct development strategically and with a coherent vision, and value local community involvement.
Thousands of people have contacted me to raise their concerns about this issue, and I will be presenting a petition to the House later today that shows the strength of feeling in my constituency about protecting the green belt for the next generation while demonstrating the importance of local voices being heard.
It is evident that people care about their local communities. They want to see urban areas regenerated, and they love their open and rural spaces, and recognise their value for physical and mental health and wellbeing. People in Cheadle not only care about the place where they live, but want to help to shape it and to have their views heard. They want to have their say not only as individuals but in groups, such as Save Heald Green Green Belt and the Woodford Neighbourhood Forum. I want to make sure that they have their voices heard, too.
We should be proud of our record of encouraging and enabling community engagement through our localism agenda. The opportunity to help to shape the village of Woodford was taken up wholeheartedly by residents, who set up their neighbourhood forum in October 2013. Since then, the members and residents have raised funds and spent thousands of hours working on their local plan. Getting a local plan together is no mean feat. Over the past three years, they have put together a residents questionnaire and a neighbourhood plan scoping report, and they have held a neighbourhood plan exhibition. They have produced an interim analysis of data for 2015, an annual progress report, a landscape and environment studies report, a housing needs assessment, a movement study, and a heritage and character assessment. They have worked tremendously hard and know every inch of their area. They are now consulting village residents on the plan and reaching the pre-submission phase, which is a critical point in the plan’s progress.
I want to encourage more residents to get involved in that way. However, an obstacle to the uptake of the opportunity for groups to put together neighbourhood plans is the perception that plans can be overturned by local planning authorities, especially if they have not reached the final stage or if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year land supply. Communities need reassurance that neighbourhood plans are given due weight in planning considerations, and that all the hard work that goes into them will be rewarded and given proper consideration.
The Bill gives us an opportunity to give our green belt further protection for years to come, and to encourage more people to get involved in neighbourhood forums to develop and shape their area. I look forward to the publication of the Government’s White Paper in due course. On my Christmas card this year, I have featured the green belt at Woodford, which I look out over. I hope that, in future years, I will be able to include it on my card again.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We have a few more speakers and there is another group to get through after this one. The quicker we can move on, the better.
Fiona Bruce
I rise to speak in support of new clauses 7 and 8, to which I have added my name, but I am spurred by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) to put on record my support for the tenor of new clause 1.
It is imperative that Ministers act to restore the confidence of my Congleton constituents in the status of neighbourhood plans specifically and in localism more widely. My constituents consider that the status and application of neighbourhood plans is confusing, contradictory, inconsistent and unfair. The area has no local plan and no agreed five-year planned supply. For years, local communities in my constituency have been bombarded with a barrage of inappropriate planning applications by developers gobbling up green spaces, including prime agricultural land, and putting pressure on local schools, health services, roads and other services. It is essential that Ministers take action to give neighbourhood plans the full weight in practice that the Government say they have in theory. It is for that reason that residents in my constituency have in some cases taken years to prepare neighbourhood plans. I respect the Government’s good intentions, but they are not being carried out.
The Government factsheet on the Bill states:
“Neighbourhood planning gives communities direct power to develop a shared vision for their neighbourhood and shape the development and growth of their local area. For the first time communities can produce plans that have real statutory weight in the planning system.”
That is the theory, but let me tell hon. Members about the practice. The parish of Brereton was the first area in my constituency to produce a neighbourhood plan. It is a rural farming area mainly—just 470 houses are dotted about it. It developed a neighbourhood plan over many years, and it was voted in with a huge 96% majority vote on a 51% turnout. It is a very intelligent document. It has no blanket objection to development, but does say that development should be appropriate in scale, design and character of the rural area of Brereton, and that it should not distort that character. It says that small groups of one or two properties built over time would be appropriate, supporting the rural economy and providing accommodation for those with local livelihoods, which seems reasonable.
I warmly welcomed the plan when it was produced and when it was adopted. However, the Brereton example is one of several in which planning applications that are contradictory to the best intentions of local residents have been approved by the inspectorate. Brereton is a parish of 470 houses. Within the last month, one development of no fewer than 190 houses has been allowed on appeal. Another application for 49 houses is coming down the track. That is more than half the size again of the parish.
Brereton has very few facilities—for example, it does not have a doctors’ surgery—so nearby Holmes Chapel will be pressurised further. That village already has hundreds of recently built properties or properties for which permission has been given. The health centre is full, the schools are under pressure and traffic pressures render roads dangerous. Unlike Brereton, Holmes Chapel has not yet completed its local neighbourhood plan, but people there are now asking whether it is worth the time and effort of completing one.
The position is the same in Goostrey, another nearby village that is in the process of developing its neighbourhood plan. A resident and member of the Goostrey parish council neighbourhood plan team wrote to me. He says that such decisions are demotivating when it comes to creating neighbourhood plans, and that they make encouraging people to get involved in the Goostrey plan much harder—he refers not only to the Brereton decision, but to the inconsistency of two recent decisions down the road in Sandbach, where one application for a substantial housing development was dismissed based on the neighbourhood plan, and another, cheek-by-jowl down the road, was approved with the neighbourhood plan carrying little or no weight, even though there was no five-year housing supply in both cases.
I have been told by local residents that what really offended people in Brereton was the fact that
“at the public examination of the Brereton Neighbourhood Plan in November 2015 at Sandbach Town Hall, the Examiner insisted our Plan and its policies were sufficiently robust to counteract mass housing development and protect the rural character of the Parish. He asserted publicly that Brereton, as a rural Parish, did not have a responsibility to provide mass housing towards the wider strategic housing target—yet, the Appeal Inspectorate essentially has argued the complete opposite. Why are Government representatives involved in planning matters holding completely opposing and inconsistent views?”
Another resident in yet another parish who has worked for almost two years with neighbours to develop a neighbourhood plan area designation has now resigned from the steering group, in what the constituent calls “total disillusionment”, saying:
“I do not understand how this decision is either fair or reasonable…I conclude that the Neighbourhood Planning Process is a Government-sponsored confidence trick”.
Those are strong words, but they express how many of my constituents feel. Another said that
“there seems little point in producing a neighbourhood plan if it is considered irrelevant.”
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that consultation is meaningless if the people consulted are then ignored?
Fiona Bruce
That is what I am saying. Time and again, our constituents are being encouraged to produce neighbourhood plans. About two years ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), then a Minister in the Department for Communities and Local Government, came at my invitation to Sandbach town hall to talk to residents concerned about the barrage of applications by developers to build thousands of houses across my constituency. He said that the way to protect our local communities was by developing neighbourhood plans. That galvanised communities such as those that I have mentioned into working towards neighbourhood plans. As others have said, some residents have put hundreds of hours into doing so.
James Heappey
My hon. Friend describes a situation that I am sure we all recognise well. In my experience, many local communities engage positively with their neighbourhood and local plans to identify the housing need in their area, and then plan accordingly. Does she share my frustration, however, that because of the robust protections afforded to the Bristol and Bath green belt to the north of my constituency, despite my communities having made plans in Somerset, much of the former’s housing demand is being displaced southwards, so we end up having to absorb that as well, outwith our planning?
Fiona Bruce
I do very much empathise with my hon. Friend’s concerns.
Another resident says that unless neighbourhood plans are given significant weight—that is what I and many colleagues have asked the Minister to ensure—their community
“would advise others not to put the time and effort into what is increasingly looking like a futile and wasteful exercise”.
Another resident pointed out that the factsheet I referred to states, in response to the question,
“should a community produce a neighbourhood plan where the Local Plan may not be up-to-date?”,
that through
“a neighbourhood plan, communities can have a real say about local development…and protect important local green spaces”.
It also states that
“the NPPF is very clear that where a planning application conflicts with a neighbourhood plan that has been brought into force, planning permission should not normally be granted (NPPF para. 198)”.
Contradictorily, in the case of Brereton, the inspector’s report allowing the appeal for these 190 houses stated:
“Reference was made to paragraph 198 of the Framework, which provides that where a planning application conflicts with a neighbourhood plan (as in this case)”—
he acknowledged that—
“that has been brought into force, planning permission should not normally be granted”.
So far, so good. It goes on to say:
“However, the position is not ‘normal’ in that as NP policy HOU01 is clearly a relevant policy for the supply of housing, and is in conformity with LP policies which are themselves out of date”—
meaning there is no current neighbourhood plan—
“only limited weight can be afforded to the policy”.
Richard Drax
It is a pleasure to participate in the debate, and, with a mainly rural constituency, I felt I must. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and my right hon. Friends the Members for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) on their contributions. I entirely concur with them and share their concerns on this important issue.
Let me touch briefly—I, too, have been got at by the Whips, which is unusual for me; I have not been got at in six years, but I have been today, so I shall not be long—on regionalism, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield brought up, and localism. As I am addressing my remarks to the planning Minister, for whom I have a huge amount of respect and who is doing a wonderful job, I would also like to touch briefly on housing density.
To look at this from a more macro point of view, my concern is that we will be here for many years to come, because planning has always been a complicated issue. With the pressures on immigration—no one should get me wrong; I am all for controlled immigration—and with a net immigration of 340,000, that means that something comparable to the population of the city of Leeds, with a population of 750,000, is settling in the country about every two years.
There are pressures on us all in this House, and they are going to increase—not just in our urban areas, but in our beautiful rural areas such as South Dorset. I entirely concur with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield that we must look at planning, and housing in particular, in a far more regional and holistic way. Local people entirely support the neighbourhood plans, which I think are a very good idea—as long as they are going to work, of course. Local plans must be respected and must have some statutory weight, as my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton said. A reasonable holistic approach is going to be far more pragmatic and sensible if, for example, a region with an urban and a rural area can decide where the jobs, the hospitals, the roads and all the different parts of infrastructure are. All too often, these do not come with proposals by developers because, of course, that costs money. Moving on briefly to localism, the opinion of local people must, of course, be sought, because that is going to be crucial.
Conservative Members must be very careful. I remember cursing Labour’s regional spatial strategy until I was blue in the face, but I think we are in danger of not listening to local people who have genuine concerns. This is nowhere more appropriate than in my part of the world in Purbeck. As I hinted to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), I think we need more clarity on the rules and regulations governing where houses should be built. Quite apart from all the local people, who are consulted, we have the officers, who in many cases do not seem to understand what the planning regulations mean or interpret them wrongly. There are the over-enthusiastic officers who get it completely wrong, and vice versa. Then of course there are our dear councillors on all sides of the political divide, who are doing their best, but they are human beings and often make mistakes. They may make decisions for political reasons. There are all kinds of factors that we in this House know lead councillors to make decisions, and they might not always be the right ones.
Local people in Langton Matravers in my constituency know exactly who needs to have a house: it must be affordable—and I mean affordable—and they know best where to place it. They do not need to be told by planning inspectors, whom everyone is terrified of, that they must have hundreds of homes on the edge of their beautiful village, which in effect almost turns it into a sort of ghetto and ruins the reason millions of people come to our beautiful constituencies. This clearly is absolute madness.
I know other Members wish to speak and the Government want to move on, but finally I wish to make a plea on density and style of housing. I have a friend in north Yorkshire who is a landowner and who has developed truly affordable proper homes—affordable homes for rent, which is equally important as homes to buy. The following point is crucial. In too many housing developments, particularly in rural areas, there is no area for children: the cars are parked on the street, the dustbins are at the front doors, there are no green fields to run out and have fun on.
Sir Nicholas Soames
My hon. Friend is making a very important point. One of the things I have been horrified by in following this examination in public is that here are these builders proposing building hundreds of houses over what is already a very substantial target, which the council has agreed to, and they have made no mention at all of infrastructure. How can anyone accept that?
Richard Drax
My right hon. Friend represents a beautiful constituency like mine and speaks eloquently, and I entirely concur with him, as I am sure we all do. I make a plea to the Government to look at some form of legislation to ensure that developers have a duty to develop responsibly and in ways whereby they treat people and families as human beings, not animals trapped in a cage where they cannot go outside and children cannot roam without annoying the neighbours. This will lead to social breakdown, as we have seen across the country in many areas, and the worst examples lead to more social incohesion, which is the last thing we need.
Mr Burrowes
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate and to speak briefly to new clause 1 and amendments 24 and 25, which are both moderate amendments.
We have had a debate about betting shops and FOBTs, but Mr Deputy Speaker is giving great latitude to the discussion on new clause 1, because FOBTs and betting are the responsibility of another Department. This is essentially about the tools in relation to licensing and the welcome review. We have heard the warm-up act from my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). His speech can be rehearsed again when we come to the outcome, which hopefully will show evidence of the significant harm that is being done, particularly to the most vulnerable people.
I am not so concerned about the Derek Webbs of this world or the motivations of hon. Members or hon. Friends; I am concerned about the vulnerable people who are certainly being preyed upon, particularly in deprived communities, and especially as a result of the clustering of betting shops. There is good evidence from the Local Government Association that in areas of clustering there is increased problem gambling. We cannot avoid that evidence. New clause 1 seeks to deal with clustering.
It is just one tool. The number of betting shops, the number of those betting, and indeed those going to payday loan companies, are thankfully being reduced because of other regulatory measures. The 2015 regulatory interventions on payday loans were very welcome, and have had an impact. The additional taxation of gaming machines has also had an impact on the number of betting shops.
These are all tools at the Government’s disposal, but we are discussing planning tools and whether they are fit for purpose. In London there are local plans in Enfield and elsewhere—the borough plans that take account of impact on amenity, concentration of similar uses, security, locality and proximity to sensitive uses. That is all welcome. The previous Mayor of London also focused in his plan on the over-concentration of betting shops and prepared and issued the 2014 supplementary planning guidance. It recognised the urgent need to enable local planning authorities to control the proliferation of betting shops and to address implications of retaining the viability and vitality of town centres while protecting amenity and safety.
Governments, local councils and neighbourhood plans are all on this journey, but all of us in this place may not be on the same journey. There has been good cross-party support for the concerns about clustering, but is that adequate? Control, not least of clustering, is insufficient across the board and across the country, and we must consider the available opportunities. That is what new clause 1 is about. It provides for an assessment when an increase in the number of betting shops or payday lenders is proposed to ensure that deleterious impacts of clustering are prevented.
In many ways, the new clause pulls together the elements of the journey that the Government are on, and I look forward to hearing the Minister welcome the principles behind it. If he is unwilling to support it this time around, taking account of the concerns of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) about blocking, I hope he recognises that there are good intentions across the House. When the review of fixed odds betting terminals is published, if there is evidence of significant harm, I hope the Government will do what is already within their power and issue appropriate guidance. It matters that betting shops are sadly disproportionately affecting vulnerable people. There is something in the fact that the poorest 55 boroughs have more than twice as many betting shops as the most affluent 115 boroughs. There needs to be an appropriate local dimension so that those poorer boroughs have the Government behind them, backing them up with local plans. I am supportive of new clause 1, but I will not join the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) in the Lobby tonight. I want the Government to be true to their word and take appropriate action and issue guidance at the appropriate time, such as when we hear back from the licensing review.
I support amendments 24 and 25—two welcome and moderate amendments from my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen). She is somewhat radical on occasions, but they are moderate and simply state what we all no doubt want to ensure. When we consider new building and the current and future projections in our areas, we must take account of the entire population, older and disabled people in particular. The amendments make sense and fit with the Government’s agenda of integrating social care and with the Green Paper about integration across Departments. It is projected that over-65 households will represent almost half of all household growth up to 2026, so getting housing right for older people will have immense benefits for society and the economy. When we ask our local authorities about new higher accessibility standards, the number of retirement housing developments, easy access to public transport and other local services and facilities, home adaptations, disabled facilities grants, and proper and appropriate housing support services in sheltered housing, these amendments will give that real teeth and ensure that what we all want does happen. I look forward to the Minister’s positive response.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I am grateful for catching your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker. So troublesome am I that three Whips, including one who is sitting next to me, have encouraged me to be brief, so I will do just that.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
It is in my hands. The Whips will see whether their spell has worked.
I start by welcoming my hon. Friend the Planning Minister. He has been incredibly generous in listening to Back-Bench concerns about planning. Having practised in it as a chartered surveyor, I know that it is an incredibly difficult area. The Bill is important, because neighbourhood plans were introduced by the Localism Act 2011—the clue is in the name—and if we can devolve planning down as far as possible, many people will feel that they have ownership of the planning system and be much happier about what is being done to them. In contrast to some Members who have spoken in this debate, I warmly welcome such plans, and the Bill is a good step forward. New clauses 7 and 8 and amendments 19 and 28, which are in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), all represent improvements to the Bill.
We must ensure that neighbourhood plans work, and we need three things to do that. I represent two local authorities, Stroud District Council, which has a local district plan, and Cotswold District Council, which does not, and I have been pretty strong in my words about the latter. The net result in the Cotswold District Council area is that we do not have a single neighbourhood plan in operation.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Given the lateness of the hour, even though we have a number of amendments in this group, I will speak only to amendments 7 and 8, and to confirm our support for a few others. Amendment 7 would allow the full recovery of costs by local authorities for assisting with the development of a neighbourhood plan. We know that planning departments are massively under-resourced and that they are hugely important in getting the housing that we so desperately need built. I wholeheartedly agree with the Minister that if we want to build the housing we need, we must make sure that planning departments are adequately resourced. I therefore hope he will bring forward something beyond simply allowing local authorities to charge higher fees to resource planning departments properly.
Amendment 8 requires the Secretary of State to prioritise deprived communities when making available financial assistance to support the development of neighbourhood plans. Again, we discussed this in Committee, and if we are really serious about ensuring that all communities across the country are able to produce neighbourhood plans, deprived communities need to be supported in that endeavour and funded properly to produce such a plan. I wish also to put on the record the fact that we support amendments 24, 25 and 29 and new clauses 7 and 1, the latter having been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones).
Gavin Barwell
In contrast with the first group of amendments, where we had a short debate on technical issues, this group has cut to the heart of our planning system, and I hope the House will bear with me, as I have a large number of amendments to respond to. Of the official Opposition amendments, I will respond only to the ones the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) spoke to, as I know the Opposition are keen for us to get on to the third group.
I start very quickly with four Government amendments. Three minor and technical amendments, 17, 18 and 19, are required to remove unnecessary duplication between clauses 10 and 11. Amendment 22 to clause 40 amends the commencement provision so that it no longer refers to the duplicated Bill in clause 11. If the House will take me at my word on that, I will move on to the more substantive issues. I will take them in the order in which they were raised in the debate.
Speaking to new clause 1, the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones), my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), and my hon. Friends the Members for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) spoke movingly about problems caused by the proliferation—my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) begged to differ on that word—or clustering of betting shops in their communities. Their concerns are not just limited to the planning system, but they rightly looked to the planning system to protect their communities.
In responding, I remind the House of important recent changes to the planning system, which specifically require planning applications to be made for additional betting shops or payday loan shops. Before April 2015, under the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order, a new betting shop or payday loan shop could be opened in any premises used for financial or professional services in the A2 use class. In addition, an A3 restaurant, A4 pub and A5 hot food takeaway could all change use to a betting shop or a payday loan shop under permitted development rights without the need for a planning application.
Recognising the concerns that people have expressed about that, the Government changed the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order: betting shops and payday loan shops were made a use class of their own and now require a planning application, allowing proper consideration of the issues that a change of use may raise. As with any planning application, the local planning authority must determine that application in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Those planning authorities that have concerns about the clustering of such uses should therefore ensure that they have an up-to-date plan in place with relevant policies. As with any policy, that plan should be based on evidence and tailored to meet the needs of the local area.
Paragraph 23 of the NPPF is clear—local planning authorities should recognise town centres as the heart of their communities and pursue policies to support their viability and vitality and to promote a mix of uses. Betting shops and payday loan shops are not an issue everywhere. Where the ongoing clustering of them is an issue, and where that has an adverse impact on the character or balance of uses on the high street, planning authorities can ensure that they have policies in place. We have given them the tools they need to manage the issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate said that this is a local problem that requires local solutions, and the Government agree with that. We do not see the need for national guidance that sets out what every authority should do, partly because the situation is by no means uniform across the country, and partly because there are very different opinions within this House and within local authorities about the right response to these issues. The Government’s view therefore is that this is a matter that is best left to individual local authorities, as they know their circumstances.
Gavin Barwell
I will not take an intervention now, as I am conscious of the time. What I will say to the hon. Gentleman, who clearly has a real passion for this issue, is that I am prepared to talk to colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and see, as part of its wider review of these issues, whether it would be helpful to issue guidance to local authorities so that they are aware of the powers that they have and how the NPPF works in this area.
Let me move on now to the main issue of the debate, which was in relation to neighbourhood planning. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who put their names to new clause 7 for the opportunity to debate an issue in which so many people in this House have a strong interest. I am talking about the role of neighbourhood planning groups in our planning system.
There are many champions of neighbourhood planning in all parts of the House. As the planning Minister, I am very grateful for that support. The encouragement and support of a trusted local MP can undoubtedly help with many aspects of the neighbourhood planning process.
It is worth taking a quick moment to say why neighbourhood planning is so important. Research tells us that 42% of people say that they would be more supportive of proposed developments if local people had a say in them. There is strong evidence that those plans that have included housing allocations have increased, on average, the allocation above what their local planning authority was putting in place. To put that simply, where we give people control of the planning system, they plan for more housing. It is therefore crucial that the plans that people have worked so hard to produce are given proper consideration when local planning decisions are made.
In responding to new clause 7, I want to reassure my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) that measures in the Housing and Planning Act 2016 that were commenced only on 1 October, the measures in this Bill, and in particular the written ministerial statement, which he referred to in his remarks, that I made yesterday, will address the concerns that he has raised. The national planning policy framework already says clearly that, where a planning application conflicts with a neighbourhood plan that has been brought into force, planning permission should not normally be granted. As my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton pointed out, the issue here is that, where a local planning authority does not have a five-year land supply, that is not a normal circumstance and the presumption in favour of development in some cases—not all—overrides neighbourhood plans.
In the written ministerial statement, I made it clear that from yesterday, where communities plan for housing in their area in a neighbourhood plan, those plans should not be deemed out of date unless there is a significant lack of land supply—that is, under three years. That applies to all plans for the next two years, and for the first two years of any plan that is put into place. That will give a degree of protection that has not been available. The message needs to go out clearly from this House that local authorities must get up-to-date plans in place to provide that protection for neighbourhood plans. I hope that that reassures people. As I said, I have written both to the Planning Inspectorate and to local councils on that issue.
I hope that my right hon. Friend feels that what I have said is part of the solution. I was attracted to part of his new clause 7. It refers to the idea that parish councils and neighbourhood forums should be told if there is a planning application in their area. At present, they have a right to request information, but they are not necessarily told. If he does not press new clause 7 and with his permission, I will take that proposal away and seek to insert it into the Bill in the Lords.
On new clause 8, which deals with the five-year land supply, the written ministerial statement partly addresses that concern, but the other issue that my right hon. Friend touched on was whether, once a five-year land supply has been established, there should be a period that it holds for. The local plans expert group made some very interesting recommendations in that area. We will look at them as part of the White Paper, so I can reassure him that the Government are actively considering that issue and will return to it. I hope that he feels that with the changes in the 2016 Act that have just been brought into force, the changes that we are making in this Bill, the written ministerial statement, the fact that I will accept part of his amendment and what is going to come in the White Paper, there is a package that underlines this Government’s commitment to neighbourhood planning. I thank him on a personal level for the priority that he has given to the issue. I found my discussions with him very useful.
On amendments 28 and 29 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), I should say that I am always grateful for his advice and suggestions. He is a champion for his constituency and the whole House understands how passionately he feels about the green belt in his constituency. As someone with green belt in my constituency, I both understand and share that passion. The green belt has been a feature of planning policy throughout the post-war period, and although its boundaries have changed over time, the underlying objective of preventing urban sprawl remains as relevant as ever.
I make it clear to the House that the Government’s policy on protecting the green belt and national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and sites of special scientific interest remains unchanged. The national planning policy framework is very clear that it is for local authorities to decide whether to review green-belt boundaries but that they should do so only in exceptional circumstances. There needs to be public consultation and independent examination of their proposals. In relation to applications to build homes on green-belt land, again there is very strong protection. The NPPF says that inappropriate development is by definition harmful to the green belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.
Mr Mitchell
Given the Minister’s eloquent defence of the green belt from the Dispatch Box, can he explain to the House how on earth he reached such a ludicrous position in respect of the decision to lift the delay on Birmingham City Council?
Gavin Barwell
As I said, there is independent examination whenever a local authority seeks to review green-belt boundaries. The inspector looked at whether Birmingham City Council’s decision passed the test of exceptional circumstances, and his judgment was that the council’s proposals on density and its work with neighbouring local authorities under the duty to co-operate passed that test. As my right hon. Friend is aware, the previous Secretary of State issued the holding direction, and we looked at the inspector’s decision to see whether there was any reason we might feel he had misdirected himself, and we decided there were no grounds for us to overturn the decision. I understand that my right hon. Friend does not agree with that decision and feels very angry about it, but that is a factual account of what happened.
Mr Mitchell
Nevertheless, there was no consultation of the 100,000 people in Sutton Coldfield—at least, the consultation was completely ignored. We are the largest town council in the country, and every single town councillor is opposed to this plan. Will my hon. Friend at least suggest to Birmingham City Council that, before it proceeds to ratify the plan, it should consult the largest town council in the country and listen to its views?
Gavin Barwell
I was going to come to that issue when I came to my right hon. Friend’s second new clause. Since he has raised it with me directly, I am happy to say that I would expect local authorities to consult their parish and town councils. I have no power to direct them to do so, as he alluded to in his speech, but there should clearly be consultation with large town councils and local communities should be consulted as part of the local plan process. I suspect that part of his frustration with this decision is about the fact that he does not necessarily accept the legitimacy of Birmingham imposing it on Sutton Coldfield and that perhaps speaks to his views about local governance in the area. However, the whole House will have heard his passion for this issue.
I am conscious of the time, Mr Speaker, so let me briefly reassure the House on the Government’s efforts to ensure that we have a policy of brownfield first. We are introducing statutory brownfield registers. Our estate regeneration strategy, which has just been published, is looking at how we can redevelop our estates. Permitted development is about bringing old buildings back into use. There is the release of surplus public land. The £3 billion home building fund is aimed at getting brownfield sites back into use. There are also the £1.2 billion starter home land fund and the changes to the NPPF that we are consulting on to put an even stronger emphasis on brownfield. I just want to reassure the House on that issue.
Let me turn to my right hon. Friend’s second amendment, on the relationship between neighbourhood plans and local plans and on the roles of parish and town councils. He referred to Sutton Coldfield Town Council, which was recently set up under the reforms the Government brought in to allow new town and parish councils to be established. The Government have a lot of sympathy with the argument he is advancing in this amendment. There are already powers in legislation in relation to the statements of community involvement that local authorities have to produce, but I think he has found an issue where we can strengthen the statutory protections. With his leave, and if he were not to press his amendment, I would like to discuss the issue with him and come back in the Lords to see whether we can make the kind of changes he suggests.
Let me turn briefly to new clause 5 from my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), which is about the resourcing of the neighbourhood planning process. The neighbourhood share of the community infrastructure levy was introduced by this Government in 2013—I suspect that he had a hand in that—to give local people a real say over infrastructure priorities in their area. Communities without a neighbourhood plan already benefit from using 15% of CIL receipts. The money is passed directly to parish and town councils, and Government guidance makes it clear that it can be used to develop a neighbourhood plan.
New clause 5 sets out that a local planning authority may make available funds where a parish agrees to forgo some of the CIL levy it expects to get over time. If communities wish to do that, they are already able to do so, because regulation 59A of the CIL regulations allows them to. However, I think that the wider point my right hon. Friend was trying to probe was about the resourcing for neighbourhood planning. We have a budget of £22.5 million for 2015 to 2018. Nearly £10 million of that has been spent so far. Clearly, if we get an acceleration in the number of neighbourhood plans, we will need to find additional resources, and I am happy to discuss further with him how we might go about doing so.
In new clause 2, my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) seeks to encourage developers to comply with existing local and, particularly, neighbourhood plans. At appeal, an award of costs may be made if there has been unreasonable behaviour by a party that has caused another party to incur unnecessary or wasted expenses. It is worth pointing out that Government guidance includes as an example of unreasonable behaviour a development that is clearly not in accordance with the development plan and where no other material considerations indicate that a decision should be made against the development plan. So this ability is already there. An award of costs does not determine the actual amount but states the broad extent of the expense that can be recovered, and the matter then has to be settled between the parties or in the courts.
My hon. Friend’s new clause raises issues that it may be of interest to explore further. We need to think about whether we can do more to ensure that the collective vision of a community as set out in its neighbourhood plan is not regularly overridden. I cannot agree with the part of the new clause that refers to initial applications to the local authority. However, in relation to award of costs in the appeals system, we can look at what more we can do to ensure that only appeals that have a legitimate chance of success go forward to the inspectorate. If she is happy not to press her new clause, I am happy to look further at that matter.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen) for her two amendments raising the important issue of homes for older and disabled people. The Government want to see new homes and places that stand the test of time. We therefore want to ensure that buildings and spaces work well for everyone and will adapt to the needs of future generations. Her proposal tackles a very important issue. Older and disabled people have a wide range of housing needs. As she implied, we are already seeking to address that in the NPPF. I fully understand why she wanted to further emphasise the importance of this issue by putting it into primary legislation. We need to guard against attempts to put all national planning policy into primary legislation, but she has alighted on a particularly important issue. Given that we support the spirit of her amendments, if she is happy not to press them, I am minded to accept their thrust and work with her to come back in the Lords with amendments approved by parliamentary counsel that take forward the principle of what she has been trying to achieve. I thank her for her interest in this issue.
I turn finally to the amendments tabled by the official Opposition. I will deal with just the two proposed by the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods). On amendment 7, the Secretary of State and I have been clear that the resourcing of local authority planning departments is an issue very close to our hearts. As I set out in Committee, in the specific case of funding for neighbourhood planning duties, we believe that adequate funding is already available. Planning authorities can claim £5,000 for each of the first five neighbourhood areas they designate and, where there is no parish council, a further £5,000 for each of the first five neighbourhood forums. They can claim an additional £20,000 once they have set the date for a referendum. In addition, where a second referendum must be held, a further £10,000 is available. I know that the House is very interested in second referendums at the moment. I should stress that this relates to areas where there are businesses and local residents; it is not an attempt to rerun the argument. In total, £13 million has been paid out since 2012 to help local planning authorities to meet their responsibilities. We are committed to continuing to review the costs incurred by councils delivering neighbourhood planning as take-up increases, and we will continue to fund them. This should not be conflated with the wider issue of the funding of local planning departments. As the hon. Lady knows, we will include proposals in the White Paper to try to address that issue.
Amendment 8 raises the important issue of neighbourhood planning in deprived communities. As I said in Committee, we recognise the issues that those communities face. Neighbourhood planning groups in these areas can apply for a grant of up to £15,000—£6,000 more than the usual limit—and, in addition, get significant technical support. I am reluctant to put specific spending requirements into primary legislation because we cannot predict the balance of schemes that will come forward, and it could mean that we could not then fund some neighbourhood planning groups in other areas. However, I assure the hon. Lady that we are committed to making sure that deprived communities get the funding they need. This should not just be a policy for wealthy rural areas. We are putting specific effort into encouraging groups in deprived urban areas to apply for neighbourhood planning.
The House has been very patient with me as I have had to deal with a large number of new clauses and amendments in a short period. I hope that Members will not press their new clauses and amendments and are happy with what I have said.
Question put and negatived.
New Clause 9
Permitted development: use clauses and demolition of drinking establishments
“(1) The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (SI/1987/764) is amended as follows.
(2) At the end of section 3(6) insert—
“(p) drinking establishment.”
(3) In the Schedule, leave out the paragraph starting “Class A4. Drinking Establishments”
(4) The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (SI1995/418) is amended as follows.
(5) In Part 3 of Schedule 2—
(a) in Class A: Permitted development, leave out “A4 (drinking establishments)”.
(b) In Class AA: Permitted development, leave out “Class A4 (drinking establishments)”.
(c) in Class C: Permitted development, leave out “Class A4 (drinking establishments)”.
(6) In Part 31 of Schedule 2 under A.1 at end insert—
“() the building subject to demolition is classed as a drinking establishment”.”—(Dr Blackman-Woods.)
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that any proposed demolition of or change of use to public houses and other drinking establishments would be subject to planning permission. Currently such buildings, unless they have been listed as Assets of Community Value with the local authority, can be demolished or have their use changed without such permission being granted.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 10—Funding for local authority planning functions—
“(1) The Secretary of State must consult local planning authorities prior to the commencement of any new statutory duties to ensure that they are—
(a) adequately resourced; and
(b) adequately funded
so that they are able to undertake the additional work.
(2) In any instance where that is not the case, an independent review of additional cost must be conducted to set out the level of resource required to allow planning authorities to fulfil any new statutory duties.”
This new clause would ensure that the costs of new planning duties are calculated and adequately funded.
New clause 11—Planning obligations—
“(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) of section 106 (planning obligations) after paragraph (d) insert—
“(e) requiring that information submitted as part of, and in support of, a viability assessment be made available to the public.””
This new clause would ensure that viability assessments are public documents with no commercial confidentiality restrictions, except in cases where disclosure would not be in the public interest.
Amendment 14, page 11, line 1, leave out clause 12.
This amendment would remove from the Bill completely the changes to planning conditions.
Amendment 11, in clause 12, page 11, line 18, leave out subsection (2)(a).
This amendment would ensure that “acceptable in planning terms” does not mean that conditions can be overlooked because they are unacceptable for other reasons.
Amendment 12, page 11, line 27, leave out subsections (4) to (7).
This amendment would ensure that local authorities are still able to make necessary pre-commencement conditions on developers.
Amendment 13, page 11, line 34, at end insert—
“(6A) The Secretary of State should provide guidance for appeal routes where an agreement cannot be reached on pre-commencement conditions, along guidance on pre-completion and pre-occupation conditions.”
This amendment ensures that there is clarity on appeal routes, pre-completion and pre-occupation conditions.
Amendment 15, in clause 13, page 12, line 32, at end insert—
“(e) information on the number of permitted demolition of offices for residential use to a similar scale including—
(i) the impact on a local plan;
(ii) an estimate as to how many homes the development will deliver; and
(iii) a consultation with the local authority regarding the effect of the change of use on any urban regeneration plans.”
This amendment would ensure monitoring of the impact of permitted right of demolition on offices on urban regeneration that requires office space and on the provision of housing.
Government amendment 20.
Amendment 16, page 13, line 21, at end insert—
“(9) The cost of compiling a register and gathering the information to underpin it should be met by the Secretary of State.”
Dr Blackman-Woods
I will speak to new clause 9, tabled by the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland), because I have added my name to it. It would require the demolition or change of use of pubs to be subject to planning permission. That seems very sensible. It is something that I feel very strongly about. As a shadow Minister, I was at the forefront of the fight against the changes to permitted development rights that the Government started to force through two years ago. I have spoken on pubs and permitted development many times. It is very important, as a pub can often be a real central point for a local community, and so it is right that local residents are given the chance to have their say over what happens to it.
Although pubs can be protected if they are designated an asset of community value, the process for that can be very cumbersome. I believe it is much more appropriate to return the decision on whether a pub can be demolished or converted to the local community, where it belongs, rather than dealing with it through permitted development.
I will move straight on to—
Dr Blackman-Woods
If the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not, as I am very short of time. I might a bit later, once I have made a bit of progress.
I also want to speak to new clause 11, on the need for the viability assessments to be transparent to the public. Labour has consistently raised this issue, and we continue to believe it is of huge importance. If the public are to accept development in their area, they have to be absolutely certain that viability arrangements for site—in particular, safety integrity level requirements and section 106 requirements—are all that they should be.
As things stand, a viability assessment lays bare to council officers the economics of a project, providing detailed financial evidence for a developer’s claim that a particular scheme would not be viable without reducing the number of affordable homes. The problem is that the assessments are not available for public scrutiny. Labour has commented that despite planning practice guidance encouraging transparency, developers may opt not to disclose their viability assessments to the public on the grounds of commercial confidentiality. It is widely accepted that that is sometimes done so that they can negotiate down their section 106 obligations without public scrutiny. As a consequence, affordable housing may be reduced and the quality of the built environment may suffer. We need a uniform approach to transparency, across the country—I am sure the Minister supports that—so that developers know that they will be open to public scrutiny wherever they decide to operate.
I move on to amendment 14. This Bill is the Government’s sixth measure on the planning system in six years. I hope that the current Minister will not continue what we saw in the past, namely the Government blaming the planning system, or various elements of it, for their failure to build enough homes. On this occasion, pre-commencement planning conditions are in the firing line. But as the Minister well knows from our time in Committee, there is a distinct lack of evidence that pre-commencement planning conditions slow up development. In fact, we heard a lot of evidence that they often make a development acceptable for a local community.
Pre-commencement conditions are also advantageous for a number of different stakeholders in the house building industry. They have certain advantages to developers, who may not be in a position to finalise details for a scheme but wish to secure planning permission as soon as possible. They have advantages for local authorities, because councils may, in practice, have limited legal ability to enforce conditions once a scheme is under way. Conditions are useful to the development industry in general, because they make it possible to permit schemes that might otherwise have to be refused.
John Redwood
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. My question goes back to her first amendment on pubs. Does she not accept that there are some cases in which no one can run a commercial pub, and no one wants to? In such cases, surely, action has to be taken.
Dr Blackman-Woods
We are not against a change of use for a pub; we are against the fact that that change goes through permitted development, taking away local people’s right to have a say over what happens to the pub. The new clause is designed to remove those changes from permitted development and put them back into the planning system, which is exactly where they should be.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I will give way very briefly to the hon. Gentleman; he spoke for a long time earlier.
Philip Davies
I am very sympathetic to pubs, and always voted on what we might call the pub side of the argument, including over the tenancy issue—the tied pubs issue—during the previous Parliament. I am concerned that if we say to a struggling pub that it has to get planning permission, the bank might pull the plug on it much more quickly, because there will be no guarantee that the bank will be able to get its money back—as it can at the moment—if it keeps lending the pub money. I wonder what the hon. Lady makes of the idea that the proposal could be inadvertently counterproductive for pubs that are struggling.
Dr Blackman-Woods
When we are considering the future of a pub, it is really important that the local community has a say in that. In the totality of the scheme, it is rarely the case that the cost of a planning application will make the whole scheme viable or unviable in the long term.
I want to speak briefly to new clause 10, which is designed to press the Minister when it comes to ensuring that planning departments are adequately resourced, not only to undertake their current work but to deal with any new burdens that the Minister places on them. I will leave it there, to allow the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) to come in on new clause 9.
Philip Davies
I do not intend to trouble the House for long, but I want to focus on new clause 9. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) is in his place, and I pay tribute to him for the work that he has done over many years to support pubs. Just to show that I do not want to ban things that I do not do myself, I remind the House that I do not drink. I am a teetotaller, but I still believe in pubs and their importance in the local community, and in people’s freedom to do as they please.
The hon. Gentleman has done a fantastic job of supporting the pub industry. As I made clear in my intervention, during the previous Parliament I voted on the side of pubs on the question of whether they should be tied. I felt that too many pubs were tied to unfair conditions that affected their viability, and I was pleased that the Government lost that vote. My instinct is to want to support the hon. Gentleman’s new clause 9, because I support pubs and the work that he does.
I will not blame the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods), who is very impressive, but I clearly did not explain myself very well when I raised my concern. It was not her lack of understanding; it was clearly the fault of my explanation. I apologise for putting her in the difficult position of trying to make sense of something that did not make any sense at all.
I would be very pleased to hear how the hon. Member for Leeds North West can address my concern about new clause 9. If a struggling pub needs support from the bank to keep it going and the bank knows that the site of the closed pub can easily be changed to an alternative use without going through a bureaucratic planning process that may end up with the plans being rejected, my fear is that the bank—it knows that if all goes wrong, it can get its money back by changing the pub’s use or building something else on the site—will pull the plug on the pub much earlier in the process, instead of investing more money in the pub to help it to keep going and to turn it around. The bank might think, “If this goes on, we’re not going to get our money back. If we can’t get planning permission on this land, we’ll be left with a debt we’re never going to be able to recover. We do not want to get ourselves into that mess in the first place, so we will pull the plug on the pub.”
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
I thank the hon. Gentleman, who is my constituency neighbour, for making that point—I also thank him for his support on pub issues in the past—but his concerns are entirely misplaced. I may not have the time to convince him of that today. The reality is that profitable pubs are being closed up and down the country, but that is nothing to do with the banks. No one is saying that, when a pub is not viable and no one wants to buy it to run it as a pub, it should not be given planning permission. However, because of these absurd loopholes at the moment, people are deliberately targeting profitable pubs because they will make a good supermarket. Surely as someone who believes in localism, he cannot support that.
Philip Davies
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good case, although as someone who worked for a supermarket chain for 13 years, I am not sure that was the best example he could have given to try to persuade me. I take on board his point, which is a good one.
I will not go on for much longer, because I want to listen to what other Members have to say. I am genuinely in a difficult position because I can see both sides of the argument. I will, however, reiterate my fear about a new clause that has the best of intentions. It aims to do what I think we would all want, which is to help the pubs sector to flourish. Pubs are important to our local communities, and I am all for them. In some instances—perhaps not in every instance, and perhaps not even in the majority of instances—new clause 9 may have the unintended consequence of leading to the closure of pubs much sooner and much more often than would otherwise be the case.
I will listen to the cases that other Members make. I will do a rare thing in this House: I will listen to the debate before deciding how to vote.
Greg Mulholland
I thank my colleagues on the save the pub all-party group, particularly the hon. Members for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), who are vice-chairs of it. I thank the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) for very kindly opening the debate for me. I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the House for not being present at that time, but I was wandering over to the Chamber expecting a vote and suddenly saw that the debate on new clause 9 had begun. I also thank the hon. Lady and her colleagues for their consistent support on this issue. Above all, I thank the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) for having the courage to add her name to the new clause. She will be toasted by many groups around the country.
I thank Protect Pubs for its excellent campaigning. It is now the leading organisation in the country for standing up for and protecting our pubs. I also thank the British Pub Confederation, which represents 14 pub sector organisations in the UK. I declare an interest as I am its chair.
Today we are campaigning on exactly the same issue that the hon. Lady’s colleague and great friend of pubs, the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie), set out in an amendment in February 2015 as vice-chair of the save the pub group. Too many pubs are still closing. The statistics go up and down slightly, but in excess of 20 pubs are closing a week.
The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) has missed the point. The new clause is not about stopping pubs that are not viable from being converted into other things. Pubs are being converted into other things all the time. Some pubs might be unviable, but a considerable number of them are viable and profitable. Unfortunately, they are closing because of permitted development rights. Surely it cannot be right that a wanted, profitable business can be closed without local people having any say.
I will not go into the detail, because I know there is limited time, but I think that people are aware of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, which allows people to turn pubs into shops, supermarkets and offices, or to demolish them, without planning permission. May I ask how long I have to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the debate has to finish in just over 20 minutes and that several other Members wish to speak. Of course, if the House does not wish to hear the Minister, that is up to the House. I would like to hear the Minister, but I cannot insist upon it.
Greg Mulholland
Of course we must hear from the Minister, but we need to hear the argument or people will not know what the new clause is about, as is clear from the comments made by the hon. Member for Shipley.
The new clause is about the simple principle that if someone wants to demolish a pub or to convert it into anything, the proposal should go through the planning process to allow residents to have their say on whether they oppose or support it. That is all we are talking about. This simple, common-sense change would mean that—as is the case, strangely, for theatres and launderettes—proposals for pubs would have to go through the planning process.
Let me quote a Conservative councillor. Councillor Michael Iszatt of Cheshunt North ward in Hertfordshire was quoted in The Guardian in 2014, talking about the closure of the Victoria. He said:
“It wasn’t a quiet pub”.
He clearly knew that it was not a failing pub, as did the planning authority, but it could do nothing. Councillor Iszatt said:
“Localism doesn’t apply here… Localism’s got to be a little village where the big supermarkets aren’t interested, because there aren’t thousands of people to buy things. We’re not allowed to have a community. But the reality is, we do.”
That profitable and wanted pub became a Morrisons. It was the victim of the sort of predatory purchasing that we see all the time.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I was mistaken and have misled him. There are only 11 minutes left in the debate.
Greg Mulholland
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will speak for no more than a minute to conclude, because otherwise people will not have heard any of the arguments for the new clause.
The Victoria was a profitable, wanted pub. It was closed in 2014 and turned into a Morrisons. And guess what? Because people did not want that and did not have the chance to comment, the Morrisons has closed. Permitted development rights have doubly failed that community, because a profitable business was closed and a supermarket that was not wanted has also closed, meaning that the building is empty.
I know that the Government will not listen and make a concession; frankly, they have not had the chance to hear the arguments properly. However, I urge Ministers to sit down with me and the save the pub group, with the hon. Member for Eddisbury and with Councillor Michael Iszatt to discuss how the Government can address the problem. While communities up and down the country—and councillors, including Conservative ones—are in uproar about the situation, it cannot continue.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
I rise as a member of the Campaign for Real Ale and one of the vice-chairmen of the all-party group on beer and brewing.
Given what we hear about the number of pubs closing each week, a proposal such as new clause 9 has a superficial attraction. After all, pubs are at the heart of our communities not only as a place for people to come together, with all the social and health benefits that that brings, but increasingly as community hubs, as more and more services are operating out of licensed premises.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mike Wood
I am afraid that I must continue.
Unfortunately, the new clause smacks a little of, “Something needs to be done. This is something, so it must be done.” What we really need is thriving pubs, but the new clause would do little to support them. Removing permitted development rights for change of use would put many more pubs at risk because those rights are a genuine asset that pubs can borrow against. They have a real value and mean not only that pubs can invest in development, but that they have a little more leeway when times are tough, knowing that should they fail they will still have value because a change of use is available under permitted development. Although the mind is drawn more immediately to the 21 pubs a week that close than to the many more that are just about managing to stay open, the latter would be hit the hardest by the removal of permitted development rights.
We have heard a number of examples of successful pubs being converted into supermarkets, and addressing that is the purpose of the new clause. However, where there are successful pubs at the heart of our communities, they can already be added to the register of assets of community value so that permitted development rights are suspended, or councils can use article 4 directions to suspend those rights. The new clause is therefore not necessary, which is why I shall vote against it this evening.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I can be brief: I hope the Minister will resist amendment 14 entirely; clause 12 is an excellent clause.
Gavin Barwell
I start by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) on one of the finest speeches I have heard in this Chamber.
First, I will briefly address Government amendment 20. This minor technical amendment clarifies the fact that the Secretary of State is able to require only certain kinds of application or notification to be placed on a planning register.
In the short time available, I will do as much justice as I can to the new clauses and amendments that have been spoken to. On new clause 9, I start by saying to the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) that I would be very happy to sit down with him and other colleagues who feel strongly about the issue. I do not think that we have had the time tonight to air the issues involved properly, but I will briefly say two things to him so that he at least knows where I start from.
First, the hon. Gentleman will know that the current Government, and the coalition Government whom he supported, have done a lot to try to help our pub industry. There is the community pub business support programme, which is providing more than £3.5 million of funding for people to buy their local pub. There is the community right to bid, and people can list their local as an asset of community value, with more than 1,280 pubs listed to date. There has been the scrapping of the beer duty escalator—appropriately, my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) is in his place as the Whip on the Government Front Bench. Beer duty was frozen in the 2016 Budget, having been reduced in each of the three preceding Budgets.
The Government’s starting point on the detail of the new clause—I am happy to discuss it with the hon. Gentleman—is that, from 6 April 2015, permitted development rights for the change of use or demolition of a pub were removed for those pubs that a community has demonstrated it values by nominating them as assets of community value. It is not only the Government who believe that that strikes the right balance. A briefing note from the British Beer and Pub Association makes the point that removing permitted development would not only stop the conversion of pubs to supermarkets and whatever else we would want to stop, but might prevent pubs from doing improvement works to their premises, which we clearly would not want.
Greg Mulholland
Surely the Minister knows what the so-called British Beer and Pub Association is—it is the representative body for the large property companies called pubcos, which are selling off pubs. Of course it wants its members to be able to continue this appalling asset-stripping and to continue doing deals with supermarkets.
Gavin Barwell
I am well aware of what the BBPA is, but I tend to take the approach that, when I see briefings, I look at the points they make. If they make a sensible point, they are worth looking at. The BBPA makes a serious point. As I have said, I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss those issues further.
We discussed viability assessments, which are the subject of new clause 11, in Committee. There is existing legislation in the form of the Freedom of Information Act and environmental information regulations. The Government release information, and local authorities are free to make viability assessments publicly available.
In the time available, I shall make one simple point. The hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) said that she wants a uniform approach across the country. I am interested in seeing councils trial different approaches to see what works most effectively. The Mayor of London is not a Conservative politician, but I was interested to see the policy that he announced recently. That policy is a different way of tackling the problem—a tariff is set, and if developers meet the requirements, they do not need to go through a viability assessment.
Dr Blackman-Woods
The point I was making was that people should have access to viability assessments no matter where they live.
Gavin Barwell
The hon. Lady is entitled to hold that view, but I take a slightly more localist one. Local authorities should decide whether they want to publish that information. Commercial confidentiality makes that difficult in some cases. To a degree, her proposal recognises that, because it would not mean access in every single case. However, I am not persuaded of the need to legislate.
In the two or three minutes available, I want to address planning conditions, which my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset mentioned in his excellent brief speech. It is not the Government’s approach to blame the planning system or anybody else for the housing problems the country faces. For 30 or 40 years, we have not built enough homes, and a range of people are responsible for that. Governments of different political colours have not done enough on infrastructure funding. There are problems in our planning system, but that is not a personal attack on planners. We need to reform that system to make it easier to release land and to speed up the process of building homes. We need to change the local house building politics in our communities. To a degree, that is what neighbourhood planning is all about. We need to diversify the market so that a far bigger range of people build our homes.
The Prime Minister has given me a very clear brief, however. We should look at anything that makes it more difficult to build the homes that we desperately need in this country. There is very clear evidence about this, and that is not just from developers—hon. Members might say, “Developers would say that wouldn’t they”—but from the District Councils Network. In its evidence, it acknowledges that an overuse of planning conditions means that it takes longer to move from the point at which we get planning approval for housing to the point at which spades go into the ground.
In the year to June 2016, the planning reforms that the coalition Government and this Conservative Government have enacted led to the granting of a record number of planning applications for housing in this country—for 277,000 homes. Rather than being complacent about that, I take the opposite attitude. People cannot live in a planning application. It is all very well reforming the planning system and getting consent for more homes, but we need to turn those planning consents into built homes around the country. That involves looking at a range of issues, one of which, as the hon. Member for City of Durham rightly said, is the resourcing of planning departments, and their ability to deal with this work and to conclude section 106 agreements quickly. We will do something about that. Another problem is the performance of our utility companies in some parts of the country, and we will do something about that. Another is the performance sometimes of our major developers, which are too slow to build out, and we will address that.
There is clear and compelling evidence, however, that one of the factors that leads to this problem is the overuse of planning conditions and, in particular, the use of pre-commencement conditions—when a local authority essentially says, “Before you can even get a spade in the ground, here is a long list of things that need to be done.” In some cases, such conditions are justified, such as for archaeological works, when things need to be done before building starts, but there is plenty of evidence, as presented to the Public Bill Committee, that such conditions are being misused in many cases, and the Government are determined to put a stop to it. We are determined to get the homes that we desperately need in this country built, and the Bill is a first step in that process.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I will now suspend the House for no more than five minutes in order to make a decision about certification. The Division bells will be rung two minutes before the House resumes. Following my certification, the Government will table the appropriate consent motions, copies of which will be available shortly in the Vote Office and will be distributed by Doorkeepers.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I can now inform the House of my decision about certification. For the purposes of Standing Order No. 83L(2), I have certified clauses 14 to 30 and 33 to 35 of the Neighbourhood Planning Bill, including the amendment made on Report and new clause 6 added on Report, as relating exclusively to England and Wales and within devolved legislative competence. Under paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 83L, I have also certified clauses 1 to 13 and 31 and 32 of, and schedules 1 to 3 to, the Bill, including the amendments made on Report, as relating exclusively to England and within devolved legislative competence. Copies of my certificate are available in the Vote Office.
Under Standing Order No. 83M, consent motions are therefore required for the Bill to proceed. Does the Minister intend to move the consent motions?
Gavin Barwell
indicated assent.
The House forthwith resolved itself into the Legislative Grand Committee (England and Wales) (Standing Order No. 83M(4)).
[Mrs Eleanor Laing in the Chair]
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I remind hon. Members that if there are Divisions, only Members representing constituencies in England and Wales may vote on the consent motion for England and Wales, and only Members representing constituencies in England may vote on the consent motion for England.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83M(5)),
That the Committee consents to the following certified clauses of the Neighbourhood Planning Bill:
Clauses certified under Standing Order No. 83L(2) as relating exclusively to England and Wales and being within devolved legislative competence
Clauses 14 to 30 and 33 to 35 of the Neighbourhood Planning Bill, including the amendment made on Report, and new clause 6 added on Report.—(Gavin Barwell).
Question agreed to.
The House forthwith resolved itself into the Legislative Grand Committee (England) (Standing Order No. 83M(4)(d)).
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83M(4)(d)),
That the Committee consents to the following certified clauses and schedules of the Neighbourhood Planning Bill:
Clauses and schedules certified under Standing Order No. 83L(2) as relating exclusively to England and being within devolved legislative competence
Clauses 1 to 13 and 31 and 32 of, and Schedules 1 to 3 to, the Bill (Bill 83), including the Amendments made on Report.—(Gavin Barwell.)
Question agreed to.
The occupant of the Chair left the Chair to report the decisions of the Committees (Standing Order No. 83M(6)).
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair; decisions reported.
Third Reading
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Sajid Javid)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
A lot of people across Westminster, Whitehall and the country have worked very hard to get the Neighbourhood Planning Bill this far, so I would like to start by thanking all hon. Members on both sides of the House for their contributions, for their attention to detail and for sharing the views and concerns of their constituents. Over the past few months, we have seen parliamentary scrutiny at its best, and as a result we have a better Bill. Special thanks should go to members of the Public Bill Committee—in particular, its two chairmen, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone).
I am extremely grateful to everyone who took the time to contribute to public consultations or who provided written or oral evidence to the Public Bill Committee. We would not have a Bill at all if it were not for the expert skill and the guidance of the Clerks of the House, and the excellent work done by the officials in my Department. Particular thanks should go to the Bill team and my extremely dedicated private office. Finally, I cannot praise highly enough the work of my hon. Friend the Housing and Planning Minister. He should be very proud of his excellent work.
Everyone involved has worked so hard because we all want to see the housing market working for everyone, not just the privileged few. We will not have that without a much greater supply of homes in the right places, and we will not have that greater supply without a planning system that supports faster, more efficient construction.
Over the past six and a half years we have laid the groundwork for that. Our reforms have seen planning policy radically streamlined, and local people have been given much greater ability to determine the scale, nature and location of developments in their area. As a result, we have seen planning permissions go up, building starts go up and new home completions go up, with almost 900,000 new homes delivered in England since 2010.
This Bill furthers that progress. The Neighbourhood Planning Bill contains measures that will help us identify more land that is suitable for development, while continuing to protect the areas that we value most, including, of course, the green belt. It further strengthens neighbourhood planning and ensures communities have a stronger say in developments that affect them. It also supports the local plan process so that all communities in England can benefit from having one.
The Bill reforms the use of pre-commencement planning conditions so that they are proportionate and effective and do not act as an unnecessary barrier to construction. It improves transparency, making it easier to understand the number of homes being created under permitted development rights. Finally, while compulsory purchase is always used as a last resort, the Bill will make the process clearer, faster and, above all, fairer for all parties.
The Government want a better housing market. All parties, including the Labour party, want a better housing market, and the public demand a better housing market. They want a planning system that is seen as fair and effective and that gives them greater control over the decisions that affect their lives. That is exactly what the Neighbourhood Planning Bill will deliver. It is not a magic bullet or a one-stop solution for the housing shortage our country faces, but it is an important step in the right direction. It makes our planning system faster and fairer, and it will help us build more homes. I commend the Bill to the House.
Teresa Pearce (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
At this relatively late hour, I do not wish to delay the House for long.
Our position on Third Reading reflects much of what has been said about the Bill on Second Reading and in Committee. We believe that there are wasted opportunities to get legislation in place that would see an uplift not only in the number of houses that we build but the quality of those homes and the services and infrastructure that are necessary for communities to work well. I am particularly disappointed with the lack of measures to strongly promote new settlements via garden villages, cities or new towns.
Labour Members welcome the measures in the Bill to further strengthen neighbourhood planning and the inclusion of changes to local plan making to enable planning to take place across more than one local authority where this is necessary. We also welcome the changes to CPOs as far as they go, but the Minister will know that we believe that a full-scale review of CPO legislation is overdue. We were pleased to hear his remarks regarding this, and look forward to debating proposals on it in future.
Other measures, we feel, could actually slow down development. I think the Secretary of State is wrong to weaken regulation of pre-commencement planning conditions, as that takes away important protections from the community—the very conditions that might make a development work for local people—with no obvious benefits or speeding up of the process. All it is likely to deliver is poorer-quality development, the very last thing we all need. Local dissent could lead to further delay in the planning process. We believe that there is also a missed opportunity to reverse the Government’s permitted development policies, which prevent proper planning on our high streets and produce poor-quality housing, often at the expense of much-needed office accommodation. I very much hope that the other place will take a close look at the pre-commencement conditions and permitted development clauses and ask the Government to reconsider.
Mostly, I am disappointed that our amendment on making information on the viability on sites more publicly available was not accepted. The Government should be aspiring to make our planning system more transparent. The Secretary of State knows that the amendment would help to deliver more affordable housing and supportive infrastructure, and where that is not the case we would have a better understanding of the reasons for non-delivery.
The Minister has said many times during the passage of this Bill that we will have to wait for the housing White Paper for new policies to address the housing crisis. According to what has been said, the White Paper will cover these areas: objectively assessed need, how it is calculated, and its implications for strategic housing market areas and strategic housing land availability assessments; changes to community infrastructure levy appraisals; amendments to the NPPF; measures to support small and medium-sized enterprises; policies to support home ownership; innovative housing design; permitted development changes; measures to free up land; resourcing of planning departments; right to be heard; and urban regeneration—plus a few other issues that he mentioned earlier. That looks like quite a White Paper. However, despite the number of things already in it, I hope it will deliver more on infrastructure too, because that is absolutely needed to underpin more housing output. It was taken out of the Bill, which is a pity, and the Government must now say what they are going to do to rectify the deepening lack of appropriate infrastructure. We are going to press the Government on this in the coming months because we definitely want more homes to be built, but we also want these homes to be part of thriving communities delivering the jobs, environment and services people want—in short, places where people want to live and can thrive.
I warmly thank all my hon. Friends for their hard work on this Bill, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods), and thank members of the Committee and those who have contributed in this place. I wish those in the other place well in their scrutiny of this Bill and look forward to its returning here.
John Redwood
I wish Ministers well with their Bill. One of its central purposes is one I strongly support—the idea that we need to build more homes. It has been a tragedy that in this century there has been a big reduction in the proportion of people in our country who can afford to own their own home and feel that they can get access to home ownership—something that previous generations thought was more normal and easier to achieve. One of things we must do is build more. Like the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce), I look forward to the housing White Paper, because many of the things that we need to do have nothing to do with legislation but are about money, permissions, and using what law we already have to ensure that our industry can serve the needs of all the people.
I also support the Bill’s second big aim, which has to be balanced against the priority of creating many more affordable homes for sale and, where needed, for rent— namely the priority that local communities must be part of the process. We are asking local communities to go to a great deal of effort, to work on the local plan as a principal planning authority and to work on neighbourhood plans village by village. They will do so willingly only if they feel their work will be taken seriously.
I represent parts of two local authority areas, West Berkshire and Wokingham Borough. Both have had a very good record over the past few decades on making sure that a lot of new housing is built in the area to help with the national need. In particular, at the moment Wokingham has four very large sites, with between 2,500 and 3,500 new homes on each, as its contribution to the national effort. Wokingham wants to make sure that the Minister’s fine words earlier will be taken into account and be part of the system—that when the local community has done the decent thing and made sure there is plenty of land available for building, an inspector does not come along and say that more homes will be built somewhere else, because some developer is gaming the system. I was very reassured that the Minister is well aware of that problem.
Where local authorities co-operate, and local communities are prepared to take responsibility and make those judgments, Ministers, their officials and the inspectors must understand that those authorities and communities should be taken seriously and, in most cases, their views should be upheld. I hope that as the Bill progresses Ministers will take on board the fact that there is huge support on the Government Benches for more homes and for local planning, but that we sometimes think inspectors still do not get it and developers are very clever, meaning that we end up with homes in places where we do not want them, which gives the whole policy a bad name.
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
I hope the Front-Bench team will forgive me, but I could not pass up the opportunity to speak on Third Reading. The Bill really matters to me and my constituents. Local development and the lack of local and neighbourhood plans have a real impact on people’s daily lives. I am very grateful that the Secretary of State and the Minister have taken that on board—I can attest to that from the amount of letters we have exchanged and conversations we have had.
One reason I came to this House is that I strongly believe in localism. I absolutely believe in new and appropriate housing, but I do not believe in planning permissions that do not come forward or come forward in the wrong places, flying in the face of local communities. It is therefore an enormous pleasure to speak on Third Reading of a Bill about something that dominates my mailbag every single day of the week.
As a councillor, I have been involved in the planning system in one form or another for many years, helping to develop a local plan and being part of one that moved forward to a neighbourhood plan. I heard earlier about developers gaming the system. My concern is about councils gaming the system and playing with their residents, believing that homes are being forced upon them by central Government or being indolent and not taking forward the powers that they have.
As a parish councillor and district councillor I know that planning is the bread and butter of local government. I was very proud to play a part in the early days of the neighbourhood plan in Haywards Heath. I note with delight that 230 neighbourhood plans are now in force, with many more in preparation. In my role as a councillor I have seen a plan go to a referendum. That is very exciting. I am no longer involved in that specific community, but I know that the plan matters and has taken a number of hours and a lot of hard work to prepare. It saw a community come together—at the start of a planning process people very often do not want houses, and come to the plan from the position that they can somehow plan for the area’s future without thinking about how the housing and communities work. I therefore believe that neighbourhood plans are a strong endorsement of an area’s future, and I believe in the referendum process. I believe in the duty of councils and parishes to co-operate. The problem in my constituency is that the local council is not making a local plan, because it is not co-operating with the parishes. There are no policies for neighbourhood plans to hang on.
As we have heard, the strongest protection that an area can have is a good, locally adopted local plan alongside neighbourhood plans. As I have tried to explain to my constituents, it is like a jigsaw puzzle. In Eastleigh, it seems to be an impossible one, and my constituents find it daunting and frustrating. I thank members of Botley Parish Council, who have shown great interest in advancing a neighbourhood plan in their community. That gives councillors and the community the opportunity to feed into a strategic vision for the area, endorsing opportunities to create new housing sites and considering new local priorities. Housing and planning are not things that should be done to people, and this Bill and the Localism Act 2011 are important in ensuring that that does not happen.
My constituency suffers from a dire planning situation, where the local council is letting down residents by not producing a timely local plan that protects the community. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for all the work that he has done with me to make my local council get its act together, so that everybody can come forward and be part of the neighbourhood planning process. Work on the local plan is slow and arduous, and large areas of ancient woodland are under threat as a result of it. We must form a strong, united front against bad planning from the council, bringing together Ministers and the local MPs—I see my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) in his place.
At the moment, the situation is like the wild west; it is a free-for-all for developers. Neighbourhood plans are important because they give communities a real say in the planning process. The plans give us a chance to see whether there are any cosy relationships with developers—to see whether people are linked to local developers of choice—and whether particular developments are right for our communities.
Communities strongly support the principle of neighbourhood planning. Since 2013 each of the 200 plans that has gone to a referendum has been approved; 340,000 votes were cast, 89% of which were in favour of the plans. We need to make sure that neighbourhood plans go from strength to strength, because of the large amount of time that communities and councillors invest in their production. We also need to pressure local authorities into working with parishes. As I have said, it is not possible to produce a neighbourhood plan if there are no local policies to hang it on. In Botley and Boorley Green, there are no clear policies to work with.
National planning policy makes it clear that if a planning application conflicts with a neighbourhood plan that has been brought into force, permission should not be granted. It is absolutely right that communities have that certainty. In Velmore community centre, in Chandlers Ford, I was delighted to have conversations about older people’s accommodation and appropriate housing for our disabled people. People spoke to me about what matters to them in local planning, which is that they should have somewhere to move to within the community.
I am a strong advocate of neighbourhood planning, and I would like the Planning Inspectorate to show a more consistent approach to neighbourhood plans. I am delighted to hear from the Secretary of State that that is what he is looking for. We continually hear in this Chamber about examples of conflicting judgments. The policy is right, and it is powerful, and I hope that at planning inspectorate level, neighbourhood plans will be given enough weight.
Botley and Boorley Green parishes are producing their neighbourhood plan, but sadly they are doing so without enough local support. There has been a slapdash, cowboy approach to local housing, and it is right that communities have the opportunity to take planning into their own hands. The situation should not be like this, and we should use the Bill to create a better dialogue and a better relationship.
It will be very interesting to see how the Bill helps local communities to focus their local authority on producing a local plan by the end of 2017. There is a danger that indolent councils will just rely on the Government to enforce the rules and will fly in the face of localism. That is why so many residents feel that they may be excluded from the process, and do not now intend to take part in the neighbourhood planning process. I believe in this Bill, which as the Secretary of State said, aims to support green spaces, to make housing and planning less adversarial, and to ensure some consistency in developing local areas.
One of the strongest parts of neighbourhood plans is their agility. They give communities an opportunity to look at brownfield sites first. They offer a variety of features, such as local jobs and housing numbers. They also provide a chance to be protective and sensitive in planning. For example, the area of Stoke Park woods in my constituency is threatened by local plan options B and C, but I believe that when an entire community is opposed to vandalism in the local environment, the neighbourhood planning process gives residents in the community the chance to voice their opinions and shine a light on sites that are not truly viable.
I want neighbourhood plans to be extended and enhanced and to grow in number. They give our communities power and they give us a chance to look at the future of an area. However, we need the planning process at both local and Government level to be seen to be fair and reasonable. The Bill continues to build on the Government’s outstanding legacy in giving communities a voice, and I wish it well on its way.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Neighbourhood Planning Bill
Wednesday 14th December 2016
(8 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberNeighbourhood Planning Act 2017 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 13 December 2016 - (13 Dec 2016)
Neighbourhood Planning Bill
Tuesday 17th January 2017
(8 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberNeighbourhood Planning Act 2017 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 13 December 2016 - (13 Dec 2016)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to be opening this important debate on the Second Reading of the Neighbourhood Planning Bill. Few of us here would disagree that our country is suffering from a serious shortage of housing. It is not a new problem, nor an unexpected one. We have not built enough homes in this country for a very long time. Between 1969 and 1989, more than 4.5 million homes were built in England; between 1992 and 2012 it was fewer than 3 million.
Every year that we build fewer homes than we need, the challenge becomes greater and the burden that we place on our children and grandchildren grows larger. Some 50% of today’s 45 year-olds were home owners by the time they were 30, but for those born 10 years later the figure is just 35%. Only 26% of those who are 25 today are projected to be home owners in five years’ time. Millions of young people are living with their parents until well into their 30s or struggling to save for a deposit while they rent. Too many cannot afford a roof over their head at all.
This is not just an economic headache but a profound social failure: a country divided between the haves and have-nots, where younger generations are denied the aspirations and standard of living that many of us took for granted. There is no single or simple solution to this complex and long-standing problem. However, one thing is clear: we must build more homes in the right places. This will require a planning system that is efficient and effective, and that helps communities plan for the homes they need. This Bill is a small but important step to help achieve this.
The good news is that we are not starting from scratch. Over the past six and a half years we have laid some foundations for a better planning system: local people have been given a much greater say over new development in their area; planning policy has been radically streamlined; and the planning system is faster and more efficient. The results are obvious. The planning system granted planning permission for 277,000 new homes in the period from 1 October 2015 to 30 September 2016—9% more than in the previous year—and 900,000 new homes have been delivered in England since 2010, with housing starts now at their highest level since 2008.
The Government are prioritising huge investment for housing, with a further £5.3 billion set aside in the Autumn Statement, bringing our total planned spend to more than £25 billion during this Parliament, and we will shortly publish a housing White Paper, which will set out radical plans to boost housing supply in the coming years. I will certainly ensure that there is a briefing for Peers as soon as the White Paper is published. Both the Secretary of State and the Minister of State have indicated an intention to come along to that briefing to help explain some of the intentions.
Perhaps I may give an overview of the Bill. It is part of the plan to deliver more housing and it has two key aims. First, it aims to help identify and free up more land to build homes on, and to give communities as much certainty as possible about where and when development will take place. Secondly, it aims to speed up the delivery of new homes—in particular by reducing the time it takes from planning permission being granted to building work happening on site and, most importantly, new homes being delivered. The Bill also provides a focused set of measures relating to planning and compulsory purchase. These measures will support the Government’s ambitions to boost housing supply while protecting those areas that we value most, including the green belt.
The Bill has two main parts. Part 1 relates to planning and includes measures on neighbourhood planning, local development documents, planning conditions and the planning register. The second part relates to compulsory purchase. The provisions have been subject to rigorous and constructive debate in the other place, and I would like to take a moment to thank my right honourable friend Sajid Javid, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my honourable friend the Housing and Planning Minister, Gavin Barwell, and Members in the other place, who fulfilled significant roles in shaping and scrutinising the Bill during its consideration there.
The Minister for Housing and Planning in the other place committed to look in more detail at various issues raised on Report in the Commons, such as matters relating to neighbourhood planning and planning for the housing needs of the elderly and people with disabilities. I will keep the House updated on progress on those matters, but the intention is to bring forward a handful of targeted government amendments at the earliest opportunity during the Bill’s passage in the Lords.
I will speak briefly on the two parts of the Bill that I have outlined. I turn first to Part 1: neighbourhood planning. The first five clauses further strengthen neighbourhood planning and will ensure that communities have a stronger say in the planning of their area. The Localism Act 2011 laid the ground for neighbourhood planning—one of the Government’s great success stories. It has been instrumental in giving real power to local people to shape their area and play their part in delivering the housing and other development that they need. I know that many in the Chamber today can legitimately share in the successes of neighbourhood planning, having spent many tireless hours helping to improve that legislation when it passed through this place. This Bill will build further on that.
Since its inception, more than 2,000 communities have started the process of neighbourhood planning, in areas that include nearly 10 million people. Indeed, recently updated analysis suggests that neighbourhood plans in force that provide a housing number have on average planned for approximately 10% more homes than the number for that area set out by the relevant local planning authority. For example, the award-winning Newport Pagnell neighbourhood plan illustrates the vital contribution that neighbourhood plans make to housing supply. The judges at the 2016 planning and place-making awards highlighted,
“how proactive planning can secure community support for the significant increases in housebuilding that will be required across the country if housing need is ever to be met”.
That plan allocates 1,400 new homes to the area between 2010 and 2026—three times the number that were required by Milton Keynes Council’s Core Strategy, which was adopted in 2013. Furthermore, it was backed by 83% of local voters in a referendum held on 5 May 2016. That is good news indeed.
The Bill will ensure that planning decision-makers take account of well-advanced neighbourhood plans. In practice, this means that where a neighbourhood plan has been drafted by a parish council or neighbourhood forum, independently examined and found to have met the relevant conditions, local planning authorities and other decision-makers must have regard to policies in the plan where this is material to a development proposal. The Bill will also bring forward the stage at which a neighbourhood plan has full legal effect. Following a successful referendum, the plan will become part of the statutory development plan for the area immediately, along with any adopted local plan. The measures on neighbourhood planning will also introduce a streamlined procedure for modifying neighbourhood plans as local circumstances change, and facilitate the modification of neighbourhood areas where a plan is already in force for that area.
The proposals will also encourage more communities to consider neighbourhood planning by requiring local planning authorities to make their duty to support neighbourhood planning groups more transparent. This will be achieved through the inclusion of local planning authorities’ policies on giving advice and assistance to neighbourhood planning groups in their statements of community involvement. These provisions, alongside policy changes, will make the neighbourhood planning process fit for the future. Moreover, they will make it even more accessible to everybody.
Also in the first part of the Bill are provisions on local development documents, to which I now turn. Every community deserves to have an up-to-date plan in place. These are the instruments through which local planning authorities can set out a vision and framework for the future development of an area and engage with communities in the process. They are important documents as, once adopted, they become part of the statutory development plan for an area. The development plan is the starting point for determining planning applications in an area. Indeed, producing local plans should be a shared endeavour, led by the local planning authority but in collaboration with local communities, developers, landowners and other interested parties.
Currently, 89% of local planning authorities have published a local plan and 74% have an adopted local plan. But this is not enough. More than a decade since the existing system was introduced, over a quarter of local planning authorities still do not have an adopted local plan. The measures in the Bill relating to local development documents seek to strengthen the plan-led system by ensuring that all local planning authorities in England identify the strategic priorities for the development and use of land in their area and have policies to address these in an up-to-date plan. The Bill also supplements the powers already available to the Secretary of State to intervene in a plan, for use as a last resort where local planning authorities have failed to prepare a plan that they have committed to prepare or revise.
Also in Part 1 are provisions relating to planning conditions. If we are going to expedite the delivery of new homes, it is crucial that work starts on site as soon as possible once permission has been granted for a development. As many of us well know, I am sure, a cause of delay during the interim period between the granting of planning permission and the start of work is the use, or rather the misuse, of pre-commencement planning conditions. Such conditions prevent any development taking place until detailed aspects of the development have been approved and the condition has been fully discharged by the applicant. Issues such as the full details of utility boxes, lighting and roof tiles, for example, are all important matters, but ones which can be discharged at a later stage of a development. The Bill will therefore ensure that pre-commencement planning conditions are used by local planning authorities only where they have the written agreement of the applicant.
The Government’s recent response to consultation on the Bill’s provisions regarding conditions, published just a month ago in December of last year, supports our proposals. By building on existing good practice, the Bill will ensure that mutual agreement to certain conditions before a planning decision is made should become a routine part of discussions between the applicant and the local planning authority. I make clear that, of course, conditions fulfil a significant role in planning and the clause relating to this will not restrict the ability of local planning authorities to impose necessary conditions to achieve sustainable development.
The second element of Clause 12 is a power to allow the Secretary of State to prescribe the circumstances under which certain conditions may be imposed, and the descriptions of such conditions, to ensure that they are in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework. Oral evidence given during the Commons Committee stage, and a multitude of case studies submitted as part of a recent Home Builders Federation report, provide evidence of conditions being imposed which either fail to meet the policy tests in the National Planning Policy Framework or are unnecessarily restrictive. I intend to write to noble Lords participating in this debate with evidence of that so that they will be well appraised of how that has been operating.
Also in Part 1 of the Bill are provisions relating to the planning register. Clause 13 is a small change relating to the use of the planning register and, more specifically, the monitoring of the use of permitted development rights. Permitted development rights are a national grant of planning permission which allow certain types of development to proceed without first making a full planning application, helping to speed up the planning system and release more land for residential use. In some cases—for example, for change of use from office to residential—prior approval of the local planning authority is required by the applicant before the proposed development can commence. This would allow local consideration of certain specific matters, such as the impact of the development on transport and flooding risks or the external appearance of the proposed development.
The permitted development right allowing change of use to residential is playing an important part in supporting the delivery of additional homes. At present, data provided by local authorities indicate that almost 12,400 applications for change to residential use have received prior approval since 2014. However, we do not currently have data on how many new homes these applications may deliver. The Bill, therefore, will provide the Secretary of State with powers to enable information relating to permitted development rights applications for prior approval, such as proposed housing numbers, to be placed on the planning register to provide us with that additional information.
This measure will not require local authorities to undertake additional or burdensome tasks. It is intended simply to increase transparency by making information about prior approval applications and notifications available to the public. This information has already been given but is not on the register. Doing so will create parity between these types of applications and those for planning conditions, enforcement notices and so on, all of which already appear on the public register.
Part 2 of the Bill deals with compulsory purchase. The effective regeneration of areas, and therefore the delivery of large amounts of housing and accompanying infrastructure, can often require the compulsory purchase of land in the public interest. Compulsory purchase is, however, used as a last resort where land cannot be obtained by agreement. Reforms to the compulsory purchase system are being undertaken in two stages: the stage 1 reforms are mostly in Part 7 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 and the stage 2 reforms will be delivered through this Bill. In particular, the measures on temporary possession of land will clarify the options and rights of owners and occupiers when faced with temporary possession. These provisions will protect them from extended periods of uncertainty as to the occupation of their land by defining the scope and operation of temporary possession powers. This means that acquiring authorities will need to set out for how long and for what purpose the land is needed and, in addition, they will have to provide a robust justification for their need for temporary possession, as is currently the case for compulsory purchase in general.
In addition, the compensation measures in the Bill will achieve a clearer way to identify market value of land by establishing the principle of the “no-scheme world” fairly and effectively in the valuation process. This has been widely welcomed. It introduces a clear definition of a scheme that should be disregarded in assessing compensation and a clear basis for assessing whether the scheme forms part of a larger underlying scheme that should also be disregarded. These reforms are needed in order to make the process clearer, fairer and faster for all—and, in turn, speed up the delivery of more homes.
I know that many noble Lords will speak on the Bill and have exhibited great interest in meeting the challenges we face as a country. I thank them for engaging in the process hitherto and I look forward to a debate among people who know and care a great deal about planning and related issues.
It is very clear that we have a nationwide shortage of housing that people can afford. Any delays in tackling this problem will simply make it worse. The Bill will build on the improvements we have made since 2010 to build more homes and give greater responsibility to local communities to decide what gets built and where. It will remove red tape that delays construction, provide better information about the planning system and ensure that we have a compulsory purchase system that is fit for the 21st century. The Government are determined to make progress and the Bill is a vital part of our strategy. I commend it to the House.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, I refer Members to my declaration of interests and state that I am an elected councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
In many respects, the Neighbourhood Planning Bill is to be welcomed. It contains a number of measures that we support, although there are areas that can be improved. We will seek to do that in Committee and on Report.
In my opening remarks I will refer to things not included in the Bill, one which I welcome and one which is of some concern. First, I am pleased that there is no mention of the privatisation of the Land Registry. That is to be welcomed. The proposal was not popular and it is good to see that it has been dropped. Will the noble Lord confirm that it is gone for good, or has it just been postponed? The second omission is that of putting the National Infrastructure Commission on a statutory footing. This is most regrettable. Will the noble Lord say why it is not in the Bill, despite being announced in the Queen’s Speech in May?
Another concern is that, as the noble Lord said, this is the sixth piece of planning legislation in six years. That is not a good way to deliver policy objectives. We need comprehensive, thought-through legislation, based on sound evidence, to address policy concerns with clear policy outcomes. We need matters brought to Parliament to address failures and to bring procedures up to date. That surely is the way the Government should be working, but instead we get piecemeal tinkering and chopping and changing every year. That is no way to develop public policy and put on the statute book legislation that will stand the test of time. It will be helpful if the noble Lord can explain why his department seeks to operate in such a manner.
Members on these Benches will support measures that seek to streamline delivery of much-needed new homes and further engage local people in the shaping of their communities. That is all to be welcomed. We are in the midst of a housing crisis and I welcome the signals from the Housing Minister Gavin Barwell that homes of all tenures are needed to deal with the crisis. But we are still waiting for the housing White Paper. To deal with the housing crisis we will have to build more council homes and housing association homes, and bring the co-operative sector much more into the equation to deal with the enormous challenge we face. The Government will fail if they think that hiding behind the unaffordable “affordable rent” policy banner will be the solution to this national housing crisis.
We want to free up more land for new housing and expedite the beginning of building once planning permission has been granted, but I have from the Dispatch Box repeatedly referred to the number of planning permissions that have been granted for new housing where nothing further has happened. I am not convinced that the Bill deals with all the issues that need to be addressed to get land where permission for housing has been granted.
As the noble Lord referred to, the Bill introduces measures in four key areas: neighbourhood planning; planning conditions; the planning register; and compulsory purchase orders. The neighbourhood planning proposals will allow neighbourhood plans to influence the planning process at an earlier stage and will help to streamline the making and revision of neighbourhood plans. These are positive measures in the neighbourhood planning process, further promoting the ability of local residents to participate. There are questions that need to be raised on this part of the Bill. We will certainly want to come back to neighbourhood right of appeal at the next stage. For example, we will need to be crystal clear on the value, the substance and the weight attributed to neighbourhood plans at every stage of their preparation. What weight will be given to a local neighbourhood plan in the determination of a planning application?
During consideration of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, concern was expressed about overstretched planning departments. The proposals here will create further work for them. What advice can the Minister give to local government on meeting these ever increasing demands with ever reducing budgets? Does he accept that there is a huge challenge here for local government? Local authorities have a statutory duty to support neighbourhood planning groups and provide a local plan. That could present problems for smaller district councils which have limited resources and capacity to respond to multiple pressures.
We will want to explore further the costs involved in the development of neighbourhood plans. At present, a council receives £5,000 where a neighbourhood plan area is designated and £20,000 for each neighbourhood plan referendum. The figures take no account of factors such as the number of electors, the size of the neighbourhood plan and general complexity. It is clear that in some cases the costs can exceed the money that a council receives and leave little scope for the authority to support communities in the development of their local plan. It cannot be right that poorer areas will have less scope to develop plans due to lack of support or knowledge gaps. I am aware that Planning Aid and the Royal Town Planning Institute do some pro bono work to help communities, but we cannot have a major government initiative that is dependent on handouts and pro bono work. This area of policy needs to be properly resourced. I hope that the Minister will set out how the Government will adequately resource local authorities to carry out these new functions.
We should also explore minimum turnout thresholds for referendums to approve neighbourhood plans. We certainly would not want a situation where a plan was approved but on a derisory turnout that called into question the validity of what had been approved by the referendum. Can the Minister comment also on the need for local neighbourhood plans to be consistent with and conform to the National Planning Policy Framework?
On pre-commencement planning conditions, there is concern about the Government’s proposals in this area of the Bill. It also highlights that the Government seem obsessed with issues that are not the reasons for more homes not being built. As I have said before, many thousands of planning applications are approved with little or no action taken. The issue that needs to be addressed is why some developers choose not to build houses on land they own and on which they have secured planning permission to build, but rather seem content just to sit on the land and watch the value rise while doing absolutely nothing. Can the Minister set out in much greater detail the evidence to suggest that development is delayed by pre-commencement planning conditions? London Councils has made the point that there is little robust evidence to suggest that the current planning conditions system has led to an undersupply of housing. It is not very sensible for the Government to seek to address issues which are generally accepted as not being a problem while failing to address issues that are. It does not lead to positive outcomes or the delivery of stated government policy.
I am a member of the planning committee at Lewisham Council and have never had a developer come and make a fuss or complaint about pre-commencement planning conditions. They actually speed things up by enabling planning permission to be secured without finalising the full details. London Councils has expressed concern that the measure will put considerable strain on the resources of local planning authorities. It proposes that a better solution would be to promote best practice in pre-application discussions between developers and local planning authorities. Again, these are questions on the process that we will need to come back to at further stages.
What would happen if, when an application was being considered by a planning committee—I accept that most applications are dealt with under delegated powers—a councillor, having heard representations, wished to propose a pre-commencement condition on the night of the committee? Will a councillor be able to do that, or will it have to be withdrawn? These matters are never as simple as they first seem.
Pre-commencement planning conditions are not a bad thing in themselves. They have an important role in securing sustainable development that is careful and considerate of local communities. Of course, conditions should be opposed only where consent would not be acceptable without them. What we cannot do is inadvertently encourage inappropriate development by lowering our standards of acceptable development or, when disagreements arise between applicants and the planning authority, discourage builders from developing. Perhaps the Minister can give us specific examples which illustrate why the measure is necessary, notwithstanding his very kind offer to write to noble Lords at a later date.
We have an existing framework for applicants to appeal specific conditions that they consider do not meet the national policy tests. How will the Minister ensure that the Bill does not have unintended negative consequences? Greater clarity is needed on appeal routes when agreements cannot be reached and on pre-completion and pre-occupation conditions.
One issue with the proposals is that they do nothing to build one extra house. It is not pre-commencement planning conditions that slow planning consent. As I said, we need to address land banking and look at issues such as skills shortages which hold up the housebuilding programme, and the lack of a comprehensive strategy from the Government. A survey by the British Property Federation identified underresourcing as the primary cause of delay to development. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that, along with the remarks of the House Builders Association, which represents small and medium-sized builders, which said that the Bill was,
“unlikely to meaningfully increase the supply of homes”.
The Bill also makes provision for permitted development to be recorded on the planning register. As I said, the resource for these extra commitments is a concern for local government. I hope the Minister will provide answers that will help financially stretched authorities deliver on these extra commitments.
The Bill also seeks to streamline compulsory purchase powers and includes temporary possession of land so that equipment and machinery can be stored in order for schemes to be delivered. But the Bill lacks detail in key areas and we are looking for these matters to be tightened up, including details on leasehold interests and changes to the provisions on compensation so that the Bill reflects current practice. As drafted, the Bill would create some ambiguity for schemes currently being implemented in relation to temporary possession powers and these ambiguities need to be resolved. The proposed changes to compulsory purchase orders would enable councils to capture the value from increased land prices to invest in the local infrastructure needed to complement and facilitate new housing schemes. In relation to compensation, there need to be amendments in order to achieve the stated intent of enabling the public sector to benefit to a greater extent from value uplift created by public projects.
The Bill includes welcome proposals for a more holistic approach to the use of compulsory purchase powers which facilitate regeneration, housing and transport enhancements. There are some gaps that need to be closed; for example, it currently excludes mayoral development corporations and does not cover all relevant Transport for London compulsory purchase powers, so these issues need to be addressed in your Lordships’ House.
I also give notice to the Minister that we shall be proposing an amendment in Committee to remove the permitted development rights for pubs in England and to place pubs in a class of their own. Permitted development rights allow the change of use of pubs to retail and temporary office use without planning permission, with communities denied a say over the loss of valuable community assets. We are presently seeing 21 pubs close a week. That is most regrettable, and we need to act to save our pubs. We also intend to move amendments in Committee in respect of the number of payday loan shops on the high street.
In conclusion, we welcome some of the proposals in the Bill, but there is much more that can be done. The Bill will not deliver social housing and the genuinely affordable homes that are desperately needed. It will not provide facilities on new housing developments that are required to build communities. It is unlikely to facilitate opportunities for struggling SME builders or tackle the growing skills crisis in the construction sector. But we will at all times engage constructively with the Minister and his team and seek to persuade them of the merits of our arguments. We will be looking for a constructive response, which is the way that the Minister always approaches these matters, and we are very grateful for that. Where we cannot reach agreement with the Government and we believe we have demonstrated the strength of our arguments but to no avail, we will divide the House as many times as necessary on Report.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I thank the Minister for his detailed exposition of the contents of the Bill. I draw attention to my interests as a councillor on Kirklees Council, as one of the vice-presidents of the Local Government Association and as a member of the board of Yorkshire Water. I applaud the purpose of the Bill, which is to enable more homes to be built. It sets out to remove some of the perceived barriers to housebuilding. However, I doubt whether the Bill will achieve that purpose, for the following reasons.
First, housing construction is dependent on land values and market conditions, which vary significantly across the country. In yesterday’s London Evening Standard the headline was, “Death of £300,000 London Home”. Yet in my own part of West Yorkshire, it is possible to buy four homes for that amount. The problem is that successive Governments have failed to develop long-term effective regional policies, which are exactly what is needed to aid the housing market.
My second reason is that the Bill proposes to tinker with the strategic planning processes of developing a local plan. Government must resist the temptation to undermine indirectly that very local, consultative process.
My third concern about the Bill is that while its proposals to strengthen the status of neighbourhood plans are welcome, many urban areas do not have parish councils, which are a helpful pre-requisite to developing a neighbourhood plan. As the Minister said, only 10 million of our population are currently covered by a neighbourhood plan, which is equivalent to about 15%. The other, larger proportion of our population is not covered by a neighbourhood plan. The problem is that it is much more complex to define a neighbourhood in urban areas. Where there is no parish or town council, defining the boundaries of a neighbourhood within a very built-up area is complicated. That is probably one of the barriers to doing the plans. Can the Minister confirm that areas without neighbourhood plans, and with no possibility of developing them, will not be put at a significant disadvantage by the proposed changes?
Fourthly, and sadly, some significant barriers to housebuilding do not appear to be addressed by the Bill. In former heavy industrial areas, sites are still not being developed because of the contaminated ground. An upfront government grant is needed to enable developers to afford the remediation, which can be a large initial investment. A policy such as this would have the added benefit of protecting our precious green belt, which is, of course, far more attractive to developers.
Fifthly, the underresourcing of local government planning services has had the inevitable consequence of creating delays in planning decisions. Can the Minister comment on a suggestion from the Local Government Association that local planning authorities should be able to set their own fees? This would enable fees to be set to cover applications that generate abnormal workloads, such as those involving heritage sites or archaeological issues, and perhaps where there is problematic drainage. Fees could then also be set at a lower level to encourage development in regeneration areas.
The Government are rightly concerned about developing so-called affordable housing—which is less affordable in some areas than others. However, currently policy ambitions in a local authority for, say, 15% of a development can be thwarted by developer claims about financial viability. This has occurred on several occasions in planning decisions in my council. The obvious consequence is even fewer so-called affordable homes.
Finally, proposals in the Bill about greater flexibility of pre-commencement conditions must surely be challenged. Local residents can already feel that the planning regime is stacked against them, that developers lead the formation of a local plan—it starts with a call for sites—and that their voice is of little influence given the pressure from government to build more homes. The removal of these conditions, for example to improve the road infrastructure with road safety measures, will be viewed with increasing cynicism. Likewise, the proposal in the Bill for spatial planning to be carried out on a combined authority basis in urban areas should not delay local plans already submitted or agreed, otherwise even more delay will be built into the process. Part 2 relates to compulsory purchase orders. The proposal to enable temporary compulsory purchase orders appears to have much to recommend it.
In conclusion, elements of the Bill can be supported and welcomed, but it fails in its aim to increase the delivery of homes. If that is the purpose, the most effective way to speed up delivery and provide value for money is to permit local authorities to borrow to build on a significant scale. I look forward to working with the Minister to improve the Bill in order to meet the needs of local people in protecting their area, and to working on the detail, such as the pre-commencement issues that were raised earlier.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, first, I must declare an interest as a farmer and landowner. Everyone is agreed on the fact that we need more houses: the Government, opposition parties, local authorities, virtually every NGO in the country and, of course, anyone looking to get married or start a family. For decades we have not built enough homes in this country, and this has had devastating consequences for the new generation of homemakers, both renters and potential owners. The Secretary of State has a target of 220,000 new homes per year—that is, new homes built and not just given planning permission—but other forecasters have said the figure needs to be as high as 330,000 to cater for the number of households likely to be created between now and 2039. Last year, the figure for new houses built was only some 164,000. That was the highest for four years, so we have a good way to go. In the mid-1950s, we managed to build 350,000 homes per annum, but there were 32 new towns as part of that programme, which is why what I hope is our growing garden village programme will be so important.
However, I have noticed that, in spite of the general consensus about the urgent need for new homes, there is always a tendency within every group, in every locality and among even MPs in their debates to say, yes, but we must make an exception for this valley, this village, this reason et cetera. I hope we do not have an outbreak of “yes buts” among your Lordships, and I hope every amendment will be looked at in terms of whether it will reduce or increase the number of homes available to the young of today. That will be the all-important test.
We need to plan for more homes and ensure that they get built. Do we need an amendment which bars a housebuilder with permission for, say, 50 or more housing units in a planning authority area applying for more until he has the first site well under way? There is no doubt that something needs to be done to get the country actually building, but it does not all depend on the planning system. We also need to build to a high specification, particularly as regards heat retention, and with a whole variety of tenures, from freehold through shared equity to affordable lets.
A long time ago, when I was chair of the Countryside Agency travelling the country to promote more affordable housing, the biggest opposition always came from the town or village itself. So I came to the Bill with an inherent suspicion of neighbourhood plans, but it seems that such is the new recognition of the need for more homes—the Minister referred to this—that my suspicions are unjustified. The secret is the neighbourhood getting the right advice, and the plan conforming with the strategy of the local plan—if there is a local plan, that is, and I welcome the efforts of the Government to ensure we get 100% coverage by local plans. Then it seems that we get more homes delivered more quickly.
It is vital that a neighbourhood can get the right advice paid for from the start, and that that advice includes not only all the legal and planning advice but, importantly, a facilitator for the vision and place-making advice. At the Countryside Agency, we had a scheme whereby we tried to encourage market towns to become hubs for their surrounding countryside and to have a vision for what they could become if they worked to create an attractive community. It was marvellous watching the scales fall from the eyes of potential movers and shakers as they suddenly realised what could be done to turn impoverished backwaters into really attractive communities with a real sense of purpose—and when I say attractive communities, I mean communities that attracted people who wanted to live there, businesses that wanted to move there or start there, and money that wanted to spend there. I have seen towns transformed by the efforts of a few visionaries, and it is that sort of visionary facilitator that every village and every community needs. A neighbourhood needs to be inspired into thinking about its future and saying, “Maybe if we get some more houses we can get a shop, a pub and a health centre, create more jobs, hold an arts festival or a summer food festival or the like”, et cetera. That sort of advice and inspiration is just as important as the legal planning advice, if not more so.
However, neighbourhood plans and local plans all cost money, sometimes considerable amounts of money, and society needs to pay for them. We need well-funded planning departments but, as we know, local authority spending on planning has almost halved in recent years. Although some of the big housebuilders are happy to pay higher planning fees to get a faster service, this does not necessarily apply to the smaller landowners and developers, who already find it difficult to pay the tens and sometimes hundreds of thousands of pounds for all the reports and hoops they have to go through to get their planning permission. Meanwhile, developing local and neighbourhood plans does not bring in any fees, and if you live in a county of low development—such as Cumbria or Cornwall, to name but two—then you do not have many development fees to contribute towards your plan-making. We should bear in mind that the planning system is largely there for the benefit of society at large, to both protect it and to plan for its future, so it is only right that the taxpayer should largely pay for local and neighbourhood plans.
We need a government statement on the financing of local planning departments, so that they can afford to ensure that a potential developer knows he will have a constant expert to deal with who does not get moved on, who is not attracted into the private sector, who has actually read the many expensive reports the developer has had to produce and who can give the right advice to enable more houses to be built in the right place, and as soon as possible.
Moving on to another issue connected to well-resourced planning departments, I am convinced that Clause 12 on pre-commencement planning conditions is necessary only because the lack of resources prevents the department from sorting out all the terms of agreement prior to the permission being granted within the necessary timeframe. I have already mentioned the sometimes hundreds of thousands of pounds necessary to get planning permission on a complicated site, and I agree with the Government that to have new conditions applied after the decision has been made is not in the interests of either social or economic development. Nor does it pass the Cameron test—mine—of enabling more houses to be built sooner. So, provided that we also have well-resourced planning departments to make pre-commencement conditions largely unnecessary, I support Clause 12.
Part 2 is a good first attempt at tidying up the very complicated compulsory purchase regime, which has yet to catch up with our nation’s need for large and small project development that does not take an age to deliver. I firmly believe that the length of time involved in compulsory purchases, along with a whole host of unnecessary objections to schemes by anyone remotely affected, costs the Treasury and the nation far more money in delays than if it was to offer a premium for speedy acquiescence to the project involved. This area needs a really good examination, with examples taken from other countries: the USA, for instance, where 81% of land value compensation assessments are agreed immediately, or France, where an enhanced compensation scheme enables transport projects to be brought to fruition swiftly. We need a scheme where, if possible, the purchasing body is empowered to do a normal sale and contract deal with the owner before resorting to compulsory powers, with all the complications and delays that that involves. This deal would inevitably involve an overage clause or a premium for hope value if there was any prospect of development on the site over the subsequent 20 years or so. That would be quite normal in the private sector, and it must only be fair to have it where there is compulsion involved. As I say, Part 2 is a good start towards simplification and reform, but I am certain that we need a more in-depth review and a complete overhaul of our compulsory purchase regime if we are to achieve the speed of progress and development that we need in a post-Brexit UK.
I look forward to assisting with the progress of the Bill over the coming months.
Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests, particularly that I am chairman of the Local Government Association and leader of South Holland District Council; I do some small-scale private development; and, as I am going to talk about pubs, I use those as well at some point in the evenings, so I have a personal prejudicial interest there.
I largely welcome the Bill for two reasons: first, there are some good parts in it—compulsory purchase needs to be speeded up and neighbourhood planning needs to be strengthened—although there are issues around the inspectorate, which I will get around to later; and, secondly, it is not as dangerous as it could have been. It has been suitably amended before it got to us so that it is in much better condition than it was, and I hope that by the time it leaves us it will be in even better condition.
However, Members of this House ought to be under no illusion that we will speed up development with this Bill. It will not add to the totality of the numbers of properties built, nor will it speed up the total numbers of properties built. If we as a country really are serious about tackling the housing crisis—it has been 40 years in the making so all the main political parties have their fingerprints on it and no particular Government can take responsibility for it—it needs to be a Treasury Bill that fixes it, because most of the roots of all evil in planning stem from the Treasury’s policies. We need to free up local councils to be able to deliver the units that we need. Post-war, we have exceeded the 300,000-plus numbers only twice, and that was done only by the state getting involved. I am not suggesting that we go back to building big monolithic council estates, because we have seen the problems that that creates in terms of social cohesion, but there needs to be a greater role for councils and RSLs to free up the money that we already have. It would not involve the Treasury dipping its hands into anyone’s pocket; it would merely allow us to borrow against the asset that we already have. There are over 3 million social units being run by councils or RSLs that are not sweated up to their full value. Any business model would sweat those up to their full value, so if we are serious about building more homes then we need to let local government get into the space where it should be.
There are issues around planning fees, which noble Lords have already mentioned. At the moment the taxpayer is subsidising the planning system to the tune of about £150 million a year. We need to get councils to be able to increase the staff that they have by fully recovering the costs of planning permissions. At the moment that is not done. That is a relatively simple thing for the Treasury to enable us to do and, again, it would not cost us any money, or at least would not cost the taxpayer money.
On permitted development rights, yes, fine, okay, they speed up some planning permissions, but in some areas they have gone too far. There needs to be a clause somewhere in the Bill that allows us to revisit those areas that have lost the most office space through permitted development rights to see if the balance has gone too far.
While I will probably not actually go through the Division Lobby with noble Lords on the Benches opposite to support the need to make pubs more sustainable in terms of where they sit in their local communities, we need to find a way of protecting those pubs that are most valued when they are not necessarily as financially sustainable for the breweries as they could be if they were turned into residential units. There needs to be a way to resist that in the case of the larger breweries. I am not suggesting that an individual owner of a pub that has no customers should be compelled to keep it as a pub; clearly, if it was that useful to the community, people would have gone in it. There needs to be some sort of recognition of the scale of the owner of the pub if you are going to restrict the ability of the owners to do what they want.
As I say, I think the Bill is going to be really good because it will be less bad than it would have been, but it does not and will not address the needs that we have. There are 477,000 extant planning permissions in this country, and 277,000 were permitted last year. I am more generous than the Opposition and give the Government credit for 190,000 completions in the last year, but that is still nowhere near the total that is needed to be built. If we are really serious, this should be fed into the White Paper that is due soon—are we at “imminently” now? That is where we will have the biggest chance to have input into that. I am pleased that on this occasion the Government have done it as a White Paper so that there will be a chance for everyone to feed into it and perhaps move this political football beyond party politics. We can all have a strong input into the paper to make it the vehicle to fix the problem, but we should not be under any illusion that this Bill is the vehicle to do so.
Baroness Maddock (LD)
My Lords, like other noble Lords, I declare my interests in the register. I draw particular attention to the fact that I am also a vice-president of the Local Government Association, which will become apparent in my remarks today.
I realise that in November I will have been in this House for 20 years. In that time there have been many planning Bills, and all have been claimed by various Governments to herald a brave new world of a simpler, faster planning process. Clearly, though, they have not completely succeeded, which is why we are here today yet again with a planning Bill that makes similar claims. The Royal Town Planning Institute has commented on the number of Bills that we have, saying that,
“constant change—even if desirable—creates its own costs and uncertainty. In particular it makes it difficult for non-experts to engage with planning”.
Neighbourhood plans have already been mentioned today. They are a particularly concerning aspect because it is very challenging for small communities to produce neighbourhood plans and to understand the planning system.
What research has been done before bringing forward yet more changes to the planning system? The Minister alluded to some of this in his opening comments. How much work has been done on how it will affect the very different types of council and community throughout England? I wonder whether civil servants drawing up Bills such as this have the opportunity to visit a cross-section of planning departments throughout the country. I have served on a large city council, a district council and a county council, so I am very aware of the differing resources available and the differing nature of the planning applications that are put to different types of council.
I turn to some of the specifics in the Bill. I think we can all agree that we need to create the conditions where we have responsive planning services. We can all agree that such services are crucial to our economic growth and to the building of the homes we need. However, both the Royal Town Planning Institute and the Local Government Association highlight that for this to be the case, as already touched on in today’s debate, local authorities need sufficient resources, both money and manpower, if they are to carry out this important work.
Various areas of the Bill will increase pressure on local councils. One already talked about is the duty to compile a new register and the issue of permitted development. Secondly, there is compiling statistics for local plans, which the Local Government Association has described as burdensome. However, it is rather difficult to understand the full implications of the Bill, as draft regulations are yet to be published. They need to be published because they need to be scrutinised. This is not the first time that primary legislation is before us without details that need to be scrutinised.
Thirdly, there is an issue that has been touched on by other speakers, which is financial support for neighbourhood plans. Many question whether the financial support provided to communities for neighbourhood plans is sufficient. Have the Government conducted a full review? If not, I hope that they will commit to do so. I reflect on the local plan that my home town council of Berwick-upon-Tweed is consulting on at the moment. I got through the door a folded A4 piece of paper with very close script on it. I suspect that some people did not realise what it was. Small councils do not have the manpower or resources to consult effectively. An added problem in my home town is that our council has been beset by infighting and unpleasantness between councillors both in the council chamber and on social media, and a report this week has told them that they really need to pull their socks up.
The Local Government Association would like planning fees set locally, as the noble Lord, Lord Porter, said. The Royal Town Planning Institute supports that, and supports local authorities charging higher fees for planning applications, as the noble Lord said. He also pointed out that taxpayers are subsidising what goes on in local authorities. It is interesting to note that the British Property Federation found that two-thirds of people in the private sector who responded to a survey would be willing to pay increased fees for an effective and efficient service. I understand that it is estimated that 30% of the cost of providing planning applications in England is subsidised by the taxpayer. Fees are set nationally and do not cover the full cost. The Government must be aware of this. Why can they not respond to perfectly reasonable requests to do something about the situation? The evidence is there.
As always, I am grateful to the House of Lords Library for a briefing on the Bill. As has already been stated, one of the Government’s two main aims in the Bill is:
“To help identify and free up more land to build homes on to give communities as much certainty as possible about where and when development will take place”.
I read recently that five years-worth of land is already identified for houses that we would like to build. The second aim is:
“To speed up the delivery of new homes, in particular by reducing the time it takes to get from planning permission being granted to building work happening on site and new homes being delivered”.
Many planning Bills I have heard debated in this House for many years have aimed at that.
I suggest that the Bill will not be a magic bullet to produce a large number of new homes. I hope that it helps, but other factors need addressing. Some have already been suggested this afternoon. Others have suggested that one problem is that the large-volume housebuilders are rather happy with the current situation; they do quite well. However, there are problems with finding a skilled workforce. That factor hit Bovis rather publicly last week.
One way to speed up housebuilding and deal with the lack of traditional building skills is for the Government to get behind high-grade off-site construction. I was very pleased to read in Inside Housing this week that the Government have recognised that, and I hope that they will address it. I first saw this 50 years ago, when I spent three years living in Sweden. Beautifully designed and highly energy-efficient homes were manufactured off site and quickly put up on site. I understand that evidence was given on this to the CLG Select Committee yesterday. Skills shortages since the recession have forced many people out of the industry and many have not returned. They certainly have not been replaced by the younger generation. Three times more people are retiring from the housebuilding sector than joining it. I read in the Times yesterday that Mark Farmer has written a report on this. He concluded that the building sector must “modernise or die”. I think he was giving evidence yesterday to the Select Committee. He stated:
“Modular or pre-manufactured housing is a critical enabler to how we can modernise the construction industry. We need to be able to produce more with less human resources in the future and moving construction processes closer to manufacturing is the game changer”.
I have been saying that for years. I hope that at last it may become reality.
Another point that has been raised by at least two speakers this afternoon is direct commissioning of building by local and national government. As the noble Lord, Lord Porter, said, after all, that was how it was done when we built more houses in a year than we have ever managed since, shortly after the Second World War.
I hope that the Bill achieves its aims but, as I have said, other factors need to be considered if we are really to achieve the new homes that we need. I end by saying that I hope I will not be here talking to a similar Bill in a few years’ time.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Neighbourhood Planning Bill as an important next step in tackling the problem of housing shortages. I am not sure that it is a huge exaggeration to claim that a failure to tackle this problem may lead to a social explosion further down the line. Home ownership is simply moving beyond the reach of millions of families, and that risks undermining one of the key foundations of a stable society.
I will not go into the 2016 figures, but in 2015 just 142,890 new houses were built in England. Home ownership rates have fallen back to 1980s levels. Millions of young people are still living with their parents while saving for a deposit to buy a home of their own. The only ways to resolve the issue are to ensure that the current rules are reformed, to allocate more land to housing and to double homebuilding as soon as possible.
The Bill is important because it allows local communities to embrace new developments, rather than having them imposed and being forced to live with them. The measures to strengthen neighbourhood plans introduced in the Bill will ensure that more tiers of government come together and that more plans are put in place. These plans will reduce uncertainty for communities, which are often left with no idea of what will be built where, and the subsequent resentment when developments are imposed.
In decades to come, neighbourhood planning will go down as one of the most radical and successful reforms of the coalition Government. Previously, people had always believed that if you gave residents in communities facing development pressure greater power over planning, they would use it to refuse all proposals and stop anyone building anything anywhere. But the former Prime Minister David Cameron, Eric Pickles, Greg Clark and Nick Boles all disagreed. They believed that if you trusted concerned residents with the power to shape the way in which their community discharged its responsibility to build more houses and cater for investment and economic activity, they would rise to the occasion and take the responsibility seriously. This is exactly what has happened.
An impressive 280 communities have held local referendums on neighbourhood plans since 2012 and, on average, and even more astonishing 89% of eligible voters have supported the proposed plans. This is one of the greatest experiments in direct democracy that this country has ever seen.
The Bill’s proposals to build on the reforms of the Housing and Planning Act to strengthen neighbourhood planning ensure that communities will continue to have a stronger say in the planning of their area. They will further entrench the legal weight given to neighbourhood plans in planning decisions and encourage even more communities to develop a plan of their own. The Bill will also establish a clear and straightforward process for updating neighbourhood plans without having to go back to square one.
On compulsory purchase, I welcome the measures to streamline compulsory purchase orders. I would also urge the Minister to consider an important point not covered in the Bill. It relates to vacant public sector land. The right honourable Member for Chipping Barnet, Theresa Villiers, raised this issue during the Bill’s Second Reading in the other place. She highlighted a derelict site owned by the NHS that had not been used for many years. During my years in the Cabinet Office, we ensured that government departments and agencies collocated and used office property much more intensively. This enabled us to release surplus property to the private sector.
It became increasingly clear that the public sector was hoarding vast acreages of surplus property and that many departments, due to an appalling lack of management information, were not even aware of the land that they actually owned. I would suggest that there could be rich pickings if we applied some rigour to putting records straight and then requiring public sector entities to disgorge property to meet the ever-growing housing need. We always assume that compulsory purchase is for the state to use to purchase property from recalcitrant private sector entities. I suggest that the Government should consider taking powers for central government to compulsorily purchase property from other public sector entities with a view to releasing it to the private sector.
I also commend the measures to address pre-commencement planning conditions. Pre-commencement conditions imposed by local authorities are unnecessarily restrictive and a major cause of delay, so I am delighted that Clause 12 introduces robust regulations to deal with these problems.
As many noble Lords have said, the Bill on its own is not a solution to building all the homes this country desperately needs. In particular, we must get a much better linkage between the provision of infrastructure in return for more housing. The Government must ensure that new homes are built in sustainable communities where the roads do not become hopelessly congested, where existing residents are not met with increased waiting lists to see their GP, and where there are no battles for limited school places.
However, there is simply not enough housing in this country. There needs to be more housing and more infrastructure. We have not built, and are not currently building, enough homes, and we eagerly await the White Paper due later this month. However, this Bill marks an important step in building a housing market that works for the country, and for that reason I fully commend the measures to the House.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as president or vice-president of a range of wildlife organisations, and chairman of the Woodland Trust. I should also declare that I am not a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I was also privileged to be a member of the Select Committee on National Policy for the Built Environment, which is due to have its report debated next week, so I understand very well why there is a government commitment to ensure that the planning process is as efficient as possible, particularly in respect of helping to get houses built to meet the current and future pressing need for quality, sustainable and affordable homes. I urge all Members here tonight to take part in the debate next week, because the report is fairly comprehensive and covers many of the issues that will also need to be dealt with if we are to see faster and better provision of homes—things that are not currently in the Bill, which is fairly modest in scope.
Some things in the Bill have already been raised that I would have preferred to see as provisions brought forward by the Government—a local authority’s ability to borrow to build homes is absolutely fundamental, as raised by previous speakers, and also, the pace of building out of extant planning permissions. We still have a huge range of planning permissions out there where progress on building has either been modest or non-existent. I do not think it is simply the fault of the planning system or local authority management of the planning system. The Government need to address provisions towards developers who are sitting on planning permissions in order to keep prices up.
I will raise three things, some of which are in the Bill and some of which are not. First, there is the resourcing of planning authorities, which has been touched on already. Local authorities have faced a 46% cut in funding over the past five years. That really has affected their ability to do an effective job fast. This under-resourcing is felt particularly in specialist areas such as conservation and ecological expertise. The Association of Local Government Ecologists has reported that only one-third of local authorities now have an in-house ecologist. This can lead to planning decisions that are flawed and to a loss of some of our most precious wildlife sites.
The reverse of that can mean that local authorities and developers do not see the opportunities for enhancement of the ecological and biodiversity richness that development can help foster. Will the Minister consider whether the Government will speedily review the planning fee system to go beyond the pilots currently in operation on local determination of fees, and allow local planning authorities generally to set their own fees and retain these to invest in planning work, including specialist expertise?
The second point is the issue of pre-commencement conditions. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, in her belief that pre-commencement conditions are the work of the devil. I welcome the fact that the Minister will write round with his evidence base for pre-commencement conditions being a cause of delay. I am not sure whether there really is solid and independent evidence—not just evidence given by developers—that pre-commencement conditions slow down their delivery of housing development. It is not clear from the Bill how the pre-commencement conditions process is envisaged to operate. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy.
I would be grateful if the Minister could give us more clarity on this. I thank him for the assurances already given both by him and his colleague in another place that if pre-commencement conditions are deemed necessary and local planning authorities cannot get written agreement from the applicant, the local planning authority would be quite right to refuse the application. I also thank the Minister for verbal assurances that all development must still comply with the National Planning Policy Framework and that environmental safeguards will remain in place. It would be useful to have formal confirmation of these verbal assurances from the Minister.
I am also concerned that the revised process for pre-commencement conditions will mean more refusals, will slow down the process, or encourage planners to avoid applying important conditions. Could the Minister consider amending the Bill to ensure that these unintended consequences are not built into the process?
The third and most important issue I want to raise is something that is not in the Bill—but I give notice of an intention to table an amendment. It is the issue of ancient woodland. This Bill offers an important opportunity to amend the way in which the planning system protects ancient woodland and reduce the controversy created by planning proposals involving ancient woodland—often much-loved woods in their locality—thereby reducing the delays that such controversy can cause. This would be of benefit to developers, planning authorities, local communities and, of course, ancient woodlands.
I probably owe the House an explanation of why ancient woodlands are so important. They are woods which have remained under continuous woodland cover for at least 400 years and, in some cases, for centuries or even tens of centuries longer. They are a kind of complex network of species, soils, history and culture, and each of them is unique, distinctive and irreplaceable. However, noble Lords may be surprised to hear that ancient woodland has a lot less protection under planning policy than ancient buildings.
Ancient woodland is increasingly threatened by planning decisions, particularly on housing development, where planners and developers see that the lesser level of protection given to ancient woodland compared with that given to ancient buildings by the planning guidance is a reason not to give ancient woodland any protection at all. There are currently 600 ancient woodlands under threat from planning proposals. A recent survey of planners has shown that, although 96% of planners are aware of the term “ancient woodland”, 70% of them ignore the current advice, which does not have much strength due to the weakness of the NPPF in this respect. Some 85% of planners say that it is legitimate to build on ancient woodland sites—so clearly the protection level is not working.
Many of the planners interviewed cited the weakness of the National Planning Policy Framework and gave reasons such as housing pressures and infrastructure provision for their belief that ancient woodland was expendable. It would be a great disservice to this country if, in a dash for housing given the very clear need to create good-quality housing fast, we cut corners on environmental measures and damaged our ancient woodland further. We are already at a point where so much ancient woodland has been destroyed that it covers just over 2% of the Great Britain land surface.
I am grateful to the Minister for having met me on my proposed amendments, which aim to give the same level of protection to this irreplaceable ancient woodland as is currently given to ancient buildings. Ancient woodlands are the cathedrals of the natural world; each one is distinctive, and grubbing up even part of one is the equivalent of demolishing the chancel of York Minster for development or building houses in the cathedral close at Salisbury. Yet, as I said, 600 of these are threatened in just such a way.
We have opportunities to do a better job. In the garden towns initiative, which I greatly applaud, of the 14 proposals currently put forward, four have ancient woodland within their curtilage. That could be buffered and cherished and be a very important part of the garden city environment—or we could build on it. There is an alternative way in which to make sure that we protect our ancient woodland. I know that the Minister is very unkeen on having a provision in the Bill to give better protection, and there are other ways of doing it—we could do it by an amendment to the National Policy Planning Framework. The Government have been reluctant in the recent past to amend the NPPF, so I propose to table amendments to the Bill. But if the Government were to come forward and offer an amendment to the NPPF, I would be delighted. The one thing that I do not want is to back off on an amendment to the Bill then not get an amendment to the NPPF, either.
Ensuring an effective planning system and getting the right houses built in the right place is vital, but none of this must be at the expense of ancient woodlands’ irreplaceable treasures—and pace and efficiency will not be helped if there are local fist fights when a developer plans to destroy or damage ancient woodland in the locality. So it would be in the interests of farmers and developers if the Government were clearer about stressing the importance of avoiding damage to ancient woodland—it would help to prevent further delay. So I hope that the Minister can be positive and say that he will give me one or the other.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
My Lords, I start by declaring an interest. I have a legal case pending at the moment, concerning a planning application. I have taken advice from the Clerk of the Parliaments and have been told that the sub judice rule does not apply here. I am taking part in consideration of this Bill because I believe that it affects every community in England. The public, parishes and local community groups have been inspired by the Localism Act to produce their neighbourhood plans. As the Act suggests, planning is to be turned upside-down—no longer top down but bottom up.
I digress for just a moment. Many noble Lords might think that my contribution to your Lordships’ House is mostly to do with health and the NHS. On this occasion, I am taking part in a planning Bill—not family planning but neighbourhood planning—and briefly I would like to explain why. For 15 years, I served on my parish, district and county council simultaneously. Local government was the start of my career; I loved it—I was addicted; it took over my life. I chaired the district planning committee and, later, was leader of the council. The point I really want to make is that, when elected, I inherited the village plan, which doubled the village in size and was comprehensive and coherent. It incorporated a mix of different houses: bungalows, private, public, terraced, semi-detached and detached. It was very carefully worked out and provided sites for new shops, a health centre—and, eventually, we rebuilt the local school.
I so agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, that you have to have a vision when you are designing a new community or building on to a community. But the thing with our plan was that the development boundaries were very clear and well understood, and were frequently challenged by developers, but they withstood all onslaughts. They were set by local planners; they remained sacrosanct and stood for 40 years. The quality of housing was good for its day, and the social mix was laudable. It was an undoubted success.
Now, things are different—we have moved on—and again there is a push for more housing, and a good determination to achieve an adequate supply, with an emphasis on affordable homes. This is necessary, of course, and it is the remit of the Secretary of State and the Government. Through the Localism Act we have encouraged local people with local knowledge to decide where, how and when housing can best be provided in their communities. This is the remit of local planning authorities and neighbourhood plans. But the weakness I see in the Bill is that it creates a gulf between the admirable sentiments of localism and the reality.
I make no excuse for using the experience of the village where I have lived for 70 years. It illustrates the weaknesses in the present system and suggests what should be done. I stress that I welcome change. I am not a nimby—I want homes to be built. I am not here to moan and, with the help of other noble Lords, I want to find solutions. As I understand the system, usually a parish, a town council or a neighbourhood forum decides to make a neighbourhood plan. It is to be comprehensive, and it takes time; in our situation, it took two and a half years to produce the plan. The DCLG subsidises district council planners to help local people draw up a plan for the number of extra homes required for that community, including adequate provision for utilities, environmental constraints, schools and playing fields, landscaping, the conservation area, and so on—and, after consultation, in most cases, where best to develop. When completed, the plan is examined by the examiner chosen from a list by the district council. In our case, this was a paper exercise. Our examiner saw no one and spoke to no one. He devastated the plan, and the district council advised us that, if his changes were not accepted, the plan would be rejected.
We should probably have appealed, but on advice it was decided to put the neighbourhood plan to a referendum, and it was passed with a really good turnout. In common with many neighbourhood plans, the examiner struck out the number of houses to be built—in our case, 100 houses plus windfalls. He decided that it should be read as a minimum of 100 houses. This was read by a developer, and subsequently at appeal, as there being no top limit. The appeal was called in by the Secretary of State, who concurred with this interpretation and has allowed a 50% increase in our allocation—another 50 houses. So we have no top limit and we now have a potential, and a precedent, for building significantly more houses on random sites not identified or chosen in the neighbourhood plan. The villagers were incredulous; they were furious when they heard the news.
What lessons have we learnt from this scenario? What do we need to bear in mind during the passage of the Bill? I will suggest four things. First, it is a great idea to get local residents to draw up a neighbourhood plan, giving their time—in our case thousands of hours—and local knowledge. It is a great idea for the Government to subsidise professional planners to advise, but no one can make a comprehensive and detailed plan unless they know what they are planning for: the number of homes, the location and the timescale. Secondly, the plan was drawn up by local people, guided by local subsidised planners. Too late we realised, as other communities will, that it is far from true that neighbourhood plans are a wonderful idea which the Government and local community will respect and accept. In reality, there is no place for volunteers and amateurs. Our plan should have been drawn up by a team of lawyers and professional planners to make it as near unassailable as possible.
Thirdly, at the referendum—and we had a good turnout —there was no clear warning that the Secretary of State can override the best laid plans at any time, on any whim. In future there must be, unless we make the Bill watertight and strengthen neighbourhood plans. Fourthly, we have learnt that there is no division between national policy and local implementation. The Secretary of State cannot resist meddling in the minutiae. I say the Secretary of State because he signed the agreement at the end. I have been in government; I know how departments work. He may not even have seen the document, but he is responsible because he signed it. In our case, the disillusionment was so great that over half our parish council resigned. It must be incorporated in the Bill that if the Secretary of State or the local planners determine, force majeure, that extra housing is needed within a neighbourhood plan, local people should be informed of the number of houses required. The requirement should specify any particular housing need—affordable, sheltered, bankers’ mansions or whatever—and then the neighbourhood planners should decide, in consultation with their community, where best to build and fulfil that need. In our case, we watched in horror as an extremely skilled barrister ran rings around the local planning authority at an appeal. This site was the least favoured and rejected in the neighbourhood plan. It has no synergy with the village, is entirely unplanned for, disregards the modest conditions agreed by the village, and is outside the plan’s boundary. After the referendum by parishioners, the local planning authority has, by law, to own the plan, implement it, and, hopefully, defend it. That should be strengthened in the Bill.
In the drafting of the Bill I can see a lawyer’s dream. What is a modification; what is a more comprehensive rewrite? If a community has 50% more houses than anticipated, a comprehensive rewrite may be necessary but, once again, this puts all power back to the examiner. This is dictatorial, unacceptable, arrogant and unnecessary. It is reasonable for the examiner to ask, to explain and to listen—not for a long period but perhaps for a day or so—so that the thinking behind the words in the plan, and why they have been incorporated, is understood. The Bill still stipulates that written submissions will be the norm. When amateurs write things about their community, for their community, each understands the nuances. The examiner may not. We wanted employment in the village but this was struck out by the examiner because we had no “designated industrial area”. At Poundbury, in Dorset, businesses, factories, offices, leisure and housing intermingle: it is a truly successful community. Ours was too, but now we are doomed to be a dormitory, maximising pollution, decimating community life, overloading roads and experiencing the misery of over-packed trains.
By talking to no one, the examiner just did not “get it”. Our neighbourhood plan specified that our community does not want street lighting, nor any more five-bedroom houses, as there are too many at the moment, and wants to keep a green space between our village and the next. The Secretary of State gave planning permission on the fields that separate the villages, allowed the five-bedroom houses and insisted on street lighting. He has destroyed our neighbourhood plan at a stroke, but worse, he has destroyed people’s trust in fair government.
This top-down action should not happen, so we must frame the right amendments to the Bill to prevent this abuse of power. It would be unkind to say that neighbourhood planning is a delusion, but it would also be disingenuous not to point out that the power is not vested in the people. They are in with a squeak. The legislation we now have has led to an acceptable level of litigation and lawyers’ fees. Too much public money is being spent. We need careful scrutiny of the Bill if it is not to be a lawyers’ love-in.
The policy of this Government has been to devolve power: to let sick people with long-term conditions have personal budgets; to let academy schools do it their way; to let foundation trusts control their budgets. They are judged on outcomes, not process. I fear that the Bill pretends to devolve power while actually imposing more central control. We simply must not let that happen.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to listen to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. How good it is to have her wisdom and experience on a planning Bill. Another new year, another planning Bill. I am reminded that it is only about a year since we discussed the then Housing and Planning Bill, which is now the Housing and Planning Act. I thank the Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Bourne—for his recent letter which set out in detail the timetable for the regulations under that Act and the way in which they are being implemented. That is extremely helpful and will help our consideration of this Bill too.
I need to declare an interest as deputy leader of Pendle Borough Council. I worked out that I think I have spent exactly half the years of my life as a member of a planning committee of some kind on some kind of local authority. It gets worse than that: I have actually enjoyed doing it. I should also declare that I am a member—not a very active one—of the steering group for the Trawden Forest neighbourhood plan, which is an interesting experience.
I say not for the first time in your Lordships’ House that in my view the planning system in this country is bust in many respects. However, it is not bust in the way that housebuilders and the Government think. I too refer to the two main reasons the Government have put forward for the Bill—namely, to help identify and free up more land on which to build homes and to speed up the delivery of new homes.
If we are talking about neighbourhood planning, building new homes is an important part of that but it does not define neighbourhood planning in any way whatever. The noble Baroness said that it is all about vision and that the vision is about far more than simply building homes; rather, it is about the whole future of communities. We should not allow a single-minded objective of building houses in the Bill to make us lose sight of that. It is not what neighbourhood planning was intended to achieve; it is part of it. My noble friend Lord Stunell will no doubt point out that neighbourhood planning is one of the most successful parts of the Localism Act, the passage of which he played a very important part in in the then Government.
The planning system is broken because it often gets the blame for low housing numbers. Government after Government seek quick fixes by tinkering with the planning system whereas what we really need to look at is the supply of new houses and why people are not building them. There are clearly some instances where people would like to build but say they cannot do so because of bureaucratic obstruction by the planning authority. However, that is not the main reason why the number of new houses being built in this country is not high enough. No doubt we will discuss that as the Bill goes through. As the noble Lord, Lord Porter of Spalding, said, one of the major reasons for that situation is the refusal of successive Governments—I would say the stubborn refusal—to allow local authorities to borrow money against their assets in order to build new houses. It is just extraordinary that we cannot do this.
If the planning system is to blame for this or that or is not working properly, the real problem, as I have said before, lies not with development control—or development management, as we now have to call it—but with the plan-making system. I believe that system is overbureaucratic, overexpensive and sclerotic in many ways. If we go back over the history of this we will see that there have always been local plans of some sort since planning was first invented. Some of us remember the old town maps. However, modern plan-making started with the local government reorganisation of 1974, when, in a two-tier area such as mine, we had county structure plans and district local plans all set out under a development plan scheme. Originally, these were fairly simple affairs. However, they have become more and more complicated as time has gone on, and more and more subject to central government interference and the attempt to micromanage what happens locally. I suppose that peaked under the Labour Government when they invented regional spatial strategies, which were no bad thing in themselves but involved setting out centralised housing targets for a whole region. They were divvied out among sub-regions and counties and were then divvied out to districts. It was all very top-down and prescriptive and resulted in some ridiculous situations.
In my own part of the world in east Lancashire, the district councils were told—10 or 15 years ago, I think —that they were not allowed to give planning permission for any new housing. We wanted to give planning permission for housing but were not allowed to do it unless it was a case of replacing housing that had been demolished, or in one or two very specialised cases such as converting old pubs into apartments. It was called the moratorium. There was a ridiculous moment in your Lordships’ House when I tabled an Oral Question to question the Government on this as part of our campaign to try to get the moratorium lifted. The junior Minister stood up and replied that there was no moratorium, it did not exist. All the planning officers in east Lancashire fell off their chairs when they heard that. Six months later we managed to get the measure through—I suppose that somebody in the department had made a decision on it—and start giving planning permission again. However, we had previously been banned from giving planning permission for new housing. Now the opposite applies. We are being given targets that are impossible to achieve within the housing market in east Lancashire. It is a case of the same problem producing different situations. The problem is that Governments operate a one-size-fits-all type of policy-making which they apply to everybody. If they just left the people in the districts to get on with it, we would do much better.
Then we were told that we had too many houses, so we could not give any more planning permissions. Now we are told that we do not have enough, so our half of Lancashire is being forced to give planning permissions for houses that we know will never get built, at least not within the period of the plan under which they are being given planning permission. Therefore, when the coalition came in in 2010, it said—it sounded great—“No more top-down targets for housing”. But what it actually did was to set detailed rules and regulations on how you had to work out your housing targets locally, which were then subject to inspection. All that actually happened was that an extremely expensive process took place under which each district’s planning authority has to work out its own targets and then impose them. I suspect that they are pretty well the same targets that would be set if they had simply been imposed centrally.
Under the evidential base—as it is called—for collecting information, you have something called a SHMA, a strategic housing market assessment. We also have a SHLAA, a strategic housing land availability assessment. Every district has to produce these. Because they are small planning authorities and do not have sufficient internal staff, they have to employ consultants. The whole thing is an absolute bonanza for consultants who are doing very well. The whole process does not involve common sense or all that much democratic input. It is complex, opaque, impenetrable, costs a bomb and is a field day for consultants, as I said. Neighbourhood planning is working on the ground and is coming up from the grass roots, as it were. However, it is having to be welded or melded—or whatever the word is—into this top-down, bureaucratic, sclerotic system. It is not surprising that there are problems and difficulties in that. As I say, neighbourhood planning has been successful. Volunteers, particularly parish councils, can get involved in it. That is a model for the future. I was going to say that the Government should “let a thousand flowers flourish”, but that may be the wrong analogy and, like other people, I could be accused of being a Marxist. If we were to allow that to happen, the Government would get more of what they wanted, with more success.
My final point is on parish councils. I do not think it is any surprise that the great majority of neighbourhood plans that have been produced, and are being produced, are in areas where they have parish councils—they are parished areas—and the parish council has been either the initial impetus for getting the neighbourhood plan going or the focus of it right the way through. Parish councils have an existing structure and are an existing group of people who have been able to take it on and are used to negotiating with the district council. One of the great challenges of neighbourhood planning now, which we might discuss in Committee, is how to get a lot more neighbourhood planning going in unparished areas. In many cases they are urban areas, but they are not always big urban areas. There are lots of quite small towns that do not have a town or parish council and where a neighbourhood plan is needed.
The Bill will not sort out the fairly shambolic state of the plan-making system in this country. However, it has some things in it that can make improvements, and perhaps we can try to stop it doing much harm.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
My Lords, I will address Part 1 of the Bill. Before doing so, I declare my landholdings in the register of interests. The objectives appear to be to build more houses and to streamline the process, and no one could disagree with that—I certainly do not, and I support it in principle—but there are two points that I want to address.
The first concerns resourcing for planning officers—I mean the professional teams of officers, not the councillors involved with planning. I worked on the fringe of planning for many years myself, usually on the side of the big developers, which were well-resourced, and not on the side of the planners. I saw the impact of the work they did, and among many local planning authorities I saw teams that by nature were on the defensive. They were bruised by years of experience of attempted resistance to opportunistic planning applicants and well-funded developers—who frequently, of course, were not housebuilders, but in their environment that does not matter. Those developers were developing large industrial estates, logistics parks and shopping centres. Perhaps developments involving blight, such as very tall or visually intrusive buildings, become a problem for them, sometimes against a local atmosphere of media outcry, with petitions and public objection. These hard workers have no fan club. Their environment is a negative one. It is difficult to be motivated unless you are very well led or very well paid.
The local planning officer’s job is to ensure fairness: that applications fall legitimately within the guidelines and the laws that define their options. The problems for some of the smaller teams are simply that they are underfunded and, critically, short-staffed. They are perhaps particularly short of experienced staff. Churn in that department—the turnover of the staff—is a real problem. The young planner arriving in a new job is given a thick file which records the history of several years of a fight between a developer and the planning office, and is expected to become familiar with it and to prepare to negotiate with them. They are working with their hands tied behind their back. They are trying to do the right thing against the odds, potentially against the background of appeals, and even judicial review. A cash-strapped council would not wish to entertain that lightly.
Developers, particular housebuilders in our case today, are likely to be the opposite. Driven by the profit motive and economies of scale, and dealing in geographies that probably span many different planning areas, they are probably well funded. They are certainly advised—we have heard about some of this today—by experienced professional staff, articulate advocates who are knowledgeable about the loopholes and weaknesses in the planning system and the legislation. This a pretty unequal struggle. Local planning officers need all the help they can get, and that is extremely relevant in the context of the Bill.
Pre-commencement planning conditions are referred to in the Bill, and have already been referred to this afternoon. They are to be effectively removed apart from the appropriate protections, which I heartily support. However, this removes an important layer of protection for our society and the communities they serve. Some of these preconditions are spurious but many are very important, and it is one of the few tools the planner may have.
Why is there no obligation, when we are trying to build all these houses, to first consider building on brownfield land? Why not relax the planning requirements for building houses there? As we drive into lovely green farmland for our new developments, into the green belt, there seems to be no requirement to do this. What a waste, when frequently brownfield land lies on the edge of urban areas, close to hospitals, schools, shopping and the public transport network. The main reason is the cost of development, such as cleaning up the sites, and of course for developers building in urban areas is more expensive than building on green fields. I am not sure that that is a good enough reason. The Government have allocated funds to various housebuilding initiatives, which are growing all the time. Why not start with brownfield land? I liked the suggestion we heard this afternoon that vacant public sector land in other areas could be included in this.
I conclude by asking the Government to consider the impact the Bill will have on the planning departments and local authority planning teams. In many instances they are a demotivated group of people, fighting a losing a battle, and there is a risk that both their hands will be tied behind their backs as a product of the relaxation of planning requirements in the Bill. I ask the Government to explore the resourcing issues I mentioned; give them the staff they need at a time when councils are being forced to cut costs—they need all the support they can get. Further work is required on Part 1 of the Bill.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, it seems like we were discussing the Housing and Planning Act only a minute ago. I hope that during the consideration of the Bill we will see the housing White Paper. That probably presages more legislation in the course of this Parliament—it normally does—and we should not be too surprised by that. However, what is more important is that we can set it in the strategic context; that is one of the reasons why I hope that we will see the housing White Paper, preferably during the early stages of consideration. That is what it is all about. We need not always think that we cannot have more legislation—we often find reasons why it is necessary to legislate. But the point is to give the system the stability that comes from knowing that, even if new legislation comes forward, it is intended to strengthen the strategy rather than to change it. That is something that we should certainly be looking for in the rest of this Parliament. If we are to achieve what I think is the shared objective of building more of the houses that we need, then not only planning authorities but, even more so, those responsible for development will need that stability over the next few years. In that context, I should declare an interest as chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum.
Sometimes the contributions to this debate have seemed to suggest that development involves a constant adversarial relationship. I could take your Lordships out at night up on to Castle Mound in the middle of Cambridge and they would see nothing but cranes. They would see industrial and residential building all round Addenbrooke’s Hospital—the Trumpington development, the Clay Farm development, the southern fringe and the north-west Cambridge development. Frankly, I do not go along with the idea that developers do not get on with development where they have the opportunity to do so. Cambridge, where admittedly the land values are high and the property prices equally so, is a place where they have an incentive to build and they are building. That does not mean that they do not have problems. As somebody who, on an unremunerated basis, chairs the local development forum, I know that we approach it from the standpoint of promoting delivery not through an adversarial relationship but through a collaborative relationship with local authorities. Indeed, that is precisely what we have fostered and are seeing. However, we need a system to develop and to enable that to happen.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, talked about land banking. The principal site in Cambridge where outline planning approval was given a very long time ago but no development took place was Northstowe. It was even meant to be the first garden village. The first house has just been built but, according to the original outline planning application, 6,000 homes should have been built by this stage. That is down not to developers but to the Homes and Communities Agency. We have to acknowledge that sometimes, as in October 2008 and at other points, it is extremely difficult to assess and deliver viable sites. I emphasise that, particularly when looking at things such as pre-commencement planning conditions.
From the development point of view, assessing viability and delivering certainty in relation to a site are becoming increasingly difficult, and, frankly, we added to the difficulty with the Housing and Planning Act. The demands in relation to affordable housing and starter homes have made it more complicated to carry out viability assessments. Now, we need to make sure that, perhaps by returning to a standard list of conditions but certainly by endorsing what this Bill does and making it clear that pre-commencement planning conditions must be agreed between the local planning authority and developers, we enable them to be clear about the viability of their sites at the point at which they go into a planning committee.
I do not think we should take it for granted that by legislating in this way we solve the problem. Delays in the system are, in my experience, often likely to emerge through the inability of local authorities—due to the lack of resources, the lack of will or certainly the lack of incentive—to discharge planning conditions. There might have been agreement at the point at which the application was approved, but that does not mean that they get on with the process of discharging the planning conditions. Delays can make the whole process very difficult.
That is why I hope that the housing White Paper will, among other things, as I think has been mentioned, address resourcing for planning authorities. I hope that it will do so with a mechanism that gears additional resources to planning performance agreements so that the resources for planning authorities are geared directly to delivery—perhaps through a process akin to the BID process for business rates. I know that planners and developers are willing to subscribe to additional resources for planning departments if they feel that, as a consequence, they are able to get better certainty about the planning timetable and the delivery of housing. That is what we need to look at in the context of the pre-commencement planning conditions that are coming forward.
I want to mention two other things. First, recalling last year’s Housing and Planning Act, I hope that when we look at pre-commencement planning conditions we look very carefully at how they interact with the permission-in-principle route to approval. If they are not incorporated effectively into the permission in principle, we increase the risk that the pre-commencement planning conditions will all be incorporated into the so-called technical application. However, they will not be technical at all; they will be instrumental to the question of whether planning approval is granted. As has rightly been said, if promoters are not able to agree to a condition, the local authority will be entirely justified in not granting approval. However, if that arises regularly and frequently at the point of the technical application, the whole permission-in-principle approach will be frustrated and undermined.
The other thing that I want to mention is neighbourhood plans—the parish plans that I experienced in my former constituency. There is serious concern about the extent to which parish plans, made in good faith with a considerable investment of time, energy and often money on the part of parishes and their residents, are undermined by the simple fact that the local plan is not adopted sufficiently quickly, which makes it out of date. Therefore, what was said in a ministerial Statement just before the recess was extremely welcome. It gives a degree of protection to parishes—at the moment for the next two years—in the face of the risk that their allocation of sites for housing in relation to a local plan is undermined by the local plan not giving a five-year supply or, as the noble Lord said, not meeting the strategic housing market assessment.
In the context of the South Cambridgeshire and Cambridge City councils, it was argued in the strategic housing market assessment that the local authority was 10,000 houses adrift from the necessary five-year supply—that is, that 43,000 rather than 33,000 homes were required. We currently have a lot of appeals going through and being granted on the basis of a lack of a five-year supply. This is immensely frustrating to local people. I was the Member of Parliament and I remember the South Cambridgeshire local plan being submitted to the Secretary of State on 28 March 2014. We are now in 2017 and the inspectorate is still issuing further dates for hearings through to April. The dates will go beyond that—beyond even three years after the local plan was submitted. We are already starting to find that some of the assumptions that underlay the original public consultation that led to the local plan are being overtaken by events and certainly being overtaken in time.
It should not be like that. If we are about delivery and minimising delays, the Government must look at the beam in their own eye as well as the beam in the eye of others. Looking at the delays in approving local plans is an instrumental part of the examination of where delays can be minimised. The system is designed around the integrity, speed and authority given under local plans and, by extension—I hope increasingly in future—neighbourhood planning. If we do not deliver that, I am afraid that the system will be seriously undermined.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, like other noble Lords, I welcome the aspirations in the Bill to build more homes and the potential of neighbourhood planning to help in a discrete but important way. I certainly concur with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, that this was one of the proud moments of the coalition Government. It was one area where both parties saw the value of giving local people a stronger say in planning communities for the future. Therefore, it is right that we are returning today to this issue, to ensure that we create the best conditions for those plans to be drawn up. In my contribution, I wish to return to the issues that I raised during the passage of the then Housing and Planning Bill; namely, how we create the conditions to encourage more communities to prepare more neighbourhood plans and to ensure that the buildings that result from that contribute to a sustainable future for those communities.
The first issue is that of encouraging the creation of neighbourhood plans and giving them due weight. As the Minister rightly said, we know that neighbourhood planning delivers 10% more homes. It also ensures that communities have a say in the shape of their area, which means that the new buildings are more welcome. I am sure I have no need to remind the Government or the Minister how strongly the House felt about this issue and about the need for due weight to be given to neighbourhood plans, which resulted in the Government being defeated twice in this House during the passage of the Bill. On the basis of that, the Government promised to return to this issue in due course, as long as the House did not push the matter at that time. So return again we now do.
The Government’s policy fact sheet contends that Clause 1 of the Bill and Section 156 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 are sufficient to address the concerns that we raised. I say emphatically that they are not. I welcome Clause 1, but it does not go far enough in giving neighbourhood councils the reassurance that the time and effort is worth while. I echo very much the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, who outlined the work by local people that goes into putting together these neighbourhood plans and how, at the moment, the Bill does not give reassurance to individual communities that they have the protection to ensure their plans will be delivered. Nor does it give potential areas the incentive to take the time and effort to bring forward future plans, which we know deliver more homes.
Clause 1 says that local authorities must “have regard” to neighbourhood plans, but there are no sanctions in the Bill if they do not act on them, and this applies only to post-examined plans, when case law says that draft plans should be taken into account. The Bill is the vehicle to strengthen the weight of communities’ views expressed in neighbourhood plans, such that they should not be ignored by local planning authorities or the Planning Inspectorate. Some volunteers work 20 or 30 hours a week and have extremely limited financial resources, particularly if they are not a parish council. My contention is that the Government are insufficiently supporting them in those endeavours to build stronger communities and deliver more homes. It is welcome news that the Government intend to bring forward amendments on this issue. Will the Minister tell us at what stage we will have sight of those? At the moment, I serve notice that we will be bringing forward amendments on this matter in Committee.
The second issue is making sure that those homes are more sustainable. Although we were not able to persuade the Government during the passage of the then Housing and Planning Bill of the need for primary legislation on the issues of carbon-compliant homes and protecting residents and properties from increasing flood risk, we welcome the two reviews that the Government are undertaking on those issues. It is interesting to see that other Governments, notably in Wales, have realised the need to break the policy stalemate on sustainable urban drainage systems and are powering ahead with their own review. I look forward to the Government making progress on both these issues when their reports are completed in the spring. However, we intend to use the Committee stage of this Bill to flesh out some of the hopes we have in the area of carbon-compliant housing. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Stunell will refer to this later. We will also identify concerns we have about measures in the Bill that impact on future success in this area.
Pre-commencement has been raised by a number of noble Lords. It is one of the tools that authorities use to improve sustainable urban drainage system provisions where developers put forward a weak plan. SUDS are an important tool in reducing surface water flood risk, as well as improving water quality and amenity and providing habitats for wildlife. Curtailing local authorities’ ability in this area is potentially a step back for sustainable urban drainage, at the same time that the Government are notionally looking at a way forward. I agree that planning conditions imposed by local planning authorities should be reasonable and necessary. However, pre-commencement conditions should be seen as a positive tool to ensure that permission can be granted.
Although I agree with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, on the coalition’s commitment to neighbourhood planning, I strongly disagree with her assertion that pre-commencement conditions are a major cause of delay. I ask that the Minister, when he writes to us, talks further on this issue and gives concrete evidence of where pre-commencement conditions are a major obstacle to bringing forth new development. There is a real and substantive risk to our natural environment, heritage and culture as a result of what seems to me to be no more than protests from those in the development industry.
The Minister talks about protecting valuable pre-commencement conditions. However, the only way to do so is to turn down the entire application. Will a local authority do that when the development is supported by a neighbourhood plan and members in the chamber but has drainage provisions that are not quite ideal? If they are prepared to do that—it is a very big if—frankly, that slows down the whole planning process for a broadly supported development. It strikes me that that is not the right way forward. It seems clear to me that the ability of local planning authorities to apply pre-commencement conditions should be retained to ensure that development is environmentally and socially sustainable, particularly to protect residents and property from increased flood risk. We will certainly bring up this matter in Committee.
Finally, another issue I wish to return to, which I raised during the course of the then Housing and Planning Bill, is that of any changes to legislation around inalienable land. I am aware that the National Trust is concerned that the Government’s proposals in this Bill on temporary possession would reduce protections for its inalienable land. This is a subject that the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, raised during the Housing and Planning Bill debates, and we both intend to cover it in more detail in Committee.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a landowner in Northumberland with experience of converting farm buildings into houses and offices, who has benefited from the development of land for housing. I probably benefit from the present system because it drives up development premiums, but I think that it needs further reform. The Bill, with its welcome emphasis on plans that come up from communities rather than down from bureaucrats, will not in itself solve our housing problem. However, we should see it alongside the forthcoming White Paper designed to speed up land-use planning decisions—it will be interesting to see what it says. We badly need to address the effective rationing of housing, which has hampered our economy, worsened inequality and benefited people like me. Notwithstanding some of the improvements in the planning system mentioned by my noble friend the Minister at the start of the debate, there is still quite a long way to go. I urge the Government to be as bold as possible in the White Paper and the amendments that they bring forward.
Land-use planning in Britain is not a joke; it is a disgrace, in many ways. The present system is biased, not so much in favour of opponents or proponents of development but in favour of delay and cost. Most of those involved actually benefit from the delay: the statutory consultees maximising their budgets, the councils pleading overwork, the archaeologists getting paid by the developer, the bat surveyors, the great-crested newt industry, the objectors with nothing better to do and, above all, the armies of consultants and lawyers working for both sides.
People think that the planning system is a system of environmental regulation. It is worth remembering that it is not. It is a system of economic planning, left over from the days of the 1940s, when people thought Stalin had the answers. Any environmental protections it produces are, in a way, accidental, capricious, clumsy and actually rather precarious. The existence of the planning system has sterilised and stymied the development of environmental regulations about zoning, similar to those they have in other countries. No common law has been allowed to develop on this principle and so we have to rely, rather embarrassingly, on EU directives such as the habitat directive.
The worst aspect of the current system is that it is so slow. Things take years that could take months. How can it possibly take twice as long to decide, let alone build, a single runway as it took to wage the Second World War? Why do we assume that these delays are natural? We need to speed things up. I welcome the clauses restricting the abuse of pre-commencement planning conditions because I have had first-hand experience of how they slow things down.
I would like to make two more suggestions. First, we need to slim down the list of statutory consultees and incentivise them to take decisions more quickly. At the moment a gravy train is being ridden. The planning system is awash with ex-planners selling their services as heritage consultants, environmental consultants, archaeological consultants and so on. It is a revolving door. Setting time limits makes the problem worse. At the moment, if a conservation officer has to take a decision within, say, three months, then, lo and behold, you get your answer one day before the deadline. Let us set up a sliding scale of fees or fines so that the longer a consultee or a planner takes, the more it costs them.
Next, let us cut out the waste. If the Government want to build a new trunk road bridge over a river—this is a real case that is happening on my land at the moment and I welcome it—the following happens. Over about a year, they hire five separate teams of consultants to survey birds, bats, newts, otters and badgers. The teams get hefty fees and write hefty reports, which nobody reads, and the bridge gets built anyway. Here is a better idea. As soon as the bridge is decided on, the planner tells the developer—in this case the Government—that as birds, bats, newts, otters and badgers may all live in the vicinity, they must spend a bit of money creating suitable habitat for such species somewhere else. Buy a field, dig a pond and plant some trees in it. It would be simple, quick and much better for the wildlife.
As a final point, can we stop pretending that the development of housing is a bad thing for nature? It is not always. When an arable or a silage field gets developed for houses, the biodiversity almost certainly increases massively. Gardens are teeming with wildlife that farmland is not—bats, newts, birds and bees.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, people should be essential to our consideration of the Bill because if anything is about people, it is planning. I have shared this story before with Members of this House but it seems appropriate to remind them of it now. During the nine years when I was president of the YMCA, I saw the front line of this issue. My God, the need for housing could not have been more obvious. The sterling work done by so many staff and volunteers in an organisation such as that is fantastic. One of the things that always impressed me was that we had a youth training centre on the shores of Lake Windermere in which a great deal of exciting work was done. I was told by one of the workers there that a few days previously, a young girl had caught her attention because she was looking so animated and excited. The worker said to her, “What did you do today?”, and the girl said, “Oh, I saw far”. A couple of days later, because the girl was looking even more excited, she said to her, “And what did you do today?”, and the girl said, “I saw very far”. That was from someone whose home was in the centre of one of our own great cities.
The environment is every bit as important as the housing itself—of course it is. What kind of upbringing, development and fulfilling of the soul and spirit will be possible among our young unless they have a chance, a vision and imagination? That is why the concern with ecology, the green belt, areas of outstanding natural beauty, sites of special scientific interest and national parks is crucial. I have been for a long time involved in the voluntary organisations around national parks.
We want people to have a chance to live a good life and to expand. In the end, this is related to social behaviour and we would be foolish to overlook it. Everyone knows that we desperately need houses and we must get on with it. However, we have made big mistakes in our recent social history. We had to build houses and we built high rise. We then discovered that we had created hell in our midst because high rise was not the answer for people’s good lives. If we look further back in our history, the Industrial Revolution raped the countryside through wilful ill-being and industrialisation, for which all kinds of rationales were presented and invented. Of course, given a great deal of hindsight, it could all have been done so much better.
It always strikes me that in the building of houses we have so often made another mistake. We keep talking about how we want to be one nation together and to break down social stigma and so on, but we built places that could be nothing but council estates. They were council estates and people came from the council estates. We also built industrial barracks. When I was MP for Portsmouth, some of the worst housing was the virtual barracks in the name of council housing in the centre of the city.
We must think about these matters as we tackle speeding up the numbers. I hope the Minister, who is a civilised man, will take the opportunity as we consider the Bill to reassure us on these points, and that the existing legislation for the protection and enhancement of the things I have been talking about will be strengthened and preserved.
I am glad that we have heard about the efforts and battles of those who are trying to devise neighbourhood plans. The discouragement they sometimes feel is because, in the end, they are not certain that anyone is listening or is going to respond. That is a crucial point. I ask all noble Lords who have great experience in local government to remember, as they bring their expertise to bear on the Bill, that it is about people and how, with imagination, we can break down some of the social barriers. I have seen it done, for example, in places where council housing has been provided in an imaginative way that fits in with the local community extremely well.
I want people to have houses, and lives they can fulfil from those houses. That means we must keep this dimension constantly in perspective.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, my interest in the matters covered in the Bill as a property professional and landowner are probably well known, as is my vice-presidency of the National Association of Local Councils and of the LGA. I too welcome most of the Bill for reasons similar to those already given by other noble Lords, but it will be necessary to examine the detail. Most of the provisions are necessary and desirable. However, I regret that the housing White Paper is still not with us and will not be until the end of the month. It would have been better—certainly from my point of view—to have been informed of the philosophy the Government are following by having it before the debate.
By way of an overview, I repeat an economic truth I previously made in the deliberations on the then Housing and Planning Bill: from government and departments of state at one end to the happy occupants of their first home on the other, there are few if any advocates for lower house prices either in relative or absolute terms, fuelled as they are by scarcity, revenue, capital growth and personal tax advantage. This is the driver behind all this planning policy. But here is the rub: whereas the costs and hard graft leading to a successful housing development are today, the gains are distinctly jam tomorrow. The discounts from future gains to reflect the interim speculative costs, uncertainty, complexity and delay are, if anything, greater than they have ever been in history and any time I can remember. In short, the complete evaporation of a project’s value is easy: just add an unmeasured dose of risk. Various noble Lords have referred to the cost structures involved. I can relate to all of them.
On responsibilities and resources, the pool needed today is already drained seemingly dry and tomorrow is too uncertain to bridge that gap. I see limited signs that the Government understand this and are willing to address this systemic problem. This goes beyond what the Bill sets out to do.
As we have heard, planning and development is clearly not for novices or amateurs. It is a highly specialised skill, very complex and legalistic, and an activity conducted for high stakes, monetary and community. Even so, we have heard that 2,000 communities have made or are far advanced with their neighbourhood plans. But there are at least 10,000 existing local councils, according to the figures given to me by NALC, and many more still in unparished areas. There is a long way to go. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, referred to just 10% of the population being susceptible to neighbourhood plans. I agree with that statistic. What of the rest? Will they be put off by the entry standards required or the caprice of the outturns referred to so eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege?
I advocate a more aspirational and opportunity-led approach for communities. Some already do it extremely well, but many others do not and see the neighbourhood planning process as a largely defensive measure to keep away unwanted development. I do not see proactivity as a general characteristic of neighbourhood plans. That is not to demean those who have been proactive. It is still far too adversarial generally. With due deference to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, his experience is not quite as I see it in the neighbourhood plan forum dealing with the areas I know best, which are all between London and the coast.
We have principal authorities with inadequate resources to formulate local plans as coherently as they need to and communities with virtually no resources at all to formulate neighbourhood plans. This is coupled with a certain amount of manoeuvring, with each hoping that the other will be the bulwark against unwanted or excessive development. I encountered recently a situation where a local plan made provision for a certain number of houses—it may have been 1,500 or so—of its planned total, ostensibly to be split between a dozen or so larger outlying rural communities but seemingly without suggestion as to how this might be allocated. It is not difficult to imagine the scramble that may result from such an arrangement or the difficulties of making sure that a neighbourhood plan is indeed in compliance with the local plan in circumstances of such a roulette approach to site allocation.
With the benefit of the briefing I received from NALC, I can summarise by pointing to the fact that local councils are the neighbourhood plan driver. The neighbourhood plan process must be operable at community scale. The powers must be given and the responsibilities that go with them must be accepted. Both require financial and other resource. Done correctly, the neighbourhood plan must be given the status and protection promised or credibility simply fails. It must have tangible prospects for delivery of some sort—cash or kind or whatever—to justify the expenditure and risk to the community of taking it on and assimilating the development that arises afterwards, because it is a question not just of building houses but of how you integrate that over time, especially with large developments in relatively small communities. If the resources are not there, the only other variable is the parish precept. We know how that will be looked at.
The larger proportion of the new homes bonus at the very least should go to communities that meet the required standards. The whole neighbourhood planning process needs to be rolled out to another 10,000 or 15,000 communities with proper resources for them to do so.
I will skip the issue of pre-commencement conditions, so ably covered by a number of other noble Lords, but I will address what I believe to be a general criticism of local government performance in getting new housing permissions under way, because I believe that there is a reason for this to do with the larger management of the process nationally. No amount of finger-pointing will resolve that.
Local authorities are responsible to their electorates, who frequently do not want housing above their local needs. In particular, local government is not responsible for the imposition of the sustainability standards that result in all the investigation into the newts, toads, bats and everything else we have heard from my noble kinsman, the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley. These have enormous up-front costs. Local authorities do not control the activists, who sometimes use the bats, newts and toads as a weapon of resistance, nor the activities of some of the utility and infrastructure providers. Neither the activists nor the infrastructure providers are generally democratically accountable.
Local authorities are not responsible in particular for a planning framework that is still coloured by largely preventive and negative terms, as opposed to positive or proactive ones. When councils do become proactive the private sector often cannot tell, and indeed complains that it does not know whether it is dealing with the objective administrator of the planning code or a potential commercial rival.
My experience of proactive engagement is not as fruitful as the Minister would have us believe, but I ask him this: given that proactivity is not a hallmark everywhere—I am very pleased to know it is working well in the Cambridge area—what is stopping better and more opportunity-led long-term land-use planning and financial dialogue between landowners, developers, communities and principal authorities? Is it some concept of bias or predetermination that is in the way? Will the Minister explain why this seems to be a problem?
I live on the edge of an identified development zone colloquially known as the Gatwick diamond. Gatwick Airport’s owners have recently said that for their own expansion plans alone and not dependent on an additional runway, an additional 13,000 direct jobs will be created by 2025. Add this to the persistent housing underperformance of some local authorities and the fact that some development quota must be accepted from other authorities constrained by the national park status of the South Downs, and it is not hard to see that the developmental pressures are overwhelming.
The Government want more housing. I agree with that. The obvious place to put it is in an identified growth area where there is economic activity. The Bill is insufficient given that the Government’s target is now to produce at least 250,000 or 300,000 homes a year in very short order and will run into the same or greater problems of procedural churn, administrative drag, infrastructure issues, workforce and back-office skills and materials shortages, never mind the sustainable rate of buildout of much housing development. In short, it is a bigger picture. The noble Lord, Lord Porter, referred to the number of unimplemented planning consents. That reinforces my point exactly: we are not proceeding with development.
The risk is of development by brute force or fiat by default and I fear that the results may be, as they have been in previous such circumstances, poor—a solution in local planning terms with little concern for place-making or necessarily for where it is most convenient for people to live, work and have their leisure time, even less for buildings they want to cherish because they work well. We risk squandering the investment, building inappropriate homes in the wrong places and creating the failed schemes of tomorrow. We will not succeed if we do not get right communications and connections between towns and villages and their regional hubs. This matter needs careful consideration.
On the compulsory purchase provisions in Part 2, I am concerned that measures seem to be split between the Housing and Planning Act, this Bill and the Digital Economy Bill. This seems to me designed to confuse rather than simplify matters. I suggest that it will not be long before some astute legal advocate argues that, because various provisions appear in different Acts passed at different times, Parliament must have intended some different mode of application in each instance—I wait to see further. The Law Commission recommended consolidation and greater coherence of the patchwork of compulsory purchase laws going back to the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845. The Government’s approach appears to do the opposite. I will reserve judgment at this juncture on the Bill’s scheme-versus-no scheme criteria—more of that anon.
I broadly support the temporary occupation provisions, but I have had the benefit of discussions with the Compulsory Purchase Association and am aware of and agree with its concerns about the treatment of subordinate interests.
I regret the proposed repeal of Part 4 of the Land Compensation Act 1961. This was intended to prevent profiteering by an acquiring authority. That it is seldom invoked is, I suspect, less a mark of redundancy than it is of its efficacy. If anything, with all the bodies that now possess compulsory powers, many of which are privatised and conducted for profit, this safeguard should be retained even if not in precisely the same form. I therefore agree with the Country Land and Business Association—I am a member of it—which states in a briefing that the safeguards for property owners faced with the use of compulsory powers remain as important as ever and that past examples of appropriation without proper compensation have invariably ended in disinvestment, disengagement and systemic failure.
However, if the Government are as open to discussion as they say, I see this Bill as an opportunity. I suggest that we need smarter ways of working—in taxation and planning strategy at all levels—upskilling of the people necessary to deliver objectives, new ways of constructing homes and of financing, and modernisation of large parts of our infrastructure. Even if all these things are not in the Bill, the opportunity is there. We had better get our act together in this respect if we are to make a success of Brexit.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn (Con)
My Lords, this is a welcome and necessary Bill. The need for new housing is generally recognised, freeing up more land is desirable and reducing the time taken to get planning permission is an admirable aim.
At the same time, there are natural resources—my noble friend Lord Ridley referred to bats, newts and toads—and cultural and historic resources which are always under threat and which the present planning system serves to safeguard effectively. I am concerned that the Bill’s provisions, particularly in Clause 12, may endanger that situation.
This country has a good record of safeguarding our historic and archaeological monuments, both by taking key monuments into care and by safeguarding many thousands more through the listing process for historic buildings and the scheduling process for ancient monuments, including archaeological monuments.
Furthermore, there is the clear understanding that when a significant archaeological site has to be sacrificed, whether by the construction of a motorway or by building new homes, where appropriate, rescue excavation will be undertaken before the building works start, and the situation can be alleviated. The system of county archaeological officers, usually working in planning departments, provides the necessary expertise. Local planning authorities regularly impose planning conditions on applications to meet those needs. However, there is widespread concern that in placing restrictions on the power of local planning authorities to impose planning conditions, the Bill risks disrupting that system.
The Government have given some rather vague assurances that the existing exemptions for archaeological recording and recording of the historic environment will not be unduly affected by the Bill. The Minister in another place made constructive references to that effect when resisting an amendment to delete Clause 12. However, the outcome of the Department for Communities and Local Government’s review of the National Planning Policy Framework has not yet been published. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister can say when it will be. It is also a matter for concern that the number of local planning authority archaeology officers and conservation specialists has fallen. Archaeology officers are fewer by 33% than they were in 2006.
There is real concern that local planning authorities will not feel able to press for archaeological pre-commencement conditions under the system proposed in Clause 12. Historic England has put down a cautious marker:
“Historic England does not feel it necessary to have explicit support for archaeological conditions on the face of the Bill, but would like instead to see a clear Government commitment that any subsequent guidance will be positive about the importance of heritage and of necessary conditions, and that local planning authorities should certainly refuse applications where appropriate conditions are resisted, and harm would otherwise ensue”.
Will the Minister give a clear commitment on future guidance being positive about the importance of heritage and of the necessary conditions to protect it? If he cannot give that explicit assurance, it will be necessary in Committee to set down amendments to Clause 12 to enable and facilitate such conditions.
I certainly support the Government in their aim of streamlining and facilitating the planning process, but we do not want that streamlining to operate at the expense of giving due respect to the historical and archaeological heritage.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, and I associate myself with his remarks. He and I are both members of the All-Party Parliamentary Archaeology Group and it has been of great interest to follow this aspect of the planning system in that forum.
I served as a Minister in the Department for Communities and Local Government. Indeed, I was one of the two Ministers who stood at the Dispatch Box to steer the Localism Act 2011 on to the statute book. It has been very good to hear the praise handed out for the neighbourhood planning concept, which is included in that Act. I have very recently become a member of the Marple Neighbourhood Forum, which had its inaugural AGM on Saturday. It aims to publish a plan for the community of Marple in my former constituency, with a view to a decision being taken in 2019. I say to my noble friend Lord Greaves, who is in his place, that it is not a parish council area; this is not exclusively a parish domain.
The Localism Act introduced neighbourhood plans as a concept and set out the mechanism for delivering them. The concept had critics at the time—I thought, perhaps a little unfairly, that most of the critics wished they had thought of it first. It had some welcome moves forward in the Housing and Planning Act 2016 and there are some further proposals in this Bill that, broadly speaking, I welcome. One of the big fears of Ministers in introducing neighbourhood plans was that they would be open to sabotage by local planning authorities, councils and councillors hostile to the idea of losing control of the planning function.
Equally, there were fears that there would be lethargy and torpor in carrying through the processes that were necessary to institute a neighbourhood plan. Some of those concerns were addressed in the Housing and Planning Act and in some of the related statutory instruments. In this Bill there are some further safeguards against interference in neighbourhood plans by other people. That is good—but of course we now see that the sabotage is coming not from local planning authorities but from inspectors appointed by the Secretary of State and, indeed, the Secretary of State himself. Seven years on from 2010, when we were discussing these matters in the department, the wheel has turned and it seems that Whitehall is slowly, silently and insidiously trying to make neighbourhood plans subsidiary to, or trivial in relation to, the factors to be taken into account in approving planning policy and in meeting ministerial targets.
The public perception that I inherited as a Minister in 2010 was that there were basically three steps in the planning process: the developer proposes, the community opposes and the planner imposes. The neighbourhood planning system is intended to break that combative and confrontational way of deciding how communities should be shaped. I do not see much wrong with the new proposals in the Bill relating to neighbourhood plans but there is something missing: a much stronger presumption that neighbourhood plans, duly adopted, trump rogue planning inspectors and strongly inhibit the Secretary of State from being tempted to back rogue planning inspectors, so that we see no more cases of a Secretary of State deciding to override a neighbourhood plan.
I hope that we will have the opportunity to debate this issue and to correct the weaknesses in the system that have now been exposed. Failure to do so would leave many local communities disillusioned and cynical about the value of pressing ahead with a neighbourhood plan. If they are seen as simply being diversionary activities to keep communities out of the way—toys for children to play with while the high-ups and grown-ups in Whitehall make the real decisions—the whole neighbourhood planning process will fall into complete disrepute. I hope to hear a very robust denial of any such intention from the Minister and a commitment to give due consideration to a well-framed amendment at a later stage that will safeguard the integrity of the neighbourhood planning process from the depredations of Whitehall.
The second matter I want to draw to your Lordships’ attention is the Bill’s proposals on pre-commencement planning conditions. I associate myself with the remarks of my noble friend Lady Parminter in relation to neighbourhood plans and, in particular, what she said about sustainable homes and the need to have carbon-compliant housing. I simply flag up that whenever Ministers seek to justify clipping the wings of local planning authorities, they always cite improved efficiency and speed, and they always say in mitigation to the critics that it will be quite all right because it will still be lawful to have conditions designed to deliver sustainability in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework—the NPPF. Indeed, I heard the Minister say exactly that when he introduced the Bill today.
I have a cautionary tale about the NPPF. Back in the department, the first version of the NPPF was produced, but it could not be sent out to the public without the Whitehall write-round—which means that a document has to be signed off by every other department in government. It came back with big red marks all over it from the Treasury. There was a big row inside government—I have not written my memoirs but one day I will—about the NPPF being rewritten by the Treasury. It went through a couple of rewrites and bounces before it came out—and the first version that the public saw was heavily doctored by the Treasury.
Your Lordships may have forgotten that that led to a furious row. For instance, millions of people who belonged to the National Trust wrote to their MPs—and, no doubt, your Lordships—and there was a great deal of backtracking by the Government. Eventually, the current NPPF was published and it is now widely acclaimed as being a very good document that encapsulates exactly what everybody thought in the first place. It bears a remarkable resemblance to the draft document that DCLG officials and Ministers first produced. For what it is worth, I have the relevant copies in a file. A pointless row over the NPPF was triggered by the Treasury’s lack of simple understanding of basic planning principles, lack of common sense and lack of knowledge or application of human psychology. I strongly suspect that the changes to the pre-commencement planning conditions have come from the same stable.
One way Ministers could alleviate my suspicions would be to welcome the amendments that my noble friend Lady Parminter referred to, which we hope to bring forward at a later stage, to require local planning authorities to put conditions on the energy performance of new buildings, which would allow a meaningful step towards zero-carbon homes and making the Paris agreement a realistic target and option for the United Kingdom—in other words, to fight off the Treasury and have pre-commencement planning conditions imposed for good, sound sustainability reasons by local planning authorities, which is exactly what the huge majority of them currently do and should be allowed to go on doing.
Lord Borwick (Con)
My Lords, I first declare my interests as a property developer and builder, as recorded in the register. In particular, I have shareholdings and unpaid directorships in developments, mainly residential, in Bicester, Sussex and Scotland, and I am often looking for future developments.
The two primary aims of the Bill are worthy. Identifying and freeing up more land on which to build homes, and speeding up the delivery of new homes, are both crucial in tackling what is, at best, a chronic shortage of housing in the UK. The trouble is that I am not so sure that the clauses in the Bill will actually achieve those aims. However, improving the neighbourhood planning system is a good idea and so is improving compulsory purchase.
In 2015, nearly 143,000 new homes were built, but the Government have set a necessarily ambitious target of building 1 million new homes by the end of this Parliament. That means 200,000 new homes a year are needed—although your Lordships’ Economic Affairs Committee said that 300,000 homes a year should be built to deal with demand. Either way, we are currently not building enough homes, so I welcome the Bill’s intention to free up land and speed up delivery. But how can this shortage of homes, agreed on by almost everyone in all parties, have arisen? It must be the failure of the planning system. The trick is that we all agree that new homes must be built, but we all think that they should be built somewhere else. We have had a land planning system for about 60 years, yet this system does not deliver the houses we need.
A long time ago, when I was first learning about the planning system from my wise and patient planning adviser, Mr Lee Newlyn, he taught me about “objectively assessed need”. I said that was easy; I would sell forward some houses for delivery when they were built. He wisely said, “Jamie, you’ve just proved housing demand, not housing need”. Indeed, the people say, “We want houses”, but local government says, “Yes, but you don’t need houses”. Ever since a dictator’s wife declared, “Let them eat cake”, the people have quite rightly complained that the authorities should not tell them what they need. We do not have an objectively assessed need for cars and bread; we let the market decide, because central planning always fails. When the planning system for houses fails, what do we do? We snap into action, add a second planning system on top of it and call it a neighbourhood planning system. I welcome this attempt to get the second layer right, but I would rather improve the first.
The fundamental problem is that, if we are to have a planning system then that system should be as close to the people as possible, but the people who want the houses are not yet living there and so cannot be consulted or contribute. We all know and respect the people who put hours of underpaid time into planning committees—I do not have the patience to be one of them—but almost all of them are established figures in the community, not people who want to move into that community yet cannot do so. The difference between market price of land with planning permission for houses and land with planning permission as agricultural proves that the system is failing.
It is not just those who cannot buy a new home because of a lack of supply who are affected. Current home owners who are against the idea of more housebuilding in their own area are affected, too, as they do not receive compensation when permission to build is granted. If you are lucky or wise enough to have bought a house with a great view of a green field opposite your front door, that house will reduce in value when some clown builds houses all over your view. The fact that you do not own that view does not make you feel any happier about that change. At present, the system is binary: yes, we build or, no, we do not—in favour or not in favour. The reality is that people might be in favour if only they got something out of it.
The truth is that when a developer wants to build houses on some land, both sides impose costs on the other. One side wants to build houses and the other to keep the land as it is. A proper system of compensation could ensure a mechanism is in place that speeds up the process and satisfies all parties. I do not mean compensation paid to the local council but paid to the individuals. A good idea as to how to do this was first published by Professor Mark Pennington of the Institute of Economic Affairs some years ago. I am not sure whether that change would wholly meet the objections that I outlined earlier, but at least it would be a start.
The housing industry is unusual, partly because of its cautious nature. Housebuilders do not make their houses with state-of-the-art electronics because they feel that the purchaser of a new house is taking sufficient financial risk. Houses are certainly built to modern standards of insulation and heating systems, but the controls and robotics that are available now are not included. New smartphone-related apps for efficiently controlling heating and lighting are sold as after-market additions, rather than original equipment in a brand-new house. Similarly, people have been trying for some time to propose new ways of building houses quicker or cheaper, or for them to be better insulated but keep within the standards. These ideas include factory-manufactured houses, which are widespread in Germany but not widespread here. In my opinion, this is because our building industry is not friendly to bright ideas, partly because it is exhausted by dealing with planning requirements. Perhaps the best ideas which will go ahead are those proposed as parts of the garden cities being discussed for the future. These seem to be genuinely interesting and pioneering. I am proud to declare my interest in one in Sussex.
The current system means that smaller housebuilding projects are unlikely to go ahead. A real problem is that smaller housebuilders are unable to compete. Why should that be? A good example is the requirement by councils for bonds on Section 106 agreements. Say, for instance, that a council and housebuilder agree that he will build a new road as part of a development. The council often then asks the housebuilder for a bond for that road, to hold the business to its end of the bargain. Smaller firms often cannot afford bonds and so are cut out of the process; big housebuilders welcome this, of course. But while one might say that councils are simply protecting themselves by requiring a bond, the truth is that it is a solution to a theoretical problem. The market would surely solve it. If a developer did not deliver the road or the other obligations in accordance with the Section 106 agreement, the entire development would lose value. They may not even sell the houses at all without a road, so the risk is on the developer and the house buyer. What we end up with is a costly solution to a problem that does not really exist, with the consequence being the choking off of competition and stopping new entrants to the market.
What we should be discussing are ways to introduce proper market mechanisms to provide adequate compensation. We should consider those who wish to buy houses, as well as those who wish to build them in an area and those who already own there. We must ensure that we do not pass laws which may have the unintended consequence of choking off competition in the sector.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (LD)
My Lords, I should first draw attention to the register of interests. I am a director of some development companies. I also run my own consultancy around this area and work in advising government, and have done so for successive Governments. I work with students who are doing planning courses for both the University of Cambridge and the University of Plymouth. For the first part of what I want to say on neighbourhood planning, however, I should perhaps most importantly draw attention to the fact that I am also president of the National Association of Local Councils.
The overwhelming majority of neighbourhood plans that have been brought through the system—some 90%— have been led by parish councils, though they actually represent quite a small proportion of the population because they do not represent the urban communities. This is a fault which past Governments said that they wanted to address and it should be addressed, because that very local form of direct democracy is important. I would like to see many more parished, and I know that the national association believes it would be important to have that. If the Government want to see neighbourhood plans developed in many more areas, they would see it happen by parishing many more communities. They will see it conducted effectively and democratically, and then have bodies that can be guardians of those neighbourhood plans, as well as receiving the benefit in a proportion of CIL payments and having a democratic process for delivering community improvements that can be funded in that way.
I very much welcome the introduction of neighbourhood planning. It reflects ideas I had about empowering communities to deliver affordable housing to meet local needs back at the time of the Living Working Countryside review, which I conducted for the then Government in 2008. It has been immensely valuable and hugely important. Perhaps the thing that is most satisfying from my point of view is that I argued then that, if you empower communities to meet local needs, they will step up to the mark and deliver more, not less, and that has been the experience. It was really brave of the coalition Government to introduce that, and I am very pleased to see the present Government continuing on that path and making the system more effective.
I chair my neighbourhood plan steering group. I am delighted to say that we have now got it through the examination process, so the examiner has given the thumbs up. We are now in the process of the examiner putting through some tweaks in collaboration with the council. I hope that soon we will have a referendum, and I live in a certain degree of fear at night that we might be one of the few—I think there is only one so far—areas that does not get through the referendum. Given the amount of community engagement we have had, I hope we will do it.
The neighbourhood plan in our very small, poor community—it is quite unusual in that respect, as it is not the middle-class community that many are but a very poor, working-class community—will be transformative for the community. It will mean more development, and it will take traffic out of the village if we see all the things enabled by that development. It will be genuinely transformative, and it will enable big increases in local employment as well.
Some people with expertise—officers from the Environment Agency and a former council housing officer, who had done some development in his own right—happened to live locally and were involved. Other members of the community might not have had those kinds of backgrounds but were enormously knowledgeable about the community itself and its needs and were brilliant at the local engagement. Perhaps most importantly, the vicar of the parish was a wonderful deputy to me.
With all that expertise and my input, the process was much longer than I thought I could make it be, even with my experience and background. That is because the stages and processes are, frankly, just very lengthy. I am really sceptical about whether they are all necessary. I am glad to see some speeding up happening through what the Government are doing. To be honest, at the final stages the will to live was slightly lost on the committee as it got into the bureaucracy and the months of waiting for responses. There was a certain degree of lost interest. Admittedly, we got the plan through, so the committee is not having to fight any big battles, but it is a really long process.
The thing that really worried the steering group all the way through, and which certainly would have destroyed its confidence, had it happened, was the risk of developments being brought forward quickly to get them through during the long process when the neighbourhood plan had some, but not much, weight. The proposal in the Bill to give much clearer weight at an earlier stage, particularly once the plan has been examined, is important, but I would like to be clearer about how that weight is gathering. I think that attempts to get larger, poor-quality schemes through the line should be very robustly fended off by councils on the grounds that neighbourhood plans are being developed, particularly where the plan is demonstrably pro-development and going, even in draft form, beyond what is required by the local plan. It is really important that plans are defended and that Ministers are very clear that that should take place. I hope these debates will allow Ministers to put on record some very strong comments in that regard. Of course, neighbourhood plans can also be used as a delaying tactic and as a way of trying to avoid development, but this is for those plans that are robustly being carried forward, that can demonstrate consultation and that are, as they usually are, going beyond what is required by the local plan.
The second problem we had was resources. We are not a rich community. There was not a series of local QCs available to operate for us, although I was able to get one to give some advice to me because of my contacts. They were not living there in the community. We were entirely reliant, in that very poor, small parish, on the locality funding that the Government made available. When we first launched, the money had run out, so for the first few months we had to operate without any such support. At later stages, we needed a strategic environmental appraisal as well as a sustainability appraisal. Those are vastly expensive things to do. We attempted the sustainability appraisal ourselves at first because we were told it could be done without expertise, if you followed the right tick-boxes. Frankly, even following the right tick-boxes was not going to do the job, and it would have been a very poor job anyway. We were able to access funding, but it was incredibly important that that funding was there, as we also relied on that funding for the very extensive community engagement with door-to-door delivery of leaflets. We could deliver the leaflets, but design and publication, particularly publication, is a costly process and needed resource.
This is a brilliant scheme, but there are 10,000 parishes and only 2,000 neighbourhood plans. There are many more communities beyond the parishes that could be bringing them forward. Neighbourhood plans are a bit like care in the community. They are a great proposal, but they are not a saving. Localising things needs resource at the local level, and there is only so much that can be done. Really clear funding support on a long-term basis is critical. I note that neighbourhoods can gain from the CIL, but if there is no CIL, they cannot gain financially from the housing they deliver. It is important that, one way or another, mechanisms are in place to make sure that parishes get that support. I also think that the Government should be looking at the gains they are making in the development process in delivering housing with neighbourhood planning and should be thinking about some of that resource going to funding those neighbourhood plans. A virtuous cycle should be in place, as it would make sense.
I now turn to the other key part of the Bill, which is on the CPO. I am very pleased to see the Government making reforms to the CPO system. It is outdated and complex. The most important thing is that the Bill makes it clear that people cannot expect to gain enormously financially from changes that are made possible through the CPO process. If land is not carrying huge value and development becomes possible, landowners should be able to get proper compensation and in practice— because the CPO is almost always not required and is actually a process of negotiation—they will get more than that.
I did some work for the Government on new towns and villages, and the Government adopted a policy last March. I am delighted with the progress with that policy and to see 14 new garden villages coming forward which, with the new garden towns, will enable some 200,000 homes to be delivered with a degree of real community engagement and support. That will roll forward for more. The key thing about them is that they deliver really high quality.
The core reasons for the process for garden villages and towns is that, first, it enables them to be located in a way that is more sensitive to existing communities—which means that you are not just ringing every town and village with endless bland estates—and, secondly, you are able to use land that does not already carry huge value and you therefore capture much of the uplift of land value, which comes through permission for development, to deliver services, shops, pubs and place-making quality and better, cheaper homes than would otherwise be possible. You therefore reduce a lot of the opposition to development. That opposition is precisely because development is too often so poor. This is about quality, but to deliver that we either rely on landowners and the planning system to deliver high quality or, in some cases, local authorities coming in to acquire land and to take a leadership role—in partnership with the private sector in the modern world, not distanced from it—and hopefully in partnership with the landowners. But that opportunity is needed on occasion, and the CPO powers here make that clear.
Changes in the last Bill enabled local authorities more easily to bring forward new town and village proposals by that route, but I hope that this Bill will be an opportunity to look at whether we might also give them the powers, which are currently very much in the hands of the Secretary of State, to take the decision to set up and appoint the board and then have complete control of every penny of expenditure. If local authorities want to create new, small-scale communities to meet their local needs, and want to set up a development body to manage them, they ought to be able to do that at a local level and take local responsibility. The Secretary of State has a role in the process of setting it up in any event, but I do not think the Secretary of State needs, or would actually wish to have, that kind of day-to-day control. That is the story of the New Towns Act as it was in the 1950s and 1960s; I do not think it is the story of the world of neighbourhood planning and local democracy and engagement, which the Government are, I know, extremely committed to. I may probe that a bit later during the progress of the Bill, and I hope others may as well.
The bottom line is that we have seen enormous progress. The NPPF is not perfect but it is an absolutely huge step in the right direction. I look forward to the Government’s response to the CIL review, the local plan review and the NPPF review, which I hope we will see before too long, along with the White Paper. I hope we will have the opportunity for a bigger, broader debate in due course on the back of that about how we deliver the homes that we need at the scale that we need and with the quality the British people deserve. Frankly, too often at the moment, they are still not getting that.
Baroness Greengross (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register, including my positions as chief executive of the International Longevity Centre-UK and yet another vice-president of the LGA. I am also patron of the Associated Retirement Community Operators.
I am sure no one would argue that an effective and democratically based planning system is critical. As in so many policy areas, however, we are not starting from a level playing field. Equally, I am sure that the vast majority of people are convinced that we must do all we can to promote suitable, accessible housing, both for older people and for those with disabilities. Both groups need to be at the heart of the Bill.
I welcome the main aims of the Bill—to further strengthen neighbourhood planning, to boost the housing supply by identifying and freeing up more land to build homes on, to give communities more say and more certainty about where and when developments will take place, and to ensure that plans and policies address the strategic priorities for development of the area—but I have some reservations about some aspects of the Bill, and today I will concentrate my remarks on older people and their needs.
The huge savings in health and social care expenditure and the release of underused property, to say nothing about the huge environmental benefits for the people themselves through the provision of retirement housing, especially that which provides extra care, have been demonstrated time after time. For example, there is a real undersupply of housing with care, or retirement villages. Only 0.5% of people over the age of 65 live in such a community, compared with 5% in countries such as New Zealand or the United States. If we are to get to only half the levels seen in those countries by 2030, we would have to build around 250,000 new units. The Bill gives us the opportunity to get somewhere towards this goal.
I warmly commend the work already carried out on the Bill by the Member for South Cambridgeshire in another place, Heidi Allen, who pressed the issue. I believe the Government, to their credit, have accepted the basic principles in her arguments, and we may hear more from them in Committee. But it is difficult to determine the full implications of some of the Bill’s clauses since much is apparently to be determined in regulations. For this, as in so many other matters, can the Government publish those regulations very quickly, so that we can properly scrutinise what is proposed?
I fully understand that the National Planning Policy Framework requires local planning authorities to plan for a suitable mix of housing types and tenures, including those for older people. At present, it is for those authorities to determine the level of provision, based on identifiable need. Land values obviously have a big part to play in the viability of such provision, and the Housing Commission of the LGA has called on the Government to establish clear, robust and transparent procedures to help manage this situation and ensure the delivery of affordable housing and the infrastructure needed to make such developments viable.
We need to do something and we need to do it now. Putting action off will not make the solution easier. Current estimates show that in the housing-with-care sector there could be a shortfall of some three-quarters of a million units by 2025. To fill that would mean that around a half of all new homes built in the next decade would need to be housing with care or other types of retirement housing. This would help everyone by releasing a huge number of conventional units back into the mainstream housing market, making affordable housing available, particularly to the young.
It is absolutely essential that if any of this is to work appropriately, local plans must take into account, properly and fully, the change in housing needs caused by rapid demographic change. Housing with care is a very important element of housing for older people, and a sector that is massively underserved relative to need. At present, there is a huge gap between need and provision. These developments are fundamentally different from other provision. Unlike general housing, they have considerable communal and non-residential space: lounges, restaurants, libraries, fitness facilities and so on. The residents are no longer on their own and can access all the benefits when and if they require them. This means, however, that fewer units can be provided in the same area of development, which can make it very difficult for housing-with-care providers to compete on an equal footing when it comes to bidding for sites.
In general, unfortunately, the planning landscape for such developers can also be hostile. Added to this is the fact that many local authorities, apparently, still seem to fail to grasp the hugely important social benefits of housing with care to older people and to young people seeking somewhere to live. It is for this reason that I would like to go further and explore in Committee the possibility of placing a duty on local authorities to plan and quantify the need for and provision of this type of specialist housing when they prepare their local plans, and for them to have an obligation to ensure that every housing planning approval has a record of the fact that this has been taken into account when considering and granting permission. This could possibly best be secured in an appropriate form through the forthcoming White Paper, which, as we know, is due shortly.
Many older people are empty-nesters or alone, and thus their current property is too big for them, making simple maintenance and gardening tasks seem very daunting or expensive. So for them downsizing makes a lot of sense, but to date most people are reluctant to consider it as emotional ties, familiarity and fear of the unknown very often rule it out. As a result, the demand for downsizing remains poor, but the promised White Paper on housing presents an opportunity to help resolve the housing shortage by getting into the market, for occupation by families, houses lived in by just one or two older people. Analysts say this could free up 2.5 million homes in the UK. The White Paper could contain incentives to downsize, including things such as stamp-duty relief, relocation assistance or help-to-move loans, which I understand might even be a welcome possibility.
Some mention has been made of the difficulty of defining what is meant by an older person. I do not think this is really beyond the capability of specialist lawyers or of something along the lines of the independent Cridland review into amending the state pension age as life expectancies change, but in any case, there is already a minimum age for occupying retirement housing. Perhaps this is an issue to look at in Committee, because I feel that merely strengthening planning policy and guidance in the way that is currently suggested is insufficient to bring about the changes that we need and desire.
No one would deny that planning has an essential role if we are to provide more housing of any sort, but the more that I listen to the debate, not just this evening but over the years, I am getting increasingly worried that we are moving more and more to a position where proper planning is seen as the key to proper housing provision. I would like to know how much research is being done into why there is a shortage of housing stock. Clearly the availability of sites to develop is critical, but is that the only thing standing in the way of adequate provision? Why are houses not built in adequate numbers? If all the permissions that have been granted already but not yet implemented were implemented, there would be an enormous spurt in the number of houses available. Do we know if there are other factors? Is it the tax system, a shortage of labour or even a shortage of material? We know that recently there was an acute shortage of scaffolders and scaffolding generally. We need to know the answers to this. Unless it is investigated, we may end up with a better planning regime but similar housing problems, so these things need to be looked at.
As I said earlier, there are huge benefits for all of us in an adequate supply, not merely for the users of retirement and extra care housing but for all of us, old and young. Anything that can reasonably make this more achievable should be one of our key priorities.
Lord Framlingham (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. We hear so much about young people not being able to buy their houses that it is nice to hear about the difficulties of older people from someone who clearly knows so much about it.
The purpose of the Bill is to streamline the planning process and to build more houses, which I am sure we all agree is a good idea. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I think there is a bit more to it than that; when producing neighbourhood plans or development plans of any sort, the protection of ancient woodland should be automatically included in the terms of reference. The value of trees to society is becoming better understood and more obvious every day. Today’s debate is not the occasion to list all over again how much they contribute to our lives, but not to set out how important trees are and how important their protection is in a planning context would be a serious omission. Ancient woodland is irreplaceable—that is self-explanatory. I am not going to rehearse all the good things about ancient woodland because the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has already done so in considerable detail. However, I shall say that ancient woodland and all the flora and fauna that go with it, once lost, is gone for ever, together with all that it brings to our pleasure, our well-being and our heritage.
Because of all that it contributes to our lives, ancient woodland should be seen in planning terms as a valuable asset, not a liability or an obstacle to development. Every planning authority should recognise that and take the necessary steps. They should know precisely where their ancient woodland and other very important trees are, and keep a clear register of them. That would enable them to be identified to developers well in advance of any planning proposals so that they could be avoided or, perhaps, carefully incorporated in any planning scheme. It should be trees with buildings rather than, as so often happens now, trees versus buildings. This would reduce the delay and the problems caused when people end up at loggerheads over these issues.
In all this, the role of the professional arboriculturalist is key. I declare a non-pecuniary interest: for some years I was president of the Arboricultural Association, which does such an excellent job in this field. It maintains a register of consultants and contractors in arboriculture who are able to advise on all the complexities involved in the care of trees and woodland. It is my belief that in planning matters, where trees are concerned, an arboricultural consultant should be the equal in status to an architect or a landscape designer. Sadly, too many planning authorities lack the full-time services of arboricultural officers, which puts them and the trees that they seek to protect at a serious disadvantage.
None of us wants to live in houses without trees, or to be unable to walk in and enjoy our ancient woodland, so it is vital, when we are considering any development plan, that trees in all their forms are given the highest priority. I shall follow with interest the fortunes of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Young.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a director of a company that occasionally undertakes small-scale, high-quality local developments, as recorded in the register of your Lordships’ House. It is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Framlingham, and I absolutely agree about the importance of ancient woodland and the need for trees. By this stage of the debate many issues have already been raised, but I hope your Lordships will allow me to add some points.
This is a hugely important Bill. We all understand that there is a housing crisis in this country. Having a home is important to us all, as well as helping social cohesion, and we need to help everyone who aspires to own a home to achieve this.
However, while new homes are badly needed, as my noble friend told us at the beginning of the debate, it is important that they are built in the right places, and that quality and design are carefully considered—not just quantity. We need to provide the additional homes without adversely affecting the communities that already exist.
I hope that one thing that the imminent White Paper will do is examine the causes of this housing crisis, which I think are multiple and complex. Nowhere is the crisis more severe than here in London. It is now very difficult for young people to rent, let alone buy, property here. Enormous numbers of foreign buyers have purchased residential property in the UK, particularly in central London, which often lies empty. I appreciate that some overseas investment is healthy and necessary, but this sector has become overheated and the result is now crowding out the settled population. Surely we must ask what we are going to do about such issues.
The issue of planning permissions being given but houses not built and land banks held by developers until prices rise has already been raised. What is the accurate situation? These pipeline figures are important.
Last year, I spoke on the Housing and Planning Bill about the importance of designing buildings that will enhance the community, that are sensitive to existing architecture and local housing layout and that use local materials. To be sustainable, we must be building homes that people will still want to look at and live in years from now. Having worked as an interior designer, I am only too conscious of the effect that surroundings have on people. Unattractive, low-quality housing is not truly sustainable and will short-change those who buy it. Bad housing can also lead to wider social problems, and even impact on mental health. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me quoting Winston Churchill:
“We shape our buildings; thereafter they shape us”.
Too often, developers are building houses that do not differ between communities. Although provisions are in place for local authorities to insist on local styles, it seems that frequently this is sacrificed in favour of lower costs per home.
I am very concerned that inhibiting pre-commencement conditions without the agreement of the applicant could lead to poorer-quality developments. As has been stated, they are a protection for communities.
We are a Government who won an election on an agenda of localism. Our manifesto pledged to ensure that local people would have more control over planning and to protect the green belt. But I worry that the Bill does not strengthen the agenda of localism and may indeed go some way to achieving the opposite.
Planning has become a complex issue. Although it is welcome that councils engage in consulting on neighbourhood and local plans, I have seen a consultative document that ran to several hundred pages and was incomprehensible to someone such as me who is not well versed in planning. Thus consultation is perhaps sometimes being honoured in the letter rather than the spirit. Consultations need to ask people in a way that the man and woman in the street are able to understand and answer, and should be reasonably succinct, otherwise people will not engage. Have any evaluations been carried out of these consultations and have local views been taken into account? Otherwise, this exercise can simply be box ticking.
Developers are allowed to appeal if they do not get their planning permission granted. Why are locals not allowed to appeal when planning permission is granted and they are fighting against it? That is hardly fair. We heard a moving contribution from my noble friend Lady Cumberlege. We need to ensure that local people are listened to.
I welcome the fact that building on brownfield sites is encouraged. However, I am concerned by reports that planning permissions have been given in areas of outstanding natural beauty. Maintaining protections for these areas also featured in our 2015 manifesto. The green belt was established to protect our countryside. Once we lose our precious countryside, it will be gone forever. I had understood that the Secretary of State, shortly after his appointment, said that the green belt was sacrosanct—yet I understand that he allowed about 6,000 homes to be built in Sutton Coldfield on green belt land, which was strongly opposed by local people. I know that the Minister will say that he cannot comment on specific cases, but will he please reassure us that this will not happen again? To add extra protection, surely it would be best to remove the new homes bonus from houses built on greenfield sites, as this would add incentive to utilise brownfield sites. Perhaps my noble friend will consider this.
It is disappointing that the Bill does not appear to encourage new housing to be carried out by small local builders, who should be more responsive to local need and intrinsic style. Frequently, big developers get the contracts, and too often their concern appears to be mainly financial gain, building in a stereotypical style and not in local materials. The fact that they are often building a large number of houses on a field means that the development appears bolted-on and does not blend in with the existing layout, and thus does not enhance the local community.
Clause 39 states that regulations are to be made by statutory instruments. Will the regulations be ready for us, at least in draft, by the time we reach Committee?
Before I close, I will quote from an article written by Matthew Parris in the Spectator about a week ago entitled, “An age of bright new lights on ugly new estates”. He wrote:
“Almost without exception, the most visually depressing neighbourhoods are housing estates, streets or even whole townships that were put up quickly and at the same time: system-built in order to realise economies of scale and simplify construction. Such house-building has had the wretched effect of turning many ‘estates’ into closed and ill-regarded neighbourhoods”.
Although I understand that we need more homes, and welcome policy that seeks to simplify the planning process, we must always ensure that new housing is fit for purpose. This means developments that will serve as sustainable and valued homes for generations and as sensible, appropriate and welcome additions to the communities they are built in.
The Archbishop of York
My Lords, I hope I will not abuse the great privilege your Lordships have given me by allowing me, as the 24th speaker, to speak in the gap.
I support the Bill because of the three areas it covers: neighbourhood planning, local development plans and compulsory purchase. Neighbourhood planning is dealt with in Clauses 1 to 5, which enable planning decision-makers to take account of well-advanced neighbourhood plans by giving such plans legal effect at an earlier stage, prior to full approval by a local referendum. That is critical. A neighbourhood plan attains the same legal status as a development plan once it has been agreed at a referendum and is brought into force by a local planning authority. At this point, it becomes part of the statutory development plan. Applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This will help communities that are well advanced in the neighbourhood planning process to have more protection from speculative development that would contravene the proposed neighbourhood plan.
Will local referenda become nimbyism charters—not in my back yard? I hope not. The noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, is also concerned about the localism issue. I hope that referenda will not be a charter for those who want to protest and do not want anything to be done. In York, we have many grade 1 listed buildings. If we try to change them to make them usable for the local community, everybody comes out of the woodwork saying, “The building is in a mess but the pews are lovely. Don’t remove them”. I hope that localism does not prevent people doing anything.
Secondly, pre-commencement planning conditions, dealt with in Part 1, Clauses 12 and 13, are requirements that local planning authorities can place on planning applications which prevent development taking place until they are formally met by the applicant. As I understand it, the Bill would allow a local planning authority to use pre-commencement planning conditions only where it has the written agreement of the developer. However, if I have read it correctly, the Bill would not restrict the ability of local planning authorities to seek to impose conditions that are necessary to achieve sustainable development in line with the National Planning Policy Framework. Again, the Bill tries to do two things, and does them well.
Although it is important to prevent the imposition of unreasonable conditions on developers, it is essential to ensure that archaeological heritage, habitats and species, and the concerns of the community are fully taken into account in the planning process, even after permission to build has been granted. It seems unlikely, by the way—maybe I am wrong—that a developer will agree in writing to have pre-commencement conditions imposed on them, and implementing these clauses could further blunt the powers of local planning authorities to try to ensure sensitive development.
The DCLG maintains that appropriate protections for important matters such as heritage, the natural environment and green spaces will be retained, along with measures to mitigate the risk of flooding. Clause 12 —this is where I want the Minister’s help—will grant the Secretary of State the power to make regulations setting out what conditions may or may not be imposed on the granting of planning permission. It would be helpful to have more detail on what these regulations might be—the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, said the same thing—as the Bill goes through Committee and Report. The Government have indicated that the regulations would be subject to public consultation.
As someone who voted to remain in the referendum, I want to say that part of the trouble with the EU—one of the things that bedevilled it—was what I call a forest of regulations. I hope that regulations will not be used as a way to create greater lack of clarity.
A very helpful clause on compulsory purchase has been included in the Bill. It clarifies the potential payment and prevents claims to increase the value of compensation payable if proposals then change. These changes seem proportionate and will help to bring brownfield sites into development. Work needs to be done on that.
There do not seem to be any provisions in the Bill that will have disproportionately positive or negative effects on different areas of the country, different land types or different communities. In other words, it is a balanced Bill for all areas and, coming from the north, I welcome that. There is much to support in the Bill, which will help to strengthen neighbourhood plans and bring more sites into development. There are some concerns about possible restrictions on the use of pre-commencement planning conditions, but that can be sorted out in Committee and on Report. For those reasons, I welcome the Bill. Its sponsors are to be encouraged and I want to say simply, thank you.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I hope that all noble Lords, as I have done, have found this Second Reading debate extremely helpful. A number of issues have come to the fore in the course of our debate which I think that we will need to examine more closely in Committee. Before I go any further, I should add my name to the list of vice-presidents of the Local Government Association.
This Bill is part of a package of measures that includes financial support to boost housebuilding and the forthcoming housing White Paper. The Bill aims in particular to simplify and speed up the neighbourhood planning process and, in principle, that is a welcome intention. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and my noble friend Lord Greaves reminded us, neighbourhood planning is about a great deal more than building homes. It is about building communities. We will need to explore that in greater detail in Committee. Can the Minister confirm that there is nothing in the White Paper, which is due when Committee has been completed in your Lordships’ House, which will impact on the Bill that we do not already know about? It would be helpful to know when it will be published—and I suppose that I seek the Minister’s assurance that it will be published in very good time for consideration of the Bill at Report.
When we debated the Localism Bill in 2011, I and other colleagues were strongly supportive of the proposals to introduce neighbourhood planning. Since then, I have been very impressed, like so many in your Lordships’ House, by the commitment of so many communities to get involved in the process. The evidence of its success is there, in that 10% more houses are being built because neighbourhood plans exist. As my noble friend Lord Stunell reminded us, neighbourhood planning is seven years on, and this still has the potential to be a centralising Bill rather than a decentralising Bill. I hope that we will take steps in Committee to examine that in some detail.
More recently than the Localism Act 2011, during the passage of the Housing and Planning Bill, we argued that that Bill did not go far enough in ensuring a fuller role for neighbourhood planning bodies in planning matters that might impact on their area. We also argued that we needed greater promotion of neighbourhood plans in urban areas, which are mostly unparished and have many fewer neighbourhood plans than parished areas. My noble friends Lady Pinnock and Lord Greaves spoke in some detail about that. This matters. If neighbourhood planning is to be the future—and we want to see it expand—there need to be structures in unparished areas that are stronger than the structures that we currently have. I hope that we will explore how we might encourage neighbourhood planning to be strengthened in those urban areas.
My noble friend Lord Taylor of Goss Moor reminded us that professional help matters and that the process is a long one. He said that he was sceptical that all stages were necessary. Again, I wonder whether we might look further at that issue in Committee.
The reputation of neighbourhood planning has been damaged a little—and in some places more than a little—by the requirement for a local planning authority to have a five-year land supply even when a neighbourhood plan has been adopted in the absence of an adopted local plan. In other words, if the local planning authority has failed to produce a local plan with a five-year supply, the neighbourhood plan can be deemed out of date even if it is only recently adopted. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, reminded us of this but there are other examples, right across the country, where neighbourhood plans adopted in good faith and after a referendum suddenly find they have problems because the five-year land supply has not been produced by the local planning authority. I hope we will look at this issue further in Committee. However, it might help if the Minister, in replying, explained the impact in practice of the Statement made by the Minister for Housing and Planning on 12 December, which suggested that only a three-year supply was needed in some cases. What exactly will the practical outcome of that Statement be?
We welcome the fact that the Bill gives greater weight to neighbourhood plans earlier in the planning process and it is good that principal planning authorities are required to provide stronger professional support for neighbourhood planning. The Bill makes it easier to modify existing and future neighbourhood plans and, in the main, these are helpful and seem to command broad support. However, the Bill could be strengthened through amendments giving neighbourhood plans even greater weight in the planning system than is currently proposed, through the right to be heard. We were reminded of that by my noble friend Lady Parminter, and we can come back to it in Committee too.
I have a number of concerns about the Bill. It has been said—and it could be true—that it may not build enough homes. My noble friends Lady Maddock and Lord Greaves talked of direct commissioning and how this might help build yet more new homes towards the target which the Government have set but which is unlikely to be delivered. I am concerned about numbers but I am also concerned that there are no measures in the Bill to ensure that new homes are sustainable, low-carbon and protected from flooding risks through sustainable drainage in all cases. My noble friend Lady Parminter reminded us that we need to investigate those issues further in Committee. We shall look at the protection of ancient woodland. I hope an amendment will be forthcoming on this and that it will command all-party support. If it does, the Government might want to look more closely at the value of such protection.
Clause 7 gives the Secretary of State powers of direction over local plans. I hope we might explore this issue further to understand the intention better. At this stage, we need to reserve judgment on it, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, gave us good reason to do so. A new clause, Clause 8, has emerged concerning county council default powers. I have not fully understood why this clause is deemed necessary. County councils do not have the local planning expertise required to discharge the function. To get it, they would have to employ consultants or staff or, maybe, district council staff. If a district council is deemed to be failing in its duty and the Secretary of State decides the county council should take over, it is not clear who would be legally responsible in the event of a challenge to an adopted local plan if it is approved through that route. The Minister may be interested in receiving amendments in Committee which might point a way through that problem and we will, I hope, come forward with some suggestions.
My noble friend Lady Pinnock and the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, talked about the remediation of land, its financing and how we build more homes on more brownfield sites. The Government have made laudable attempts to do this but we need to look more closely at what financial barriers are in place as regards developers building on brownfield sites as opposed to greenfield sites.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, mentioned pubs and the amendment voted on in the other place on the need for permitted development rights to be imposed where pubs are closed and sold and then undergo a change of use without planning permission. Strong feelings were expressed in the other place on this matter, with 161 votes cast in favour of requiring a planning application to be made when it is proposed to demolish a pub or change its use. I think that is the right course and I hope that we will examine this further in Committee. Designating pubs as assets of community value is important. The last Government had a good record in that respect in creating the register of assets of community value. However, in this case we need to go a bit further.
The evidence we have heard suggests that the jury is out on pre-commencement conditions. The Minister will write to us on this matter but I hope that the Government are clear what the problem is they are trying to solve. I am willing to be convinced that there is a problem that must be solved given the way in which the relevant clause is written. As my noble friend Lady Parminter said, the difficulty with the argument put forward is that sometimes conditions can be useful because they tell you exactly what the problem is that needs to be addressed. If an applicant is not prepared to sign an agreement, you could end up with the local planning authority refusing planning permission when quite a lot of the relevant development would be very worth while. However, as my noble friend Lady Parminter pointed out, the other danger is that you could end up with poorer development. We have heard a little tonight about poor-quality development. In the rush to build and hit targets, you could well end up with poorer-quality development as a consequence of imposing a requirement to agree to pre-commencement conditions. We need to investigate that issue too. I think the Minister agrees that pre-commencement planning conditions must not be used as a way to cut corners on key matters such as protection for special environmental or heritage sites. I think that is a given. However, we need to be reassured that the means by which that will be delivered are not in danger.
I have come to the conclusion that there may need to be a thorough review of compulsory purchase powers in time. However, there is clearly much support for reforming the compulsory purchase system, and the Government are right to proceed with that now. The principle is that the public sector should be able to benefit to a greater extent from value uplift created by public projects. My noble friend Lord Taylor of Goss Moor reminded us of this in his contribution a little while ago.
Perhaps we need to clarify in Committee one or two issues concerning the detail of temporary possession as regards leasehold charges and changes to the provisions around compensation. One of the benefits of the Committee stage is that it enables us to discuss such provisions in detail.
My noble friend Lady Maddock made a very cogent contribution on resources and planning fees. In the summer of 2016, around 250,000 applications were recorded as not having been processed on time. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, reminded us that central government can bear a responsibility for delays. It is all too easy to paint local government as the body responsible for delays, whereas there are often several reasons why they occur. That could be one, but another is the lack of resource. I am now pretty convinced by what the noble Lord, Lord Porter, told us: that councils—the Local Government Association tells us—are subsidising planning applications by £150 million a year. This is significant money. Even if that figure is only £100 million—and it could be £200 million—we need to look at how planning fees can be raised. I understand that there is a strong chance that this matter will be addressed in the housing White Paper, which is one of the reasons why the timing of the issuing of that White Paper matters. Indeed, if you read Clause 5, you see that delivering the clause requires more professional planning staff; obviously they have to be paid for, and more planners will need to be employed to enable high-quality planning to take place.
I understand from yesterday’s briefing that the Government will table amendments, which I expect will be before Committee—although the Minister also might wish to confirm that they will not come to us on Report. I understand that the Government are doing it on the primacy of neighbourhood plans, the right of parish and town councils to be consulted in drawing up local plans, and the housing needs of disabled and older people. Any further information the Minister can give us on that will be appreciated.
I draw to a close. When permitted development, which was basically seen as being about the conversion of offices to homes, was introduced, it was not anticipated that problems might be caused by the excess closure of offices—that is, places for people to work—in the interests of making a profit from the change of use from office to home. The annual register is therefore warmly welcomed, as it means that we will have some evidence of whether there is a major problem.
The Government are keen to speed up the planning process, and there is no doubt that the Bill will help to achieve that. However, I hope that the Minister will understand that there is a worry—we had it before we came to Second Reading but it has become more acute—which is whether the Bill is more of a centralising Bill of the one-size-fits-all policy-making type, as my noble friend Lord Greaves identified, or a liberating Bill that will enable neighbourhoods to take much greater control of their destiny. As I said earlier, on this matter the jury remains out.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my interests as yet another vice-president of the Local Government Association and as a member of Newcastle City Council. When I was first elected to the council in 1967, it was building 3,000 council houses in that year. Very few councils can claim to have done anything like that for the last 20 years. I dissent very strongly from the critique made by the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, who blamed local authorities for the failure to build. As we have heard, hundreds of thousands of granted planning applications have not been implemented, and successive Governments, I regret to say, have failed to support the provision of social housing, particularly by local authorities.
In any event, we are 10 days short of the anniversary of the Second Reading of the Housing and Planning Act, the legislative masterpiece which, during the three and a half months it was before this House, prompted a Conservative Back-Bench Peer to congratulate me on retaining my sanity “notwithstanding this terrible, terrible, Bill”. I do not propose to test the opinion of the House on that matter. However, it is clear that the Act has caused more problems than it has resolved. It is now eight months since Royal Assent and much of the secondary legislation still has to be tabled. Indeed, it was striking that, during the passage of the Bill, the matters that were to be subject to secondary legislation had not been consulted upon—and we have yet to see the results of consultation, let alone a good deal of the secondary legislation that will be required to implement what is now the Act.
Now, of course, we have this Bill, and a White Paper on housing is apparently imminent. It is not clear to me whether the White Paper is intended to lead to legislation. I assume that it will. Perhaps the noble Lord can inform us with a bit more precision—perhaps he cannot—when we are likely to receive the White Paper. Presumably if it leads to legislation, that will be something for the next Session.
This history discloses a system of policy-making and legislation on the hoof and in reverse order—reflecting, frankly, breath-taking levels of incompetence and an abysmal failure by the Government to tackle the housing crisis afflicting families and communities all over England. As the noble Lord, Lord Porter, pointed out, this Bill will not solve the housing problem, although maybe the next one will. I suppose that we should be grateful for one thing that is not in the Bill, to which my noble friend referred—the controversial plan to privatise the Land Registry. I am not entirely clear whether that has been laid to rest for good and all or whether it is in suspension. Perhaps the Minister could clarify that situation.
Those parts of the Bill which reflect its title seem, for the most part, to be relatively innocuous as far as they go, but I wonder whether the Minister could enlighten us on the turnout levels in local referendums that have been held and whether a minimum threshold is contemplated.
I have some concern, clearly shared by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, that in some areas residents might be tempted to use a neighbourhood plan as a means of preventing development that might benefit people who, for example, are in need of housing but are not resident in the immediate area. I recall, painfully, an encounter with a lady in Newcastle in a house built not so long ago on a greenfield site near the edge of the city who was adamant that no social housing should be built on the green fields that she herself was now overlooking. I hope that that nimbyism will not feature as the Government’s plans for new housing, if that is what they amount to, come forward. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, pointed out, local communities need support in addressing the process of local planning, with or without referendums. Again, I hope that the Minister can indicate whether the Government are prepared to back their aspirations with some resourcing.
The LGA rightly draws attention to the need to avoid undermining the ability of a planning authority to,
“meet the wider strategic objectives set out in an emerging or adopted Local Plan, by unintentionally giving greater weight to the status of neighbourhood plans than to Local Plans”.
There is a balance to be struck here. The neighbourhood plan should be seen as part of the local plan and not as something in conflict with it. The association seeks an assurance that the new requirements in relation to the planning register will be funded. Will the Minister confirm that the new burdens doctrine will apply, given the extreme pressure on council planning staff levels which already exists and which has been referred to in this debate?
Although it welcomes the Bill’s provisions in relation to compulsory purchase, the LGA calls for greater powers where permissions have expired without development commencing, the delegation of confirmation of a CPO to the relevant authority and a fundamental consolidation of compulsory purchase legislation. Perhaps the Minister could indicate the Government’s stance in respect of those three calls by the LGA.
The LGA also asks for planning fees to meet the full costs of the service—a matter to which several noble Lords referred. It is a principle which the Government have been quick to apply in relation to court and tribunal fees—as I have cause to comment on from time to time in one of my other capacities here—and which, perhaps surprisingly but as the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, confirmed, has the backing of two-thirds of the members of the British Property Federation who responded to a survey on the issue. Staffing is certainly a highly relevant point. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, referred to this and pointed out that it was critically responsible for the delay in decision-making. It will not be solved without additional resources going into the planning service.
Incidentally, the LGA also stresses the need to have regard to the fact that any strengthening of the role of neighbourhood plans in determining applications should come hand in hand with the strengthening of assurances that neighbourhood plans will conform with both existing planning law and evidence regarding local circumstances, housing need and land supply. Again, it would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that tonight—or it may be that it will feature in the forthcoming White Paper. I must say that I reject the very negative portrayal by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, of the role of local government of any colour in the planning process, and in particular of its desire to deal with the housing position.
As we have heard, the Bill is very light on the provision of social and affordable housing, on tenure and on the required infrastructure that makes for viable communities, with schools, open space, parks, shops and GPs’ surgeries obviously proportionate to the scale of development—the kinds of issues that the noble Baronesses, Lady Cumberlege and Lady Greengross, addressed in their contributions.
The major concern that many of us have about the Bill is, as Members will recall from the debate, the provision for pre-commencement planning conditions. Under the Bill’s provisions, these would apply only with the written agreement of the developer. In the absence of agreement, the authority would be left with the choice of refusing permission, which would presumably mean that the developer could appeal. I certainly share the reservations and criticisms of the provision made by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter.
Worryingly, moreover, the Bill allows the Secretary of State to make regulations stating what conditions may or may not be imposed. Once again, we are being driven into the territory of secondary legislation if the Government have it in mind to take that power. I hope that the Minister will confirm that we will see draft regulations before the Bill reaches Third Reading.
The Government’s consultation on this proposal ended in November. When might we expect to see the Government’s response and, if they intend to proceed with this controversial intervention in local decision-making, can the Minister assure us that draft regulations will be published?
It is striking that the Local Government Association’s housing spokesman, Councillor Martin Tett, the leader of Buckinghamshire County Council—and not, so far as I am aware, a paid-up member of the Labour Party—expressed surprise that there is,
“no mention of the National Infrastructure Commission”,
which had been promised in the Queen’s Speech. Meanwhile, the House Builders Association—again, a body not affiliated to the Labour Party—referred to the omission of infrastructure as leading to increasing uncertainty in local communities about the impact of development.
Incidentally, the House Builders Association also drew attention to the problems caused by the reduction in planning staff as a result of cuts since 2010 and the likelihood of a consequent slowing down of the process caused by new statutory duties. If the Government are not overly inclined to listen to an Opposition spokesman making these points, perhaps they should pay a measure of attention to a Conservative local government representative and the House Builders Association, which is obviously very involved with the whole process.
The Bill creates the opportunity to raise a number of issues of a controversial nature where planning law could make a difference. We have heard about some of those today, including the conversion of shops to housing and energy efficiency—which, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, pointed out, needs revisiting. We also heard about flood prevention, the protection of wildlife and the protection of pubs and local amenities. These matters were raised by my noble friend Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, spoke about protecting our heritage. We look forward to constructive discussions on these and other matters during the Bill’s progress through the House. I hope that we can reach consensus on controversial matters and, in particular, see a connection between the Government’s policy as it emerges in the White Paper and this Bill, in order that we can tackle what is a major national crisis.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this wide-ranging and useful debate for their spirit of positive engagement. I can reassure them that I am keen to engage on how we can move in the direction of ensuring that the Bill delivers. As noble Lords—including the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Taylor of Goss Moor—indicated, the Bill is not only about building extra housing, and as I said in opening, I totally accept that it is not a silver bullet to solve the housing crisis. That is certainly not the case, although it will go some way to helping. The Bill is also about empowerment. We believe in empowering communities and having decisions on neighbourhood plans taken at the most appropriate level and in ensuring that they are given appropriate strength.
I thank the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York for his participation. He encapsulated some of the key issues about the neighbourhood plans, which are intended to have an effect at an earlier stage and to have legal status. The experience of local referenda so far is that they have not delivered nimbyism. As the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, agreed, they have tended to identify more housing at neighbourhood level than was the case at district level. The experience so far is reassuring, notwithstanding the pews example that we do need to guard against.
We are keen to engage on pre-commencement planning conditions to ensure that there is appropriate protection for the cathedrals of the natural world—the very descriptive phrase used by the noble Baroness, Lady Young—in terms of how we provide protection for the natural world, for heritage and so on, and how we can move away from what are not appropriate pre-commencement conditions. It will be appropriate to look at them at a later stage but issues about what colour roof tiles should be or what sort of windows should go in are not appropriate as pre-commencement conditions. I am very happy to look at how we should tackle such issues going forward.
Noble Lords should have seen the link in the documents available in relation to delegated powers in the Bill but I will make sure they come round again as we have quite a lot to say on the subject. This has been such a wide-ranging discussion that I will ensure that a full letter goes to all Peers who have participated in this debate—I shall also place a copy in the Library—picking up on all the many issues in the Bill that have been touched on. Some of the points made were appropriate in relation to a general view of the waterfront on planning but were perhaps not appropriate to the Bill. For example, it was not intended to look at land tenure and so on, but I will pick up on those points and refer to them in the correspondence that will follow.
Most noble Lords who have participated have welcomed the neighbourhood aspects of the Bill, although some have reservations in certain areas, including my noble friends Lord Borwick and Lord Ridley. My noble friend Lady Cumberlege has spoken to me, to the Minister of State and, I suspect, to the Secretary of State about the neighbourhood plan and I understand the issues that she has raised. I will revert to that in a moment. However, noble Lords round the Chamber—including the noble Lords, Lord Cameron, Lord Thurlow and Lord Renfrew, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton—welcome the principle, with qualifications. I understand that.
Others have extended the area to be covered. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, not only talked about the need for housing, which he accepted, but introduced the context of appropriate provision for the environment and so on. Again, I will pick that up in the correspondence. The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, who is not in his place, referred to the importance of brownfield sites, and I will also cover that in correspondence. It will be dealt with in the housing White Paper. It is a manifesto commitment and we have already done a lot in ensuring that there is a brownfield register. We expect 90% of brownfield to be appropriate for building on, but I will cover that, as I say, in the correspondence.
As to the contributions in the areas I set out initially, let me deal first with the neighbourhood planning point and the importance of tying that back with localism. I recognise the role that our colleagues in the coalition Government played in this, including the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. We strongly believe in neighbourhood planning. We very much look forward to engaging on this issue to see how we can ensure appropriate funding and strength is given to the neighbourhood plan. I acknowledge the importance of parish councils in that—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves.
There needs to be appropriate dialogue. The sort of situation outlined by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege should not be happening. I am very happy to continue engaging with my noble friend to see what we can do in that regard.
As has been acknowledged, neighbourhood plans have so far covered 10 million people in the country and 2,000 neighbourhood plans have been submitted. There is a long way to go, but I do not think we should beat ourselves up too much. It is progress. We believe in it; the Bill gives it added strength and we should be able to carry it forward. I welcome the general welcome in principle from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, my noble friends Lady Finn and Lord Porter, and others. Indeed the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Parminter, recognised the important role this has to play in planning decisions.
The issue of permitted development rights was touched on more in the context of pubs than offices, which may say something about the nature of the people participating in that part of the debate, I do not know. To be fair, it was a given that I would touch on offices anyway and say that we have to be careful. I come back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, about his test on housing, which I will take up. The question should be whether the Bill will deliver more houses. It will. We can look at how we can provide some protections here as we move it forward, but I am keen that we do not throw out the baby with the bathwater in ensuring we keep our eye on the ball to ensure that housing is provided through this mechanism.
Pubs were touched on not just by my noble friend Lord Porter and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, but by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. Indeed, he said that they can be nominated to be listed as assets of community value. Where that happens that means that planning permission is necessary for any change. That is a significant point that we need to get across to communities, because they can protect themselves in that way. There are some first-class pubs that form a massive part of community life up and down the country. As we know, the days when these were just somewhere to go for a drink are long passed. It is much more significant than that, but it is part of it. I am happy to engage on that.
To move on to pre-commencement conditions, points were made very tellingly by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, relating to woodlands. I appreciated the discussion we had on that and what we can do through the planning policy framework, which will be touched on in the White Paper. It is very significant. Ancient woodlands are rightly part of our national heritage. At the same time, there are some specious claims—I adopt the word used by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow—relating to some preconditions that are not necessary. The point about woodlands was taken up by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, my noble friends Lord Framlingham and Lady Hodgson, and by others. Indeed, we will want to look at that at some length.
On sustainable drainage and flooding, flood risk is an incredibly important issue and I fully understand why people are exercised about it, and about drains. Since the Government came in in April 2015, we have taken a number of steps of robust policy protection by: strengthening the policy expectation that sustainable drainage systems will be provided in major new developments, whether or not in a flood risk area; amending national planning guidance to set out the considerations and options for sustainable drainage systems; and making lead local flood authorities statutory consultees for planning applications for major developments. That is significant too. I appreciate that there was an issue there that noble Lords will want to look at.
On the third area touched on by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, the compulsory purchase element of the legislation, we have taken a pragmatic approach—as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, acknowledged—rather than an approach across the piece which tries to consolidate the whole area. That approach may be appropriate at some time, but this is targeted to ensure that we are doing what is fair in relation to the value of land and to people who have land acquired from them. I look forward to engagement on what I think was a broad welcome for that, although the devil may be in the detail.
My noble friend Lord Lansley talked about the strategic context of the housing White Paper. I quite agree with him that it is important for that reason and probably others. The intention is that it should be with us before Report stage. I will update noble Lords in the letter as to the precise position. As I speak, I think that we are confident of landing that. It will cover issues such as the fees situation, brownfield registers and many others. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, asked whether it would result in legislation. I suspect that there will almost inevitably be things in it that we would need to legislate on. There is competition for that, as the noble Lord knows, but that is certainly so.
Many additional issues were raised. It was great to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, who is coming up to her 21st year here.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I am running ahead of myself. I thank her for her comments and questions on highly relevant issues such as pre-builds. We are very much wedded to those and doing things on them. Perhaps I may write to her on the resourcing that we are giving to them and on the importance that we attach to them. They are very popular, even when they are called pre-fabs—which surprised me. Opinion polling suggests that they are very appropriate. As the noble Baroness indicated, the design of some of them in Scandinavia and elsewhere in Europe can be extremely attractive. I am sure that they are part of the solution to the housing issues that we face as a country.
I will endeavour to pick up in the write-around other issues that I have not touched on. There was a general welcome for compulsory purchase—I know that the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, raised broader issues about that, which I will pick up in writing. Garden cities and villages were touched on and welcomed by the noble Lords, Lord Borwick and Lord Taylor. I know that we have been in touch with the noble Lords, Lord Taylor and Lord Best, and have tried to help with that—on setting up of corporations and so on. Again, these are part of the solution, but I appreciate that they need to be considered in the context of ancient woodlands, neighbourhood plans and so on. I will seek to do that in the write-around.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, quite rightly raised the important issue of design. I suspect that we will return to that in the debate next week. I know that she feels very strongly about it and understandably so. It is an issue that I touched on in a sense in relation to the pre-builds as well.
I thank noble Lords for their positive engagement ahead of Committee stage, which I think starts in the week commencing 30 January—I think that there will be two sessions that week and two sessions the week after. Ahead of that, I will write to noble Lords picking up all the points that have been dealt with, correcting myself if I have got anything wrong—which is always possible—and adding points that I have missed. I look forward to noble Lords’ further positive engagement to ensure that we move this legislation forward with as much consensus as possible.
Neighbourhood Planning Bill
Tuesday 31st January 2017
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeNeighbourhood Planning Act 2017 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 86-II Second marshalled list for Grand Committee (PDF, 137KB) - (31 Jan 2017)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, good afternoon. If there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Amendment 1
Baroness Cumberlege
“Duty to uphold neighbourhood development plans
(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to uphold neighbourhood development plans, and in fulfilment of that duty must not seek to override neighbourhood development plans except in exceptional circumstances of national importance.(2) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that local planning authorities have sufficient resources to enable them to own, implement and defend neighbourhood development plans.(3) If it is deemed necessary to override a neighbourhood development plan and require the provision of additional housing, the Secretary of State must—(a) have regard to the policies of the neighbourhood development plan, in particular, policies on employment opportunities; and(b) inform the local community of the number of houses and types of housing required.(4) If a neighbourhood development plan has been overridden in accordance with subsection (3), it is the responsibility of the local planning authority, in consultation with the local community, to decide where it is most appropriate to provide the additional housing, and their decision must be accepted by the Secretary of State unless there are exceptional reasons of national importance not to do so.”
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
My Lords, I start by declaring an interest: I have a legal case concerning a planning application pending at the moment. I have taken advice from the Clerk of the Parliaments and been told that the sub judice rule does not apply in my case.
We had a very interesting and wide-ranging debate at Second Reading. I thank my noble friend the Minister for his introduction to the Bill on that occasion, and for his courtesy and his very thorough winding-up, in which he undertook to inform noble Lords of the process he wanted to work through. He said he wanted to be inclusive. He has certainly been so until now, and I am sure he will be in future.
The Bill reflects the very foundations of society. It is not just about building houses, although they are very much needed; it is about building homes, strengthening communities and ensuring that we create better lives for future generations. As my honourable friend Gavin Barwell, Minister in the Department for Communities and Local Government, has said:
“Done well, with genuine local consent, garden villages and towns can help tackle the housing crisis. They can be preferable to what is currently happening in too many parts of the country—poor quality developments plonked on the countryside, in the teeth of local opposition and in defiance of good planning principles”.
He is absolutely right. Developments plonked in the countryside without a community infrastructure have no soul and are uncared for, unloved and unalterable. Through my amendments I seek to mark a real change: good planning with tight boundaries that is less top-down and gives more respect and power to local people.
It is the duty and the right of the Secretary of State and Ministers to establish a policy and set the types and numbers of houses to be built in each planning area. Thereafter it is for the local planners to decide how best to deliver these policies in conjunction with people who know their neighbourhood intimately. No Government can understand the nuances of every local authority. Local people must be allowed to build communities and that takes time and skill. My amendments, therefore, are based on trust—trusting people, respecting people and enabling those people who know their beat best.
We are beginning to trust people in the health service with personal budgets and we know they work. We are trusting parents and schools to define their own standards. We must do the same for planning. Just houses without integrated communities are at risk of becoming drug alleys, and of contributing to family breakdown, crime and despondency, which have huge costs for people and those who try to deal with the devastation left behind.
My proposed new Clause 1(1) places a duty on the Secretary of State to uphold neighbourhood development plans, which can be overridden only in exceptional circumstances of national importance. The purpose of my amendment is to delineate between the responsibilities of central government and those of the local planning authorities. The Secretary of State is responsible for strategy and local authorities for implementing the strategy. There is huge danger when these two roles are confused and the Secretary of State and the department start to meddle in the detail of something of which they know little. I am not criticising them; they are not equipped to understand the nuances, history, thinking and understanding of local communities. Surely that is what localism and neighbourhood planning are all about.
In proposed new subsection (1), I conclude that the Secretary of State should be able to intervene in matters of national importance; that is, to prevent neighbourhood plans being used to frustrate national schemes. These include, very topically, HS2, airport expansion, major highways or rail schemes, military necessities and so on.
Proposed new subsection (2) would place on the Secretary of State a duty to ensure that local planning authorities have sufficient resources to enable them to own, implement and defend neighbourhood plans. Drawing up a neighbourhood plan is costly. It is costly to the makers of the plan—who are frequently volunteers—as they can spend an inordinate amount of time drawing it up. Those in work lose financially. It is also financially costly to the local planning authority, since the Bill introduces a new procedure for making modifications. This will require additional guidance from officers and a new examination, which will place an additional burden on local authorities. Every time a parish or town council seeks to make changes, the planning authority will be expected to review the plan, provide guidance and take it through another examination. So far, costs have not been assessed in terms of the modification which some neighbourhood plans will require. Perhaps this is something we shall address through regulation or the promised White Paper, which we are told we will receive before the next stage of the Bill.
On top of this, costs for planning appeals can range from £10,000 to £50,000. The neighbourhood plan is owned by the local authority and, on occasions, it will have to defend the plan with its associated costs, including fighting planning appeals. Developers make no secret of poaching the best staff from local planning authorities and paying them more. Planning authorities struggle and are wrong-footed, unable to cope with the demands of developers. This is detrimental to good planning. Good-quality planners must be better paid.
I turn to proposed new subsection (3). As I explained, there can be situations where—regrettably, but with good reason—the Secretary of State finds it necessary to override a neighbourhood plan. Even so, he or she must have regard to the policies in the plan. If it is necessary to vary the neighbourhood plan, it may be to provide more houses than originally anticipated. This should not be a free for all among developers. The planning authority should instruct the neighbourhood plan makers to make the required provision and ensure that this is done legally and correctly in the interests of the community. This may mean considerable modification to the neighbourhood plan. In our case, there are a number of policies in the plan but, particularly, the requirement of a break between parishes, no more five-bedroom houses, no street lighting and the incorporation of opportunities for employment. I could go through these, but I shall not because of the time I have already taken.
I want to mention one policy because it goes across a lot of neighbourhood planning. Employment is one of the policies in our plan on which we are very keen. We need employment. In the Second World War, our lanes were turned into roads. We have had no improvements since the first tarmac was laid. We excel in congestion and pollution. Trains are so full that you cannot get a seat—and that is when they do run. The policy was refused because we do not have a square on the map saying “industrial estate”. We want employment threaded throughout the community, such as in Poundbury in Dorset. Dorset Cereals and other employment gives Poundbury a sense of purpose and pride. We need diversity and we want the Secretary of State for Communities to be exactly that, not the Secretary of State for dormitories.
Proposed new subsection (4) recognises that when the Secretary of State overrides the neighbourhood plan it is the responsibility of the local authority, working with the local community, to decide where the most appropriate sites will be for additional development. The people who formulated the neighbourhood plan have scrutinised every aspect of their community, through consultation and data collection. It is respectful and prudent for those people, in consultation with the local planning authority that advises them, to decide where best to build additional houses, and when they should be built within the time set up to 2030, unless specifically directed towards another date.
It must be recognised that if a neighbourhood plan is overridden, 10 other changes to it may be necessary, commensurate with the degree of change. Simply accepting a planning application that happens to be submitted, which may or may not have any synergy with the neighbourhood plan, is not generally compatible with good planning. That is what the Minister, Gavin Barwell, has conceded. The Government and Whitehall cannot appreciate intimate details of a community’s life. When Governments or inspectors think they know best, there is huge annoyance and resentment. Again, people will do a better job when their decisions will be more respected.
I hope my noble friend will consider these points, that he and his officers will see some merit in them, and that we can come to some agreement on how they might be incorporated in the passage of the Bill. I very much look forward to his reply. I beg to move.
Lord Stunell (LD)
I declare an interest as a member of a neighbourhood forum in an unparished area at an early stage of development. I will speak very much in support of what the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, said today and at Second Reading in her very eloquent presentation of the difficulties her area faced.
The balance has tilted from the need to defend local plans and local communities’ building plans from the activities or, sometimes, inactivities of local planning authorities; they also need to be protected from what happens as a result of the interference of inspectors and the Secretary of State. In that sense, Amendment 1 from the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, is at the hard end—rather surprisingly, she is the hard cop—and my Amendment 5 is a rather more modest proposal. Again, perhaps unexpectedly, I am the soft cop.
I am strongly in favour of the presentation she made and the amendment she has moved. I, too, would be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say by way of explanation for the interventions that have taken place so far and which run the risk of undermining, at a national level, the credibility and popularity of neighbourhood plans that we can see at present.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendment. The account that we heard from the noble Baroness at Second Reading was pretty shocking. It seemed to be a failure of process but also of principle. The case she told us about then, and again today, seemed to contradict the basic assumptions on which neighbourhood planning is based. After the degree of detail that we went into when it was first proposed in this House and the expectations that were raised, it also raised issues about the nature of localism and its credibility—not only at a local level; I think it actually contradicts the core principles of the National Planning Policy Framework.
When you look at those core principles—of course, a neighbourhood plan, like a local plan, has to subscribe to the NPPF—the NPPF says that the Government are committed to a plan-led system,
“empowering local people to shape their surroundings, with succinct local and neighbourhood plans setting out a positive vision for the future of the area”.
Planning should,
“not simply be about scrutiny, but instead be a creative exercise in finding ways to enhance and improve the places in which people live their lives”,
and it should,
“proactively drive and support sustainable economic development”,
to deliver business and employment. All that should indeed be contained in the neighbourhood plan, rather than having a plan that is driven simply by housing requirements, however important they are. We know they are important—in that part of rural Sussex they are really important. But it is very important indeed that the principles are upheld, that the coherence and richness of the plan are upheld, and that local people are involved. From everything the noble Baroness said at Second Reading, it appeared that much of that had not happened but had in fact been ignored.
One of my questions to the Minister is: to what extent do we think that the sort of example that the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, gave is happening in other parts of the country? What evidence does the department have that these sorts of things are happening in other places? Some time ago I asked a Question in the House about the number of appeals that had been made on housing decisions. There is a common phrase in circulation: “We’re having our planning by appeal rather than by local plan”. I would be very interested if the department could look at the figures for the number of appeals that have been made and let the Committee know so that we have some sense of whether that is a phenomenon.
When you look at the amendment, a lot of it is absolutely what we already expect to happen. Of course, there is a massive issue about resourcing. I do not think the problem that was identified in the noble Baroness’s example was an issue of resourcing but resources drive the capacity of the local authority to stand up for the local plan where there is a local or neighbourhood issue. The loss of experienced planners and conservation officers—the people who defend the principles, whether environmental or regarding sustainability—is significant when it comes to making the case against the inspector.
No amendment is perfect and I am sure the noble Baroness will understand if I raise a couple of issues. I am concerned, and have been concerned for a long time, that the definition of sustainability in the NPPF is not particularly strong. Therefore, it makes it relatively easy for forms of development to be pushed ahead outside the notions of sustainability. The role of the inspector and the planning authority is to get the balance right and to ensure that everybody makes the right judgment. Of course, that involves making the right judgment about the balance of housing, infrastructure and everything else. But I am slightly worried about the phrase,
“except in exceptional circumstances of national importance”,
because you can always make that case, especially in terms of housing. Is there a way of strengthening the local capacity to hold to its neighbourhood plan irrespective of such claims? I just put that into the debate.
The other point I want to make is about informing the local community. It should not need to be said because it is so fundamental to the whole democratic foundation of a neighbourhood plan, but I understand that in the case which we cannot discuss there was a considerable lack of information at the relevant stages and a positive exclusion, as it were. In that respect, if we are going to be consistent and logical, and if we believe in neighbourhood plans and want to make them work, the final subsection of the proposed new clause, which states that any agreed additional housing has to be decided by the local community, seems in all logic to be the beginning and the end of the conversation that a community would have about its neighbourhood plan and where it wanted new housing put—as well as about what sort of housing for what sort of community it had in mind.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I should remind the Committee at the outset that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I want briefly to express my support for the objectives set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, in her amendment, which provides a foundation for and gives a clear sense of direction to the Bill. The crucial word of course is “duty” in that the amendment seeks to place in the Bill a duty on the Secretary of State to undertake certain actions, one of which is to uphold neighbourhood development plans and not simply to think that such a plan can actually be overwritten because a planning inspector or the local planning authority suddenly feels that the neighbourhood plan is out of date or may no longer apply. This is important because if the duty does not exist, it means that local people cannot have confidence in the fact that the neighbourhood plan they have produced will actually stand the test of time. The second duty on the Secretary of State would be to ensure that local planning authorities had sufficient resources to enable them to own, implement and defend—a very important word—neighbourhood development plans.
This amendment is important and I hope that discussions may be held prior to the Report stage at which the Minister might give us some indication of what the Government are prepared to do to give greater force than is provided by the Bill to the development of neighbourhood plans which can stand the test of time. One problem we have had to date is that local planning authorities have not been as supportive as perhaps they ought to be, and as I said at Second Reading, there has been a problem about the creation of a five-year land supply. A neighbourhood plan, where it has been adopted in advance of the local plan being agreed, then finds itself under pressure which may, in the view of the Secretary of State, lead to it having to be revised.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, has said many wise things, one of which was to express her concern about poor-quality development in defiance of good planning principles. This Bill is about building communities, not just building houses. The noble Baroness reminded us of how the roles are confused between the Secretary of State, and through the Secretary of State the Planning Inspectorate, the local planning authority and the neighbourhood plan. This needs to be sorted out and I hope very much that the Minister will be agreeable to trying to find a way to do so that gives even greater weight to the statutory importance of neighbourhood plans.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I should declare my interests again as we begin a new stage of the Bill. I am the deputy leader of Pendle Borough Council and a member of a development control committee. I am also a member of the neighbourhood planning steering group for the parish of Trawden Forest, which may provide an interesting view of the planning situation from different sides, not the least of which is discussing a new piece of legislation about it today.
Neighbourhood planning is new, which I suppose is why the Government are feeling their way along with everybody else and why we seem to get an annual Bill to fettle the legislation a little. Although some 1,800 projects have been started, and some finished, around the country, it is still very much a minority pursuit throughout England—that is something I want to return to on another amendment.
It seems more and more important for local planning authorities and neighbourhood planning bodies, whether forums or parishes, to work closely together and have good working relationships. It is becoming clear that in some places where difficulties are occurring in getting neighbourhood planning off the ground or carrying it out it is because those relationships do not exist. From the planning authority point of view—the district, the borough, the unitary authority or whatever it is—there is not an openness and a willingness to change the way they work and to accommodate the whole idea of neighbourhood planning, which can make things a great deal more complicated.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
My Lords, there is a Division in the Chamber. This Committee stands adjourned for 10 minutes.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, this issue is complicated. I think I was referring to the fact that for local authority planning departments the system is much more complicated if they have a series of neighbourhood plans taking place after their local plan has been dealt with, at the same time as it is being dealt with, or whatever. I think we have 18 parishes in Pendle—we are completely “parished”—three of which have their neighbourhood plans under way and at least two more which are making a serious start on them. This process requires a different kind of relationship between a local planning department, local planning committees and people on the ground in neighbourhoods. The amendment would be extremely useful in getting things going. It refers to the, “provision of additional housing”. I am not clear whether this is additional to that set out in a local plan or is the additional housing required by a local plan. Either way, changing housing needs are at the core of a lot of the problems and difficulties that have arisen, and of this relationship. In our area the district council is just starting the second half of the local plan, which concerns site allocations.
Those of us working on neighbourhood plans are fortunate enough to work with the local authority and, we hope, align the two documents. The local authority has set out the number of houses it expects to be given planning permission in each parish over the period of the local plan. That is extremely helpful because it means we know how many houses we have to plan for as a minimum. The difficulty comes not with the housing allocations in the plan but with the five-year supply. Whereas the plans themselves appear to give certainty, the five-year supply suddenly does not give certainty as it is a moving dynamic that goes on from year to year and can suddenly result in more houses being needed than people are planning for, as we have seen following some appeals.
The five-year supply is worked out in technical, complicated ways. It is very difficult for people to understand how it is worked out, how it is implemented and how it changes. If they have been working on the neighbourhood plan, or indeed an ordinary local plan, it is difficult for them to understand why things suddenly change. The Government need to pull back from the whole concept of five-year supply. It is not necessary, complicates the whole process and renders how the system works opaque for most people—certainly most people who may be interested in planning applications or putting neighbourhood plans together. If it is in a plan, and if it is set out that those houses are needed over a certain period, that gives certainty and clarity—so long as that is stuck to. Perhaps the planning could be revised, maybe after five or 10 years, or whatever. Nevertheless, it gives clarity. This is an important issue. The five-year supply is not appropriate for producing good neighbourhood planning.
The only other thing I want to pick up is the suggestion in proposed new subsection (2) to enable local planning authorities to own neighbourhood development plans. Again, it is very important that once a neighbourhood plan has been adopted the local planning authority thinks it owns it, and not just the neighbourhood that put it together. That again comes back to the relationship between the two and the need to change the culture and attitudes of planners. These neighbourhood plans are not just a nuisance, an awkward complication to be tagged on to the local plan; they are a fundamental part of the overall development plan. Talking to people round the country, that change in culture has not yet occurred in quite a few local planning authorities.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, as this is my first contribution today, I should refer noble Lords to my declared interests. I am an elected councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham. I am also involved in developing a neighbourhood plan in my ward, Crofton Park. I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
Amendment 1, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, would insert a new clause right at the start of the Bill which seeks to place a duty on the Secretary of State to uphold neighbourhood development plans. We all in this Grand Committee support neighbourhood planning. The amendment, which I am very happy to support, seeks to enhance the status of neighbourhood plans and prevent their being overridden except in exceptional circumstances. As the noble Baroness said, it is about building homes and strengthening communities. I also very much agree with the comments of Housing Minister Gavin Barwell, which the noble Baroness quoted. As the noble Baroness said, central government are there to deal with strategy and not to get involved in detail on a local level, but with the proviso that they are able to ensure schemes of national importance are not frustrated. That is a very important point.
The amendment goes further to place a specific duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that local planning authorities have sufficient resources to own, implement and defend neighbourhood development plans. Ensuring that local authorities have sufficient resources to deliver the additional functions required of them is something we will return to again and again in relation to this and other Bills before your Lordships’ House. There is a problem where local authorities are prevented from recovering their full costs in respect of some local authority functions. Further burdens are placed on them with either no additional funding or sums of money provided that are not sufficient to cover those costs. The Government often announce, in the course of their business, £10 million, £20 million, £30 million or £40 million for this or that. Those are large sums of money, but when we divide them among the local councils involved they appear to be much smaller sums for each locality. We have seen this with the Homelessness Reduction Bill. It was allocated £61 million over two years, which will not be adequate for the additional responsibility placed on local authorities, but that is for another day—very soon.
Amendment 1 seeks to provide a pathway whereby the Secretary of State can override a plan but must, as far as possible, have regard to it, and must consult and inform. If there is a need to vary the plan, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, said, this should not be a free for all for developers. The amendment would be helpful as it enhances the status of a plan but also provides for changes to be made if deemed necessary by, say, the Secretary of State for those schemes of national importance.
The final part of the amendment sets out that additional requirements for housing will be provided for. Again, I agree with the noble Baroness that where a local plan must be overridden, it should be the duty of the local authority, not central government, to decide where the new housing is delivered. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, will give us a very detailed response. It may well be that I and other noble Lords will have questions for him on the back of that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, first I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for that build-up about the detail in the response. I am sitting here horrified because it is not incredibly detailed.
I have known my noble friend Lady Cumberlege since I came into the House. I thank her for how she has handled this and for her willingness to have positive engagement. This is the way forward. My noble friend has understandably tabled many amendments on this issue. I can reassure her that we are very keen to look at it, particularly in terms of dialogue with officials and those in the know before the neighbourhood plan is put together, because some of the problems that may arise relate to this.
Secondly, notwithstanding what my noble friend has said in relation to the incident about which she has spoken, my legal advice is to the contrary. I cannot speak about the specific case. I hope she will understand that I must be guided by this advice. All of us here support neighbourhood planning but, inevitably, in any new system there will be growing pains. To a degree, this has been the case in some of the circumstances arising in this area.
Amendment 1 raises a matter that noble Lords and those in the other place have spoken about at Second Reading and again today. I must stress that the law is very clear that decisions on planning applications must be made in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Of course, the neighbourhood plan is part of that development plan. Furthermore, measures in this Bill will bring forward the stage at which a neighbourhood plan has full legal effect. This is important to note.
The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, raised the number of appeals. Out of 16,500 appeals, the number recovered by the Secretary of State was extremely small—just 75 in this context. I can reassure noble Lords that, where the Secretary of State has a more direct role in a small number of decisions—for example, through the appeals system and the call-in process—he or she uses these powers very sparingly—usually, where planning issues of more than local importance are involved. The Secretary of State’s policies for both types of intervention are available on my department’s website. During the course of this Committee, I will pick up on some of the points covered and write to noble Lords. For example, I will ensure that details of this part are on the website for noble Lords to look at.
The current policies for intervention strike the right balance between the national interest and local autonomy. On who can plan for housing in an area and how, the Government are clear. It is for local planning authorities, with their communities, to identify and plan for how to meet the housing needs of their area. Communities can choose to use a neighbourhood plan to address housing needs in their area. Where they do so, their local planning authority should share relevant evidence on housing need gathered to support its own plan making. If, over time, circumstances change and more housing is needed, again, communities may decide to update their neighbourhood plan or part of it. Just as in the initial drawing up of the neighbourhood plan, in the case of modification money is available from the fund set up for the purpose.
Our planning guidance is clear that, if a local planning authority also intends to allocate sites in the neighbourhood area, it should avoid duplicating planning processes that will apply to the neighbourhood area. The authority should work constructively with a neighbourhood planning group to enable a neighbourhood plan to make timely progress.
As well as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, other noble Lords have contributed and stressed the importance of neighbourhood plans. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Stunell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his very constructive suggestion about engagement with officials and others to try to move this forward.
I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, inevitably picked on the fees issue. This will be more than touched on in the White Paper, which we expect very shortly. I can confirm that we shall see the White Paper before Report and there will be an all-Peers briefing on it.
The Government’s rigorous new burdens doctrine, which I failed to address earlier in response to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, ensures that local planning authorities will receive the relevant resources to meet their statutory obligations towards neighbourhood planning. Inevitably there will be differences of opinion between local authorities and central government about how much that funding should be, but also, inevitably and rightly, there will be a dialogue about it. As I say, however, the broader issue of funding will be addressed in the White Paper.
As to Amendment 1, perhaps I may once again reassure my noble friend Lady Cumberlege that we are approaching this in the spirit of wanting to ensure that neighbourhood forums, parish councils and local people are fully engaged in the process. We want to see that happen, but whether it is done in the Bill or, as is more likely, in planning guidance, is something we can talk about. In the meantime, I respectfully ask my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Can the Minister say a little more about why the Government will not accept this proposed new clause? It is a very good amendment and, while the noble Lord has talked about setting something out in guidance, he has not said why he is against it. It would be useful if we could understand a little more of the Government’s thinking and why they will not just accept the amendment.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
With respect I think I have explained that the present process provides the right balance of what is needed in planning procedures. However, I accept that occasionally a neighbourhood plan may have been developed that does not achieve what its framers wanted for it. Given that, it is important that there is a power at the centre, to be used only sparingly, in relation to appeals and the call-in process. As I have indicated, the number is 75 out of 16,500, so it is not as if this is a major issue. It is therefore important that someone in the position of the Secretary of State will consider these matters, usually where the planning issues involved are of more than local importance. In practice, the vast majority of cases would be covered by that and we believe that the present process for this is correct, although overall we appreciate that there needs to be some discussion about the compiling of the neighbourhood plan, the provision of proper advice and so on.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Just to be clear, nothing that the noble Lord has said in his response means that he would not be able to accept the amendment.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
With respect, I am not entirely surprised. The noble Lord wants this amendment and the Government do not. I hope we can disagree agreeably but this is not an amendment we can accept. As I have indicated, while it pays proper regard to neighbourhood planning, which is at the centre of the system, in the circumstances that I have set out across a range of amendments that have been tabled on this topic, we will look at how we can ensure that proper advice is given in the compiling of a neighbourhood plan, which I think will answer most of the points being raised.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I do not like to disagree with the noble Lord because I have great respect for him and the work he does. However, I am trying to understand what the problem is here, although we may well come back to it later. That is the aim of these questions because in many ways we are all in agreement.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
With respect to the noble Lord, I am not sure we are. The noble Lord has been around the planning block a few times and he will know that occasionally planning decisions have national significance. Not least for that reason, we need to retain the power of the Secretary of State to recover appeals in limited circumstances.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
Perhaps I may raise a slightly different point. The noble Lord has given a sympathetic response to the question of resources, but looking at subsection (3) of the proposed new clause set out in Amendment 1, there is an issue which I do not think he has addressed in his reply. It relates to the case where,
“it is deemed necessary to override a neighbourhood plan”.
The amendment then calls for specific action. It says that,
“the Secretary of State must … have regard to the policies of the neighbourhood development plan”,
and,
“policies on employment opportunities … and … inform the local community of the number of houses and types of housing required”.
That is not an onerous request. It may be that the noble Baroness would be satisfied with an assurance that that would be the Government’s policy rather than necessarily writing it into legislation, but, with respect, the Minister should deal with those points. He may consider that a letter would do. One way or another, it is rather a different point from some of those that have already been aired. The Government could be clear about it at a pretty early stage.
Baroness Andrews
This point is very similar to the one my noble friend just made. It is very welcome that the Minister is prepared to talk along the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. It is worth a conversation. The amendment strikes a balance between elevating the principle of local neighbourhood planning and reinforcing it; it does not take away the powers of the Secretary of State to intervene except in exceptional circumstances. I raised that point. There are other ways of reinforcing the importance and integrity of neighbourhood planning. Since the consultation on the National Planning Policy Framework is still in play, will it be possible to reinforce the importance of the plan and the nature of exceptional circumstances in the National Planning Policy Framework while it is being reconsidered?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, in response to the points made to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, it is right that the National Planning Policy Framework is still in play. I certainly do not rule out looking at issues such as this. I am addressing the amendment and saying that we certainly cannot accept it as it stands. I think I have made that point clear. I am very happy to look at the centrality of the neighbourhood development plan to see what we can do to consolidate it. It is indeed central to the process, but I will not concede the importance of a role for the Secretary of State in exceptional circumstances. I am very happy to take away the points made and look at them in the context of the general issue raised by the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I am very happy that the Secretary of State retains an overarching position. That is absolutely right and I have no problem with it at all. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, included that in the first part of her amendment. It is absolutely clear. It says:
“The Secretary of State has a duty to uphold neighbourhood development plans … except in exceptional circumstances of national importance”.
I am surprised and find it odd that the noble Lord does not think that gives the department and the Secretary of State what they need. It is very clear.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, we have to be careful that we do not lose sight of the importance of the need for fresh housing. It is very easy for noble Lords to accept the general point about the need for more housing and then, when an issue comes up, say, “Not here; not there”. We would suddenly whittle it away and there would be nothing left. It is important that the Secretary of State retains a power relating to housing development because of the need to create more housing. I suspect we may disagree on the centrality of that, but I will have a look at this in the context of ensuring that the neighbourhood plan has particular significance.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, this is the important, high-level stuff. I raise what might be called the low-level stuff about the nature of the relationship between the local planning authority and its staff, its members and the neighbourhood planners. Does the Minister agree with my assessment that in some places it works very well and in others there is quite a lot of tension, difficulties and resistance on the part of the local planning authority? Would he comment on what might be done, without being too heavy-handed, to get local planning authorities to change their attitude where necessary?
While I am on my feet, the amendment refers to resources. As I understand it, the resources that the Government make available to a neighbourhood planning group, and whether it is a parish or forum, as the Minister referred to, is the same whatever the size of the neighbourhood. The neighbourhood may be quite a small village or a town such as Colne, which I know, which is embarking on neighbourhood planning. It has about 18,000 people and is quite a big town. People in small places are saying that the available grant does not pay for the process, so funds have to be found locally by a parish council or in other ways. Clearly, if my information is correct, the grant available in bigger places will not begin to cover this process, given that everything that the Government set out must be done for a neighbourhood plan costs money, as consultants may have to be brought in and so on. Will the Government look at that to make neighbourhood planning more financially viable than it is at present?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
Some of these points go well beyond this amendment. Nevertheless, I accept that they are important. The noble Lord gave examples of how this process works at the coalface. I suspect that he is much closer to the coalface than I am in that regard. We need to be a little careful about setting up a system that stresses the importance of localism and these things being done locally, and then have central government stepping in and saying, “Do it this way”. As I say, there are growing pains. We may indicate in guidance how better relationships can be achieved. That is what I seek to do through the dialogue I am offering.
On the neighbourhood groups that may benefit from money for the neighbourhood plan and for modifications, I think there is money available if a case is made for an extra sum. If I am wrong on that, I will write to noble Lords. However, if a case can be made, I think there is access to additional funding. As I have indicated, the White Paper will say more about funding and the financial side more generally.
Baroness Cumberlege
My Lords, I thank Members of the Committee for their support for the amendment, which was gratefully received. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, who led the response to the amendment, that we are so lucky in this forum to have people with real knowledge of planning, local government and other matters. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, took forward the then Localism Bill, and therefore knows it in detail, which is very good.
Baroness Cumberlege
I am sorry. I beg the Committee’s pardon; it was the noble Lord, Lord Stunell. The noble Lord referred to me as a hard cop. I think that is the first time anyone has done that. He should talk to my three sons as they may agree but I think my husband would not.
I again thank the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews. I was very interested in what she said about sustainability and its definition. One of the issues I will come to a bit later is that of weasel words. It is very easy to put weasel words in legislation which sound nice but which people do not know the meaning of. On reading the National Planning Policy Framework, I was interested to see that the Minister involved with it at the time, Greg Clark, described sustainable development as being about,
“change for the better, and not only in our built environment”.
That is nice. He also stated:
“Sustainable means ensuring that better lives for ourselves don’t mean worse lives for future generations”.
That is lovely. I agree with all that. Greg Clark added:
“So sustainable development is about positive growth—making economic, environmental and social progress for this and future generations”.
We are beginning to get there but that is not really a definition. We use it in all forms of the services that the Government offer, such as the health service, education and so on. Therefore, it is a good idea to define it. My next amendment provides more detail on that.
As I say, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, for her support. I agree with her that there is no ambivalence about the word “duty”; we know exactly what it means. Where we have a duty and there is no ambivalence, this enhances confidence among the people governed and, in this case, among those who have drawn up a neighbourhood plan.
It is interesting when we talk about local planning authorities that of course they differ hugely across the country. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is trying to instil that, probe that and find that. He also talked about the five-year supply of housing. I want to ask my noble friend the Minister a question on this. I remember the Written Statement produced on 12 December by his department referring to a “three-year supply” for housing. Where are we now on that? Was that policy? Is it something that should stick or are we back to the five years? That is important in drawing up neighbourhood plans.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, spoke of finance. I am sure we will have a lot of talk about that. I think he must have been a barrister at one time as he put great pressure on our Minister. I thank him for saying that he felt the Minister should accept the amendment. When you come to these events, you have dreams and hope that the Minister might accept everything, but in your heart of hearts you know, especially here where we cannot vote, that we must negotiate. So I am not surprised by the resistance to this.
I thank my noble friend for the way he responded. It was very interesting when he talked about how sparingly the Secretary of State calls in planning applications when they have gone to appeal and so on. When that is done, it can have a devastating effect as the decision can undermine the whole neighbourhood plan and leave it void. We have seen instances of that. I know it is not just the Secretary of State; it is the department and all the rest of it—and other Ministers. It is just that before these people in authority who govern us make these decisions, they really ought to do a bit more homework on the impact of the decision they are making. It can be absolutely devastating when a neighbourhood plan is rendered void.
I will haunt the Department for Communities and Local Government, which will be so fed up with Baroness Cumberlege: “Oh, she’s not here again!”. Fortunately, we all have busy diaries so it might not be so terrible. I will read Hansard and hold feet to the fire to be absolutely certain that the assurances given are kept. I am sure my noble friend has huge integrity and will live up to them. I thank noble Lords for their support and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, in speaking to this group, I will focus on important government Amendments 6 and 131, as well as discussing government Amendments 2, 3 and 4. There are some other amendments in the group which I will obviously respond to after those who tabled them make their contributions.
Amendments 6 and 131 put beyond doubt that neighbourhood planning groups which are well on their way to completing a neighbourhood plan will be aware of future planning applications in their area. These amendments also reaffirm the Government’s commitment to ensure that neighbourhood plans are given proper consideration when planning applications are decided.
Baroness Cumberlege
My Lords, I also have amendments in this group. The first states:
“The Secretary of State must, by regulations made within one month of the coming into force of Part 1, define ‘modification’ for the purposes of this Act.”
The Whips’ Office decided to amalgamate this amendment with those of my noble friend the Minister because it is about definitions, as are some of his.
Legislation is very taxing—I suspect that we might feel a little older at the end of this Bill—but it is taxing because of the terminology. As a latecomer, I am only just learning planning speak and that is because of some of the weasel words—I referred to them earlier—that creep into it. It was Voltaire who urged, “If you wish to converse with me, define your terms”. I therefore ask my noble friend to define “modification”. Please can we have some examples? For instance, five houses in a hamlet on the wrong site could be devastating; five houses in a large town could easily be fitted in. So where is the line drawn on modification? What does that word mean?
My second amendment in this group, Amendment 8A, also concerns modification and depends a little on my noble friend’s answer to my Amendment 8. In Amendment 8A, I plead that every modification made need not be treated as significant or substantial, requiring a full-scale rewrite followed by a referendum—I hope that that will not be the case. Paragraph (b) states that any modification must allow scrutiny by the residents of the neighbourhood plan. Paragraph (c) states that only if the parish and town councillors deem it necessary and want confirmation again that what they are planning is acceptable to the local community should they have the opportunity to hold another referendum. I am therefore seeking to give authority back to parish and town councillors and ensure that they still have a locus when either the local authority or the examiner makes decisions which might negate the plan.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, my Amendment 64 is in this group. I think that is because part of it fits with the Government’s amendments, although mine in its entirety is somewhat broader about creating the conditions to encourage more local communities to prepare neighbourhood plans and to shape and build sustainable communities. I think everyone in the Committee can support that, whether we believe in the political ideology of taking decisions at the lowest possible level or, as the Minister rightly reminded us a few moment ago, because of the Secretary of State’s stated desire to build more homes, because we all know that neighbourhood plans deliver more homes.
Of course, this issue was raised in the Housing and Planning Bill, and the Bill before us is the Government’s response to it. I very much welcome Clause 1 and the government amendments that the Minister has just introduced, which are in part a response to the debate on this matter in the other place. But I contend that they still do not go far enough in giving neighbourhood councils and parish councils that are drawing up neighbourhood development plans the reassurance that the time and effort they are putting in are worth while.
Clause 1 says that local authorities “must have regard” to neighbourhood development plans, but there are no sanctions. Furthermore, this applies only to post-examined plans, whereas case law says that draft plans should be taken into account. As I say, I welcome the government amendments made in response to the matter being raised in the House of Commons, which make it a requirement of local authorities to consult with neighbourhood planning bodies, but they are not clear about ensuring meaningful consultation; for example, by specifying how long it should take or, critically, what duty the local authority has to take any comments into account.
My amendment would make clear what the consultation with neighbourhood plans on a planning application would actually mean, as well as the duty placed on a local authority to take those views into account. If a local authority then ignores those views, the decision can be called in. That is a very limited right. It is a right not for individuals, but only for parish councils and neighbourhood forums whose neighbourhood plans have progressed to at least the point of formal submission to the local authority for examination.
To date 268 neighbourhood plans have been made, out of a potential 9,000. If we are going to secure more neighbourhood plans, the Bill has to strengthen the weight of communities’ views, expressed in neighbourhood plans, such that they should not be ignored by local planning authorities or the Planning Inspectorate. In the Housing and Planning Bill, the Minister kept saying that there had not been any examples of this. I am delighted to inform this Minister that after a bit of skimming on my part of some past applications, I found at least one in the space of one afternoon. In August 2014 South Oxfordshire District Council approved the planning application for the development of two new industrial units in Cotmore Wells Farm in Thame, despite the proposed development encompassing 50% more land for employment than had been allocated in the neighbourhood plan. But frankly, whether or not there have been cases is not the point. The point is that neighbourhood plans can be overridden if there is no sanction.
As my noble friend Lord Greaves and others have pointed out, we are asking volunteers to give their time and energy, over years, to pull these plans together. I welcome the commitment in the Bill to improve the level of resources at their disposal but some volunteers are working 20 or 30 hours a week, with extremely limited resources, particularly if they are not a parish council and do not have parish council resources and a parish council secretary to push the matter forward. Why should they do it if there is no redress when a planning application contrary to a neighbourhood plan is approved by a local authority—driving, as I have often said in this Room, a coach and horses through everything that has been agreed?
I ask the Minister: why do the Government feel that they should give a duty to local authorities to have regard to neighbourhood plans, as they have stated quite explicitly in Clause 1, if there is absolutely no sanction if they do not? Do they really feel that that provides sufficient encouragement for more neighbourhood plans to be brought into being, which we all know we need and which will ensure that the houses we want to be built are built?
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly in support of my noble friend’s Amendment 64. As this is the first time I have spoken in Committee, I should declare my interests. Probably most relevant is that I am the president of the National Association of Local Councils, representing parish and town councils across the country. I have a number of interests around development, including my own consultancy. I am also a visiting professor of planning at Plymouth University and a visiting lecturer at Cambridge in the school of planning. So I have a range of interests in this area—some commercial, some unpaid. Perhaps even more significant is that I chair a neighbourhood plan process for Roche local council. That neighbourhood plan has now been examined successfully and we await a date for a referendum—yet another frustrating wait to get it addressed. That introduction is probably longer than anything I need to say.
I support the amendment, or at least its principles, because there is an issue where neighbourhoods have taken through a neighbourhood plan process and the local authority then approves something contrary to the wishes of that community. It does not happen with every application—it is only where the parish council itself opposes it. It then asks the Secretary of State to review it in a formal way. Of course, the Secretary of State has the power to intervene in any event, but it formalises a process. This is important for confidence.
I did not support Amendment 1. It did not recognise that there may be many reasons why a district authority might choose to support an application that is outside a neighbourhood plan. There may be wider strategic issues. The two processes of local plan-making and the evolution of the local planning authority’s policies may not align with the neighbourhood plan process. The neighbourhood plan may be out of date for that particular application. It may not have anticipated a particular issue leading to a planning application. Most significantly, a neighbourhood plan is done in the context of that parish’s needs, not in a wider strategic context, so neighbourhood plans do not always need to override these wider issues. This is not the point nor the understanding of neighbourhood planning where communities properly engage in the process. However, they have the right to expect that it is taken seriously. Sometimes there is a sense that the local planning authority does not take the neighbourhood plan seriously in the way that it should—when it suits it to do so, at least.
This formalisation of the process—the sense that there is someone that they can go to and have it looked at again—is a broad principle, although perhaps not quite the right mechanism, that the Government should be willing to accept. It would give some confidence to communities and answer those who feel that they are simply ignored and that there is nothing they can do. Whether or not this is true, a sense of injustice can arise. Lord knows, I have done the process and it is an awful lot of effort to get a neighbourhood plan in place. There is a need for some sense that there is a proper system for review if a neighbourhood plan is not followed.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, I will comment briefly on Amendment 64 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. We all understand and sympathise with her point about the time and effort put in by volunteers. In cases of which I am aware, it is very often a very small number of volunteers who really drive it. They find it difficult to pull in people from the wider community. They have to work very hard to get any real response. This is my problem with the wording of the noble Baroness’s amendment. She talks about plans within an area,
“covered by a made or emerging neighbourhood development plan”.
“Emerging” is the crucial word. She then defines an emerging neighbourhood development plan as one,
“that has been examined, is being examined, or is due to be examined, having met the public consultation requirements necessary to proceed to this stage”.
In other words, it is very embryonic. We do not know what the final view may be.
To give an example, I know of a neighbourhood plan in the north-west of England where two or three people in the parish have got together some but not a lot of information about housing and development plans in their area—as much as they can find without much help. They then decided to hold a public meeting. They leafleted their entire parish and brought people together. Inevitably, although people said that they were interested and declared their concern, usually about the housing aspect, the people who turned up to the meeting were few in number, despite a large amount of effort. The people I am talking to became worried and said that they must broaden the consultation to community groups, which would take some time to get around to all the people they felt they should see. They thought they should make another effort at consultation, which might be attended by more people. They reckon that all this will take a year before they have a clear idea of what residents in their area want.
What is the amendment talking about? What stage of the planning and gathering of information is the noble Baroness talking about? It sounded to me as if it was early in the stage. What worries me about that is we do not necessarily know whether the initial ideas will be the same as the final ideas that come out of that prolonged process. Will she explain that to me?
Baroness Parminter
If I answer that question, perhaps the noble Lord might say, if I were to change my amendment to “post-examined”, whether he would be prepared to accept it. There is a debate about what is the appropriate time to give due weight to the emerging plans. The Government have moved back. We obviously have a different Minister now, but during the consideration of the Housing and Planning Bill the Government were not talking about post-examined plans. They realised that we need to add protection from an earlier point in the process.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor
It may be helpful to explain the point in time that the noble Baroness has proposed. At the point when you are awaiting examination, the process has already gone through all the community consultation stages. A final draft neighbourhood plan has been written. It has gone through the approval process with the local planning authority, which has to check that it conforms to the local plan and the National Planning Policy Framework. Any necessary amendment would have been made at that stage and it would also have gone through all the statutory consultees to then be submitted for examination. It then awaits examination prior to an examiner being appointed. At that point, all the processes have been completed. The only issue, and the only thing the examiner tests, is whether it complies with the national planning policy and the local plan.
Lord Horam
The noble Lord knows far more about these planning details than I do—I concede that. Speaking as a lay man, the amendment’s language does not seem to convey what he said. It conveys something much earlier in the process than what the noble Baroness said. I am to some extent relieved but, none the less, if the language can be interpreted in different ways—I am neither a lawyer nor a planning expert—it would, frankly, worry me. I am therefore concerned about this amendment, although I understand the sensible motivation by which it is put forward.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I spoke strongly in favour of neighbourhood plans at Second Reading. It is great that there are so many champions of neighbourhood planning in all parts of the Committee. The plans embody the spirit of localism by allowing local communities to have control over their new developments and where they take place. While I therefore totally commend the spirit of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, I do not support its substance for the simple reason that I do not think it is necessary.
The Government have already acted to address substantively the concerns that the amendment seeks to address. I would argue that the measures in the Neighbourhood Planning Bill, together with previous reforms introduced in the Housing and Planning Act 2016, deliver much of what the amendment seeks to achieve. Clause 1 places a clear requirement on planning decision-makers to have regard to neighbourhood plans that are post-examination. That is clearly the right place and time to look at these as that is when plans will be sufficiently advanced. While decision-makers can take pre-examination neighbourhood plans into account, insisting that they should have similar regard to plans that might not yet take account of all material factors such as planning for necessary local growth and so on does not seem an entirely sensible way forward.
Again, the National Planning Policy Framework already clearly says:
“Where a planning application conflicts with a neighbourhood plan … planning permission should not normally be granted”.
The Written Statement in December further made clear that,
“where communities plan for housing in their area in a neighbourhood plan, those plans should not be deemed to be out-of-date unless there is a significant lack of land supply”.
That is under three years. This gives a degree of protection not previously available. I also welcome all the government amendments that require local planning authorities to notify automatically neighbourhood planning groups of future planning applications in their area. At present, they have a right only to request information but are not necessarily told. This amendment would greatly improve what is there.
Briefly, I will also address the proposal in the amendment to consult the Secretary of State if the local authority intends to grant planning permission that goes against an agreed neighbourhood plan. I would also argue that this is unnecessary. I understand the concern of the noble Baroness about the calling in but any neighbourhood planning group can currently request the Secretary of State to consider calling in a planning application to determine the outcome.
Baroness Parminter
My understanding is that they cannot do that unless it is a major application. Of course, in rural areas the majority of applications are not major ones because they are for fewer than 10 houses. That puts rural areas at a significant disadvantage because they cannot undertake that.
Baroness Finn
I concede ignorance but my understanding is that a number of planning applications have been called in. Perhaps that can be clarified. Basically, there has been significant movement on this and taken together all the current measures give sufficient protection to neighbourhood plans. The amendment proposed is simply not required.
Lord Greaves
I have a question for the Minister about Amendment 6, which he spoke to some time ago, while I also support my noble friend with her more ambitious amendment. Amendment 6 would amend paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 to the Town and Country Planning Act, and is about notifying parish councils and so on of planning applications. The inclusion of neighbourhood forums here is extremely welcome, giving them the right to have this. However, parish and town councils already have this right. Reading the amendment, I cannot quite understand what would be different in practice for parish councils from the rights they already have to be told about planning applications when they come in and to have their views on them taken into account—in other words, to be consulted. What is the difference? Why is all this extra wording needed for parish councils over and above what is there already?
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I found this a very helpful debate and conclude that if not now at some point soon the Minister will have to define words. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, drew our attention to an important issue around the definition of the word “modification”. When I read the Bill for the first time, I assumed that it would be really very minor in practice. However, it may not be and I am not sure that we can wait until a month after the coming into force of Part 1 for that word to be defined. It is material to what is in the Bill.
Clause 3(2) states:
“After subsection (4) insert … A local planning authority may at any time by order modify a neighbourhood development order they have made if they consider that the modification does not materially affect any planning permission granted by the order”.
The word “materially” starts to become very important. What is the difference between affecting and materially affecting a planning permission? We need to get this sorted out so that we understand it, otherwise we will end up with a modification which I thought was minor actually having the potential to be much more substantial, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, pointed out. In addition, I should like to be clearer about what a material effect would be on a planning permission granted by the order. I want to understand that before we reach the Report stage. However, the debate as a whole has been extremely useful.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I declared my interest earlier as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, as I suspect are half of the Members present in this Committee, and as a member of Newcastle City Council, where 20 years ago I was for a couple of years the chairman of the planning committee. But I have to say that I defer absolutely to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Goss Moor, whose expertise is much more current than mine and, I would guess, more profound as well.
I want to raise just a couple of points. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred to the provisions set out in Amendment 6 amending Schedule 1 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 by inserting new sub-paragraph (1B). I have a slightly different point to make. The provision states:
“The local planning authority must notify the neighbourhood forum of”,
a variety of matters. What I do not know is the extent to which a neighbourhood forum is under an obligation to notify residents about these matters. In an ordinary planning application, the usual practice is for the planning authority to notify the residents in an area within a reasonable range of a projected application of its existence. The assumption here seems to be that the neighbourhood forum itself constitutes the community for these purposes. While it may have a representative role, that does not imply that every resident will get to know of matters which would have been raised by the local authority with the neighbourhood forum. Perhaps, if not today then later, the noble Lord could indicate whether I am right in my assumption that the provisions of this new clause are meant simply to notify the neighbourhood forum and whether there is any further obligation on the neighbourhood forum or anyone else to notify residents and other people with an interest.
I turn briefly to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, about the remedy if things do not go well. Given that there is a statutory responsibility here if it is not carried out, I would have thought that the remedy is that of judicial review. That is not an inexpensive process, I am afraid, but I suspect that if there has been an omission in complying with the requirements of the legislation, it is the remedy available to those who have a grievance. Again, possibly after taking advice from those behind him, I hope that the noble Lord will clarify the position.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, as we have heard, government Amendments 2, 3 and 4 are additions to Clause 1. The Minister said that they were in response to points raised in the other place and elsewhere. They may be technical but they are certainly not minor. They are actually bigger than the clause they seek to amend.
Government Amendment 6 deals with the procedures for notifying parish councils and neighbourhood planning forums of a planning application or permission in principle if there is a neighbourhood development plan that falls within part or all of an authority’s area. That is very important. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, raised an important point regarding the rights of parish councils. He is absolutely right that they have these rights anyway. It will be interesting to see what difference the amendment makes, or whether it is just tidying up to bring in the neighbourhood forums. My noble friend Lord Beecham just raised the whole issue of neighbourhood forums and the obligations they may or may not have to notify local residents. I look forward to the Minister’s response to those points.
Amendment 8, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, seeks—I think, importantly—to require a clear definition of modification as it will apply to the Act. We all know, certainly in respect of planning, that being very clear about what you are doing is very important. There is a whole clause—Clause 3—which refers to the modification of a neighbourhood development order or plan. It is very important that we get this absolutely right. The Minister may tell us that the amendment is totally unnecessary. I hope that if he does do that, he will set out clearly for the record what is in the mind of the Government when they are talking about modification, or maybe that is something that will come in guidance. I look forward to the Minister’s response. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, raised a similar point. As I said, this needs sorting.
Amendment 8A, again in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, seeks to give greater authority back to local and parish councils, which is very welcome. I support Amendment 64, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. As we have heard, it sets out the responsibilities of the planning authority in relation to the things it must do.
I should be clear: I certainly want to build more houses. I am looking forward to the White Paper and hope that we will get some more council houses as well. But what we must do, when building more houses, is ensure that they are of good quality, they are well designed, they deliver sustainability, they are carbon-neutral, and they are homes for modern living, rather than badly designed homes on the cheap, which, as we know, we have suffered before up and down the country. We must never go back to that. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I might have one or two questions for him when he responds.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, first, I will deal—in no particular order—with some of the points that were raised in relation to the government amendments. In relation to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, about Amendment 6, previously it has been open to neighbourhood forums and neighbourhood groups to ask for notification of planning applications. Amendment 6 makes it automatic. That is the difference: it will happen automatically; there is no need to ask. The concern has been that previously some things may have slipped through the net so that is the reason for that.
Lord Greaves
In relation to parishes, as opposed to forums, this is just a lot more words but it is no different from the present system.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
It will be automatic notification. That is the key point.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I think the point that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, made was that it is already automatic for parish councils.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
Yes, but not for neighbourhood forums, I think. It does not make any difference to parish councils but for neighbourhood forums it becomes automatic.
In relation to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about modification and the impact of that, as set out in Clause 3(2), it is not a particularly strange sort of provision to say,
“does not materially affect any planning permission granted by the order”.
The important point is that this will mean that anything other than something minor will materially affect planning permission. I am happy to put that on the record if that is helpful but that is the important point there. Obviously that would be justiciable. If it is immaterial, it would not fall within that subsection.
On the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, the requirement for a neighbourhood planning forum to notify residents is covered under existing secondary legislation and development orders. I will get him chapter and verse of the particular provision and circulate it to noble Lords who participated in the debate. It is covered under existing legislation.
I turn to the three non-government amendments in the group, Amendments 8, 8A and 64. I shall deal first with Amendments 8 and 8A in the name of my noble friend Lady Cumberlege. I thank her for her helpful comments. On Amendment 8, the Government believe that a more proportionate way to modify neighbourhood plans is needed to incentivise communities to keep their plans up to date—this deals with some of the points I have just touched on, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. Clause 3 will achieve this by introducing two new modification procedures. The first allows a local planning authority, with the consent of the neighbourhood planning group, to make minor modifications to a neighbourhood plan or neighbourhood development order at any time, in the same way that errors can currently be corrected. These might, for example, amend the wording of supporting text to clarify the application of an existing policy, which previously would have entailed a referendum.
The second streamlined procedure could not apply where the proposed modifications to a neighbourhood plan were so significant or substantial as to change the nature of the plan the community has voted on. I understand the desire to provide clarity and reduce opportunities for ambiguity and litigation. However, the amendment could unintentionally have the opposite effect. Whether a modification is considered under the new procedure will depend on the context of the overall plan. A modification that is significant or substantial in the context of one neighbourhood plan may not be in another.
I offer an example to assist noble Lords. The addition of sites to accommodate 50 new homes may not change the nature of a plan addressing the needs of an extensive urban area, but for a small rural village this same modification of a plan could have a much more significant and substantial effect on the plan and the local community. I welcome further discussion on any of these points and I am happy to meet with the noble Baroness and any noble Lord who would like more information on these matters, but I respectfully ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendment.
Amendment 8A, proposed by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, concerns the more detailed procedure for modifying a neighbourhood plan that is already in force. Currently, any modifications to a neighbourhood plan or a neighbourhood development order beyond the correction of an error must go through the same process of producing a new plan, irrespective of the significance and scale of the modifications proposed. I reassure noble Lords that the procedure to which the amendment relates applies only where the proposed modification of a plan is minor. Any proposed modification cannot materially affect any policies in the neighbourhood plan or the planning permission granted by a neighbourhood development order. A local planning authority will need to have the consent of the relevant neighbourhood planning group to make such a modification. The local planning authority would also be required by Regulation 16 of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 to publicise any such modification on its website and in any other way it believes would make the local public aware of the proposal.
This is an important change as it will allow groups to, for example, amend the wording of supporting text to clarify the application of an existing policy, without the requirement to go through the same process used to produce a new plan. I hope this reassurance will convince my noble friend not to press the amendment.
On Amendment 64, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for her partial welcome of what we are doing with our new proposals. I thank her for raising the importance of community voices being heard in decisions about planning in their area. I also respect the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Goss Moor. He is not in his place at present but I know he understands these issues thoroughly.
Clauses 1 and 2, which have been welcomed by the noble Baroness, together with provisions in the Housing and Planning Act 2016, the recent Written Ministerial Statement of 12 December 2016 on neighbourhood planning and the government amendments that were tabled last week address the concerns she has raised, thus, I believe, making her amendment unnecessary. First, perhaps I may confirm that it is a three-year housing supply that is needed, which was a point raised by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege.
This amendment may inadvertently send a message that those elected locally to take decisions cannot be trusted to do so without the matter being referred to central government. That is the wrong message. However, I recognise the expertise and the intention of the noble Baroness and others who have spoken in support of her proposal. I am very happy to meet the noble Baroness between our Committee deliberations and Report, and indeed any noble Lord who would like more information on these matters. However, I ask her in the meantime not to press the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
In respect of the amendments moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, does the Minister expect the department to issue any further guidance at some point on modifications and how minor they may be? I am conscious that government departments might say, “This is a minor modification”. I recently put down a Parliamentary Question to ask a number of government departments about reviews that are announced in Parliament from the Dispatch Box, and I have been told by a number of them that there is no definition of a review. I know that it is a bit odd, but if there is definitely going to be a review, when a Minister stands before us saying whether a modification is minor or not, what status does that have? Would he consider producing further guidance to help residents, neighbourhood planners and parish councillors to understand all of this?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, as I have indicated, the intention here is to ensure that we have flexibility because neighbourhood plans may vary in their circumstances, size and so on. There is a massive body of law that defines the word “minor” and judges will be able to put it in context. I have given an example of why we believe that we are answering the need for flexibility in the legislation and I think that the Government have got it right in this regard. However, if the noble Lord has any particular points that he wishes to raise subsequently in writing, I will be happy to look at them.
Baroness Cumberlege
My Lords, I welcome very much government Amendment 3 because we are having to use the Freedom of Information Act to get some of this information, but now it is a requirement and I really do welcome that.
While we are looking at modifications, be they minor or substantial, my noble friend cited the case of 50 houses in a rural area. If planning permission is granted for 50 houses that are outside the planning area and that would increase the number of houses being promoted in the neighbourhood plan, currently standing at 100, so now another 50 are added, which is a substantial increase, would that mean that the neighbourhood planners would have to go back to square one and start again because that would be a major modification, not just a minor one?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I have to be very careful when responding to that question because as I have clearly indicated, there is an issue that is sub judice and therefore I cannot comment on that particular case for obvious reasons. I have said in broad terms that 50 houses may occasionally be minor and occasionally major, depending on the circumstances of the case, but obviously there is also an issue around the interpretation of the relevant neighbourhood plan, which has to be seen in that context. I think that I have given a fair example and although I do not sit as a judge, I try to give particularly bold examples of what would be a minor provision in an urban area but may not be so in a smaller village situation.
Baroness Cumberlege
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that. What happens if there is a change through, say, the examiner or some other process? For example, where a community has agreed to 100 houses and they have booked the sites and everything else, yet the examiner comes in and says, “No, it’s a minimum of 100 houses”, is that a major modification?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
With respect, I have already given an indication as a lay man in this context as to how this would play out. I have a legal background, but I am not an expert in planning law. I do not think I can be asked, “Is this minor or major”, about a succession of situations. I would be giving what is essentially a lay view in planning law terms. All I have sought to do in setting this out—I hope helpfully—is to say that sometimes something would fairly obviously be major in the context of one neighbourhood plan, but very minor in another. Contrast, for example, a situation of high-density population in an urban area with a small rural village a long way from the nearest town. I hope this indicates the intention here.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
The noble Lord has been very helpful. The noble Baroness’s question has highlighted that some situations can be very difficult. What somebody thinks is minor somebody else can think is major. Equally, there could be a situation where development could be in an urban area and it could be only 50 houses, but people could think that was an issue as well. I do not think the noble Lord can go much further, but this exchange has highlighted how difficult this can actually be.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I do not agree entirely. I accept the point that it is not always easy at the margins, though I think it is far easier in extreme cases. We do not have all the facts of a particular community that is being referred to in front of us. So, in the abstract, it is much more difficult than it would be with some concrete examples from a particular community.
“(c) an examiner has recommended under paragraph 13(2)(a) of Schedule A2 to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (examination of modified plan) that a local planning authority should make the draft plan, or (d) an examiner has recommended under paragraph 13(2)(b) of that Schedule that a local planning authority should make the draft plan with modifications.(3BA) In the application of subsection (2)(aza) in relation to a post- examination draft neighbourhood development plan within subsection (3B)(d), the local planning authority must take the plan into account as it would be if modified in accordance with the recommendations.”
“(3BB) A draft neighbourhood development plan within subsection (3B)(a) or (b) ceases to be a post-examination draft neighbourhood development plan for the purposes of subsection (2)(aza) if—(a) section 38A(4)(a)(duty to make plan) or (6)(cases in which duty does not apply) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 applies in relation to the plan,(b) section 38A(5)(power to make plan) of that Act applies in relation to the plan and the plan is made by the local planning authority,(c) section 38A(5) of that Act applies in relation to the plan and the local planning authority decide not to make the plan,(d) a single referendum is held on the plan and half or fewer of those voting in the referendum vote in favour of the plan, or(e) two referendums are held on the plan and half or fewer of those voting in each of the referendums vote in favour of the plan.(3BC) A draft neighbourhood development plan within subsection (3B)(c) or (d) ceases to be a post-examination draft neighbourhood development plan for the purposes of subsection (2)(aza) if—(a) the local planning authority make the draft plan (with or without modifications), or(b) the local planning authority decide not to make the draft plan.”
Lord Stunell
“( ) In section 79 of that Act (determination of appeals), after subsection (1) insert—“(1ZA) In determining an appeal on a planning decision under section 76E (applications under section 62A: determination by Secretary of State), 77 (reference of applications to Secretary of State) or 78 (right to appeal against planning decisions and failure to take such decisions), the Secretary of State must, in reaching his determination, give particular weight to any proposals contained in a neighbourhood development plan or a post-examination plan which includes all or any part of the application site.””
Lord Stunell
My Lords, I start by apologising to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for suggesting that she was a hard cop. The apology is made slightly less sincere because she finished her remarks by saying she intended to hold the feet of the Minister to the fire. If that is the sign of a soft cop, I would not want to meet a hard cop.
My point was more that the new clause proposed by the noble Baroness was draconian in its requirements on the Secretary of State. Mine is much more of a light touch. This may be because I am indeed soft, having been a Minister in the department myself. As I said to the House at Second Reading, Bob Neill and I were the two Ministers in the House of Commons who steered the Localism Bill on to the statute book and through Committee there. I remember seeing the first version, which was named very imaginatively by the civil service draftsman as the local government (no 2) Bill. We now know it much more accurately as the Localism Act.
In respect of planning, the then Bill was born out of a realisation, which did not require a great deal of research to establish, that practically nobody in the general public and very few councillors ever participate in the drawing up of what used to be a unitary development plan or a local planning authority’s local plan. The level of engagement is very low. Consequently, when proposals come forward for development, it goes into a three-stage process: stage one, the developer proposes; stage two, the community opposes; and stage three, the planner imposes. This confrontational model is very destructive of public trust in the whole process. It builds in delay; it makes the whole process far from frictionless and very difficult indeed. The whole starting point of the neighbourhood planning proposition in the Act is to turn that round and put the community in charge of what goes on so that you have positive, community-based planning and not negative, developer-imposed outcomes.
At the time that the legislation was drawn up, the major concerns—echoed in some of the things said today—were that local planning authorities and local councillors would be hostile to the loss of some of their power and influence in the system, and that they would seek to frustrate or prevaricate when neighbourhood plans were developed. A lot of the provisions of the Localism Act relate to that. Several mentions have been made of external examiners. There was a strong lobby from local government planners that they should be the people who examined neighbourhood plans. Ministers were sceptical about that, believing it would be a powerful lever which malign influences in a district council planning authority could use to completely negate what a neighbourhood plan should be.
Of course, there were fierce criticisms of the whole proposal, principally—I heard this a lot—that it would be simply a nimby’s charter which would frustrate all development. I am absolutely delighted that the statistics show that in fact the neighbourhood plan areas designate more housing in more appropriate places than the local plans in the relevant areas set out. The Housing and Planning Act strengthened and protected the neighbourhood planning process, building on the experience learned from the first few. This Bill does more, which is welcome, to make sure that at the local democratic level neighbourhood plans get a fair wind and are supported. I approve of all that. It is the way to go.
As I said at Second Reading, that in turn reveals something else happening. I am indebted to my colleagues at the Local Government Association—I do not have to declare an interest as a vice-president—who were kind enough to send me a link to the Sussex Express of 30 November last year, the headline of which is: “Councillors resign in protest against overturned planning decision”.
This is a reference to a decision of the Secretary of State where, according to the report, he approved a case in relation to 50 five-bedroom houses over the heads of the neighbourhood plan and Lewes District Council, which is the local planning authority. It is hard to judge from the newspaper report whether there were exceptional circumstances, but one thing we can say is that that decision in itself makes no strategic impact at all on the delivery of 1 million homes by 2020, which is the Government’s strategic objective for housing growth. However, we can say that it will have a deep strategic impact on neighbourhood plans.
In seven years we have gone from a position where Ministers in the department were doing all they could to defend neighbourhood plans from the predations of what were seen to be hungry local authorities reluctant to give up any power or influence to a situation where the Secretary of State is stepping in. We now find local planning authorities, in this case Lewes District Council, trying to prevent the Secretary of State from sabotaging neighbourhood plans. The problem here is that it is not just an individual plan that is affected. I do not particularly expect the Minister to be briefed on that case or even willing to talk about it. However, there is the risk—beyond the risk, the certainty—that cases such as this will undermine the whole concept of neighbourhood plans.
What is the point of working for two and a half years on a plan, getting it examined and signed off, if what then happens is that inspectors treat it as being of no account and the Secretary of State dismisses it out of hand? So I ask the Minister to come back to us or perhaps write to us and list the number of cases where the Secretary of State has issued a decision which overruled a neighbourhood plan. How many are there? If there is one, that is too many. If there are 10, it is a disaster. If there are 70, we might as well tear the whole thing up because the word will go round and nobody will trust the process and we shall go back to the confrontational model of proposes, opposes, imposes, which is exactly what the whole thing is designed to avoid.
What would Amendment 5 do? This is where I am the soft cop. Compared with the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, it is very mild in its imposition on the Secretary of State. It says that when something comes in front of the Secretary of State, he or she shall have particular regard to neighbourhood plans which cover any part of the site being considered. That ought to be a wake-up call for the Secretary of State but it should and will be a wake-up call for the people I described at Second Reading as the rogue inspectors. The fact is that there is a planning establishment which just does not believe or trust in local communities taking decisions—these can properly be taken only by people who have university degrees in planning and 25 years’ practical experience of delivering it in local authorities. That arrogant approach is putting at risk a way of handling planning which will answer a problem that has been with us since 1947: the complete lack of trust that the normal person in the street and the average community has in the way that the planning process is supposed to work.
I very much hope that, given that I have come here wearing my velvet glove and that I have put on the table an amendment which is very modest and minor in its imposition on the Secretary of State, the Minister will take it as a very clear signal that unless he addresses this problem explicitly in the legislation that we are dealing with, the whole project will unravel and the whole strategic direction of the previous Government—and, as I understand it, of this Government—to turn planning into something that works with and is done by communities will be thrown away in a professionalisation of decision-making, which we have surely grown out of. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege
My Lords, as has been referred to, my Amendment 20 is in this group. If we are serious about local people planning their local communities and making neighbourhood plans, we have to make it really plain in the Bill that we uphold the Localism Act. Where planning inspectors or the Secretary of State overrule a neighbourhood plan, we witness utter desolation among decent and honest people, who are often the leaders in their local community. In my area, six out of 10 parish councillors resigned as a result. I am concerned, as is the Local Government Association—I declare an interest in that I am not a vice-president of it and never have been, although I have great respect for the association—that the Bill would give the Secretary of State more powers to intervene in the local plan-making and plan-revision process.
We should have a much more conciliatory way forward. I am seeking a sector-led approach that would resolve the blockages. Such an approach would be much more beneficial in the longer term than the imposition of a plan. Having the Secretary of State or inspectors making decisions does the reverse. If we believe in localism, we should support the people making such neighbourhood plans. I fear that very often we do not and I do not think that the Bill is strong enough in ensuring it.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a councillor in the borough of Kirklees. I added my name to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, because I thought that the iron fist might be more effective in this regard than my noble friend’s velvet glove. Those of us suffering as a result of appeals to the Planning Inspectorate and the Secretary of State have become as angry as the noble Baroness has with the situation that her village has faced.
The amendment highlights that the power of local people to determine the impact of planning on their area is constantly undermined, despite the Government’s commitment to localism and neighbourhood planning. Many of the parameters surrounding new development are set by government: planning legislation and the National Planning Policy Framework. All that is already in hand, and it is within that context that the local planning authority makes and determines through consultation decisions about its local plan.
It is interesting to remember how a local plan begins. It begins not with local people making decisions through their neighbourhood plan but with a call for sites, which means developers indicating which sites they would like to use and local landowners wanting to see the value of their land enhanced by putting it forward for development. I have no problem with either of those things; the problem I have is that they are the starting point. The whole purpose of the Bill seems to be to reverse that process and have neighbourhood plans as the foundation of a local plan. It puts local people in charge rather than developers and landowners.
When local councils come to determine the local plan, it includes not only land allocation but planning policies. In that is the formal consultation, which takes place several times, and then it is finally agreed. You would think that then, if the Government were sincere in their approach to localism, that would be the end of it: a huge document is produced which includes hundreds of detailed policies about what can be developed and where, and detailed maps of where land is allocated for business use, for housing, for flood prevention or whatever—and that would be it. After many years of consultation and consideration, one would think there would finally be an agreement, but no, that is not the end of it. Local people do not have a final say. There is then the examination by a planning inspector to test the development; for instance, on grounds of soundness. At that stage the developers have another go. Their site has been rejected so they bring it forward again. They obviously have a great advantage at that stage as they have expensive barristers at their side whereas local people just make their voices heard. Having gone through the earlier process, residents have a right to expect that their case should not be challenged any more.
Then we come to the question of appeals. Two points have already come up in our discussions today. The Minister said that a three-year housing supply is now the basis on which appeals can be made in regard to a lack of housing in a local plan. I seek clarification on whether that occurs only in relation to a neighbourhood plan or would cover the whole area of a local plan. That is very important, certainly in my district, where a number of appeals are going forward to enable developers to build on urban green space—the equivalent of greenbelt within an urban area—on the basis only of an alleged lack of a five-year supply, and despite the fact that a local plan has been agreed by the council and is awaiting examination. I hope that the Minister will clarify that critical issue because, as others have said, developers see a loophole enabling them to put forward plans on land that has in this case been set aside as urban green space for 40 years, and will continue to be so set aside in the next local plan, following its examination. However, a developer can put forward a planning application for that land and it is going to appeal—we await the result of that—on the basis only of this five-year supply issue. That is obviously due to the length of time that a local plan takes to go through the examination process.
As has been described, residents then feel thoroughly disenchanted with the whole process. Local residents who have been consulted through a local district plan, a neighbourhood forum or a neighbourhood plan have a right to expect that, having gone through all that and having made the compromises which inevitably and rightly take place so that development can occur, they should have their wishes upheld and not be undermined by what I regard as spurious claims by developers to override fundamental policies that have been agreed and contained in a local plan. That is why I support wholeheartedly the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify the situation as regards a three-year or five-year land supply.
Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)
My Lords, I hope your Lordships will forgive me but I have not spoken in this Room before. It is my first time and if what I say is right, it is right, but if it is wrong, it is wrong. I declare my interests as the chairman of the Local Government Association until June—I hope—and as leader of South Holland District Council. In terms of what we are dealing with today, I am one of the four people who drafted the National Planning Policy Framework, so I know a little bit about what is in it and I certainly know what the intention was. It was to deliver sustainable development in places in the country where it is needed in a way that the people living in the local area could accept, to ensure that we get the homes we badly need in the most timely fashion.
I have to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, that neighbourhood plans were not seen by all of us as the route for making that happen. I personally objected to putting neighbourhood plans in, but that was not because I did not want development, it was because I wanted to see more development and I thought that neighbourhood plans would be a route to slowing it down. But the Government pursued them, so it is incredibly bizarre that if a neighbourhood plan or a local plan has been drawn up in compliance with the NPPF, the Planning Inspectorate is allowed—and some would say sometimes encouraged—to overturn it. The inspectorate should not be able to do that.
There are people outside this Room who think that the Planning Inspectorate has gone feral. It is not working to direction from the Government because it has individual planning inspectors working to their own direction for their own aims. It is important that the Government should insist on the supremacy of the public’s ownership of the planning system. If someone has gone through the pain of making a neighbourhood plan, even though I disagree with such plans in principle, if that is what the Government are intent on using as a way of encouraging development at the local level, once those plans have been tested in public by an inspector and are found to be sound and in compliance with the local plan, if one is in place, or at the very least in compliance with the NPPF, the Planning Inspectorate should never be allowed to overturn one of those decisions except on pain of some form of proper cross-examination by the Government.
We all know that even though the Secretary of State has signed off a planning appeal, it is very rare for the Secretary of State to be personally blamed for that appeal, because generally it does not get anywhere near them. If a neighbourhood plan or a local plan is in place and the inspectorate feels that for good strategic reasons it has to overturn it, there should be some insistence that the Secretary of State should actually take personal ownership of it so that people can be sure that there is political oversight of the bureaucrats working in the planning department. On that basis, I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Cumberlege.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, is one that I am obviously happy to support. As we have heard, the purpose of the amendment is to place in the Bill a requirement, when the Secretary of State has determined an appeal against a decision, that due weight has to be given by the Secretary of State to any proposals set out in the neighbourhood development plan or a post-examination plan. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, said that his amendment is much softer and he hopes to get a more positive response from the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, when he comes to reply. The noble Lord also highlighted the issue where people have worked hard to put together a neighbourhood plan only to have it overridden by the Secretary of State, which is very much the point just made by the noble Lord, Lord Porter, as well.
Amendment 20 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, seeks to give further strength to local development plans. If an application for planning permission is made to the local authority but is refused on the grounds that it is not in accordance with the local development plan, the assumption is that the Secretary of State will uphold that decision. It seems perverse that the Secretary of State would seek to overturn a decision which, as we have heard, is in line with the NPPF, so it is important that that point is made clear by the Minister. I hope that he will also respond to the points made by the noble Baroness in respect of localism.
I will leave my remarks at that but I may have one or two questions for the Minister when he comes to respond to the debate.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated in the debate on the amendments in this group. Before I respond to the specific amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, I shall make some introductory remarks that I hope will set out the context.
It is right that unsuccessful applicants can seek to have their planning application reviewed through an impartial planning appeal process. This is a strong belief of the Government, as it has been of successive Governments. I want to get that on the record. This recognises the control the planning system places on the use of land. This should be an option even when the proposed development is not in accordance with the development plan. A planning appeal should be lodged only if issues cannot be resolved with the local planning authority and if an applicant considers, in the light of the facts, that planning permission should have been granted.
Turning to Amendment 5, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, I thank them for the opportunity to discuss this matter. In this case, when considering an appeal that relates to a neighbourhood plan, the Secretary of State must know the importance of that neighbourhood plan. The law is very clear that decisions on planning applications must be made in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Reference has already been made to the number of call-ins that have been made by the Secretary of State for the last year for which figures are available—75 out of 16,500. This idea of a super-bureaucratic system running riot with call-ins is overstated and wildly hyperbolic.
Lord Stunell
Is the Minister in a position to say how many of those 75 came from neighbourhood plan areas?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. I do not have those facts in front of me but I shall endeavour to see if we can provide that information in the letter that I have promised to noble Lords. If the information is there, I will gladly supply it.
We should also be clear that the rules on call-ins were made in 2008, ran throughout the last Government and into this Government. The suggestion that this is somehow something new is wrong. I am also happy to circulate the parliamentary Statement that contained those rules to Peers who have participated. I accept that the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, acknowledges that there are issues of national significance. We can all think of examples of compliance with climate change policies, world heritage sites, green belt and so on. So I would have to take issue with the idea that a call-in is never appropriate, which I think one or two noble Lords got close to saying. When we look at planning, there is always room for and, indeed, an importance to a national dimension. This is what we are seeking to preserve.
I was asked once again about the neighbourhood planning Written Statement. I will also circulate this so that noble Lords have it in relation to the three-year supply of deliverable housing sites. This Written Statement, in the name of my honourable friend the Minister of State for Housing and Planning in another place, Gavin Barwell, indicates:
“The Government confirms that, where a planning application conflicts with a neighbourhood plan that has been brought into force, planning permission should not normally be granted”,
provided that,
“the local planning authority can demonstrate a three-year supply of deliverable housing sites”.
I am putting this in a shorthand form, but I will ensure that it, or the link, is circulated to those who have participated in the debate.
Baroness Pinnock
I thank the Minister for that clarification. However, what I was seeking to understand was whether the three-year supply referred only to where a neighbourhood plan was in place or whether it would be for the whole of a local plan. If that is not the case, we have a serious discrimination between those areas—often rural areas, at the moment—with a neighbourhood plan and those without. For one, a three-year supply would be sufficient; for another, a five-year supply is required.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I confirm that it applies only to neighbourhood plans. It is just one other reason that it is very good to have a neighbourhood plan in place. I do not see anything inconsistent in that. If we are strong believers in neighbourhood plans, that is quite appropriate.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I will cover the point in the letter but I am sure that it is the case, as I indicated, in the Written Ministerial Statement—it was on 12 December 2016—that this is in relation only to neighbourhood plans.
If I might proceed, the Government are equally clear that we must allow those taking decisions, including the Secretary of State, to do their job and exercise their judgment when considering the planning merits of the case before them and the evidence for and against an appeal. By the way, the Secretary of State does not necessarily have to uphold the decision of the inspector in this regard. That does not necessarily follow. This provides the necessary flexibility that is at the heart of our planning system, which the amendment, if accepted, would remove. For these reasons, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 5.
Turning to Amendment 20, tabled by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, we place great importance on local development plans. They provide the local community’s vision of how it sees its area developing. It is right that they should be given the weight they deserve within the planning appeals process. As I have said, where a development plan’s policies are material to an appeal, a decision must be taken in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This does not mean that a planning appeal that is not in accordance with the local development plan will always be dismissed. It means that the appeal should not normally be allowed and that planning permission should not normally be granted. However, we cannot, and should not, fetter appeal decision-makers by requiring them to dismiss appeals that are contrary to the development plan. Instead, we must allow planning inspectors to do their job and exercise their independent judgment.
Significantly, planning appeals can be made in a number of circumstances, not just when a planning application is refused. They can also be submitted when a planning application is not decided within the statutory timescale or if conditions the applicant deems unreasonable are imposed on a grant of planning permission. If accepted, the amendment could affect these appeal rights. An applicant who was refused permission would not have their appeal heard in certain circumstances because the amendment would require it to be dismissed. This is not acceptable. In conclusion, I ask my noble friend to not move her amendment.
Lord Stunell
I thank the Minister for his reply. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for her support. I particularly valued the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Porter, if I may say so, because he was very clear in explaining that he does not necessarily believe that neighbourhood plans are the way to promote development and growth, and he started off at least as a deep sceptic. Nevertheless, he has championed the need to make sure that neighbourhood plans, once made, are treated as serious documents which carry very considerable weight in subsequent decision-making. That is exactly the view that I put and it is exactly the way that I have expressed it in my amendment, which is not to fetter the discretion of the Secretary of State but simply to insist that he gives particular weight to a neighbourhood plan in reaching a decision. I think that links up with one of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Porter. He said that some planning inspectors have gone “feral”.
Lord Porter of Spalding
Can I clarify that? I did not actually say that; I said some people out on the street are saying it.
Lord Stunell
I will let the record stay as it is on that. At Second Reading, I referred to the fact that there are some rogue inspectors. Perhaps I can make clear that I am not accusing them of a breach of their duties under the seven principles of public service, but there is a continuation of the implementation of a policy which, at the latest, was discontinued by the Localism Act in 2010. That is resulting in insufficient weight being given to a statutory process—the establishment of neighbourhood plans—that should and could have the same weight as adopted local plans and any views that an inspector might seek to impose on the situation.
I referred to this at Second Reading and will do so again, but until 2010 the direction of travel was in one way, towards a professionalised planning service that did not give sufficient weight or an effective voice to local communities. In 2010, through the Localism Act, that was turned round completely in its intent by having plans established and developed by local communities and then allowing developers to implement them. Despite the scepticism at the time—the noble Lord, Lord Porter, might even concede this—neighbourhood plans delivered growth and more housing sites. I see the Minister nodding. This is not a question of the nimbys triumphing or an example of a wild political theory with malign consequences. It is working, delivering the results that everybody wants to see and it is in danger of being sabotaged by what I think is a continuation by some people—perhaps some senior civil servants in the department and certainly some inspectors—of a policy that was changed in 2010. They have not caught up with it. In that sense, it is quite right that they should be exposed. To use the phrase of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, perhaps some feet need to go on the fire where that is concerned.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for his support. I think the Minister can provide us with a little more information about those 75 cases. How many of them related to overthrowing neighbourhood plans? Of the 75, how many were upheld? In how many cases were the inspector’s recommendations endorsed and in how many were they overturned? Let us get some idea of what we are talking about here. Of course, I was not alleging that the Secretary of State is overturning hundreds of thousands of cases of either neighbourhood or local plans. I made the case that we have a very new animal in the neighbourhood plan, which takes a gestation period and a good deal of effort to be delivered. If at the end of that process it is simply to be—I must choose my words carefully—disposed of, people will not invest their time in doing them. The whole strategic idea lying behind neighbourhood planning will fall into disuse and discredit.
I believe my amendment addressed that, giving a strong prod to the system to ensure that there was an effective and powerful impetus to giving validity to neighbourhood plans at the expense of developments that were clearly out of order. I am sorry that the Minister does not agree with that. I noted his emollient words in relation to Amendment 1 and I hope they apply to Amendment 5 too. I look forward to constructive discussion to see what we can resolve. If it makes him feel any better, I will not personally hold his feet to the fire. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Notification of applications to neighbourhood planning bodies
(1) Schedule 1 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (local planning authorities: distribution of functions) is amended as follows.(2) Paragraph 8 (duty to notify parish council of planning application etc) is amended in accordance with subsections (3) to (5).(3) After sub-paragraph (3) insert—“(3A) Sub-paragraph (3B) applies to a local planning authority who have the function of determining applications for planning permission or permission in principle if—(a) there is a relevant neighbourhood development plan for a neighbourhood area all or part of which falls within the authority’s area, and(b) a parish council are authorised to act in relation to the neighbourhood area as a result of section 61F.(3B) The local planning authority must notify the parish council of—(a) any relevant planning application, and(b) any alteration to that application accepted by the authority.(3C) Sub-paragraph (3B) does not apply if the parish council have notified the local planning authority in writing that they do not wish to be notified of any such application.(3D) If the parish council have notified the local planning authority in writing that they only wish to be notified under sub-paragraph (3B) of applications of a particular description, that sub-paragraph only requires the authority to notify the council of applications of that description. (3E) For the purposes of sub-paragraphs (3A) to (3D)—“neighbourhood area” means an area designated as such under section 61G;“relevant neighbourhood development plan” means—(a) a post-examination draft neighbourhood development plan as defined by section 70(3B) to (3C), or(b) a neighbourhood development plan which forms part of a development plan by virtue of section 38(3) or (3A) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (plans which have been made or approved in a referendum);“relevant planning application” means an application which relates to land in the neighbourhood area and is an application for—(a) planning permission or permission in principle, or(b) approval of a matter reserved under an outline planning permission within the meaning of section 92.”(4) In the opening words of sub-paragraph (4) for “the duty” substitute “a duty under this paragraph”.(5) In the opening words of sub-paragraph (5) for “their duty” substitute “a duty under this paragraph”.(6) Paragraph 8A (duty to notify neighbourhood forums) is amended in accordance with subsections (7) to (9).(7) After sub-paragraph (1) insert—“(1A) Sub-paragraph (1B) applies to a local planning authority who have the function of determining applications for planning permission or permission in principle if—(a) there is a relevant neighbourhood development plan for a neighbourhood area all or part of which falls within the authority’s area, and(b) a neighbourhood forum are authorised to act in relation to the neighbourhood area as a result of section 61F.(1B) The local planning authority must notify the neighbourhood forum of—(a) any relevant planning application, and(b) any alteration to that application accepted by the authority.(1C) Sub-paragraph (1B) does not apply if the neighbourhood forum has notified the local planning authority in writing that it does not wish to be notified of any such application.(1D) If the neighbourhood forum has notified the local planning authority in writing that it only wishes to be notified under sub- paragraph (1B) of applications of a particular description, that sub-paragraph only requires the authority to notify the forum of applications of that description.”(8) In sub-paragraph (2)—(a) before the definition of “neighbourhood forum” insert—““neighbourhood area” means an area designated as such under section 61G;”, and(b) after the definition of “neighbourhood forum” insert—““relevant neighbourhood development plan” means—(a) a post-examination draft neighbourhood development plan as defined by section 70(3B) to (3C), or(b) a neighbourhood development plan which forms part of a development plan by virtue of section 38(3) or (3A) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (development plans which have been approved in a referendum or made).” (9) In sub-paragraph (3) for “(3) to (6)” substitute “(3) and (4) to (6)”.(10) Section 62C of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (notification of parish councils of applications made to Secretary of State) is amended in accordance with subsections (11) and (12).(11) In subsection (2) after “paragraph 8(1)” insert “or (3B)”.(12) In subsection (3) after “Schedule 1” insert “or notifications received by the authority under paragraph 8(3C) or (3D) of that Schedule.”
Baroness Cumberlege
“Duty on Examiner in making recommendations
(1) Schedule 4B to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (process for making of neighbourhood development orders) is amended as follows.(2) After paragraph 9(2)(a) insert—“(ab) in any case where the examiner is minded to recommend deletion of a policy relating to a specific site or sites in the neighbourhood area and indicating a presumption in favour of housing or economic development, or”.(3) After paragraph 10(3) insert—“(3A) Before recommending modifications in the form of deletion of draft policies in a draft neighbourhood plan, to take account of national policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State or for other reasons, the examiner should endeavour to find alternative wording that would achieve the goal of the qualifying body, if necessary by convening a hearing for that purpose.””
Baroness Cumberlege
My Lords, I turn to Schedule 1, which has been amended to include new Schedule A2. I have tabled a number of amendments on this. I shall discuss my Amendments 9, 10 and 11 before I discuss my Amendments 6A and 6B in this group.
I am very worried about sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) of paragraph 12 on page 38 of the Bill. They ensure that the examiner can sit in his office, away from the world he is examining, and immerse himself in documents and papers which give him little sense of place, neighbourhood and geography and, above all, the people who live and work there. These people cherish and care about their community, look after it and make it a dynamic place. They run myriad organisations. They understand what works in their area and what does not. As has been said, this is not a charter for nimbyism; on the contrary, it has stimulated housing and other development.
My amendments seek to give makers of neighbourhood plans a voice and a right to be heard and to enable them to explain face-to-face what makes the plan worthy of their community, and what they seek to achieve in strengthening it. Christopher Lockhart-Mummery QC of Landmark Chambers says that,
“any significant Neighbourhood Plan really requires a hearing”.
In my view, the Government’s steer in discouraging hearings is too strong. So much is dependent on what the examiner is minded to recommend through written representations. We need to be sure that the policies are not fundamentally altered without the plan-making body having the right to explain its objectives at a hearing, and the examiner suggesting better words to them to achieve their goals. After years of work producing a plan—in some cases this lasts up to five years; in my area, it was two and a half years—and then getting it agreed at referendum, the parish or town councils are at the mercy of the examiner. They can only watch while further representations and views of the local planning authority are gathered together and put to the examiner. It is not an inclusive process, and I think it should be.
My Amendment 6A is more specific. It concerns the situation where the examiner deletes a policy relating to a specific site or sites in favour of a commercial or economic development. As a nation, we need more sites for housing. Where a community has researched and identified its needs and proposed a significant development in terms supported by the landowner and the developer, is it right for the examiner to simply delete the proposed policy on the grounds that some of the wording of the policy is not clear? Should he not make every effort to help the community get its words right?
Amendment 6A would put a greater responsibility on an examiner who finds that a plan policy falls short of meeting the basic conditions. Instead of recommending the deletion of such policies and therefore denying us the housing sites we need, the examiner would be required to hold a hearing when he proposes to delete, add or significantly amend any draft policy that makes provision for a specific development, which would include housing development on a site identified in the plan. It would be a specific requirement.
Amendment 6B is also concerned with the examiner. Plan makers are at the mercy of others and can only watch while further representations and views of the local planning authority are gathered together and put to the appointed examiner. There is no recourse if the parish or town council is not satisfied with the work of the examiner. Examples might be because the examiner has recommended modifications that they do not believe are soundly based on evidence, or because the examiner has recommended deleting policies that could readily be remedied by a less dramatic modification. The amendment is designed to provide the makers of a plan with the right to a say in the action to be taken after the examination. It would achieve this by requiring the examiner to deliver a draft report for consideration by the local planning authority and the plan makers. Before finalising the report, the examiner should take into account and consider any points made by those bodies.
There have been suggestions—I suspect my noble friend might also make them—that this would further complicate the process or cause more delays in the planning system. I understand that some examiners already proceed in this way, but do so informally. The amendment is a modest way of ensuring a continuing engagement with the plan makers in the final stages of creating their own plan. Ideally, examiners should not recommend fundamental changes or deletions without first engaging the town or parish council in a hearing to understand the goals, and then fine-tuning the recommended changes.
This is a probing amendment and a way of attracting the attention of my noble friend in order to open a dialogue and discussion about how we can ensure that the confidence and faith of local plan makers is enhanced and does not deteriorate. I look forward to my noble friend thinking about the way we can ensure that that happens and I look forward to his response. I beg to move.
Lord Beecham
May I ask the noble Baroness, in reference to Amendment 6B, about the time limit that she has included in the amendment? We know that local authority planning departments are under great pressure, and in those circumstances, 28 days seems a little tight for the local planning authority to consider,
“new evidence, new facts or a different view”.
Is she prepared to be flexible about the period for the response because it seems too short?
Baroness Cumberlege
My Lords, I accept the suggestion but my concern is that these things can drag on and on, and unless one has a cut-off time, I fear that while the issues continue to be talked about and worked on, nothing actually happens. I am quite anxious to have a deadline and times within which people have to deliver their responses.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I express my support for the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, but I want to speak in particular to Amendments 9, 10 and 11. They are important because once again they are about the definition of words. We discussed earlier the meaning of “modification” and “material”, and now we have to define “significant”, “substantial” and “exceptional”. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, has drawn our attention to the fact that these words can be interpreted in different ways.
First, paragraph 12(1) of new Schedule A2 refers to the “general rule”. If a rule is a general rule, it means that sometimes it is not. I think a rule needs to be rule. The elimination of the word “general”, which leads to doubt, seems the right thing to do. I hope the Minister will take the point that that word should be removed. Looking very closely at the Bill, paragraph 10(1) of the new schedule says that it is for the examiner to,
“determine whether the modifications contained in the draft plan are so significant or substantial as to change the nature of the neighbourhood development plan which the draft plan would replace”.
There we have the introduction of the words “significant” and “substantial”. However, it is then left with the examiner to proceed by the written representation route. So a substantial or a significant change is to be dealt with by the written route and, in paragraph 12(2), only the examiner can,
“cause a hearing to be held for the purpose of receiving oral representations … in any case where the examiner”—
but not anybody else—
“considers that there are exceptional reasons for doing so”.
So there are substantial and significant changes but unless the examiner thinks they are exceptional, there cannot be a formal hearing.
We need to get this right. I foresee a lot of trouble arising if those who have taken part in developing a neighbourhood plan are suddenly told that a substantial or significant change to it can be dealt with only by the written procedure, whereas they may have things that they wish to say and to be heard. If the process is to be sound, we should be encouraging more oral hearings where people can listen to the evidence and contribute to the discussion. I hope the Minister will take on board that these definitions really matter. Something that is significant or substantial should have an oral hearing; something less important than significant or substantial could have written representations. But simply to say that it must be exceptional in the eyes of the examiner does not seem right.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendments 6A and 6B. For the purposes of this Committee, I declare an interest as a farmer and landowner. Both amendments are about ensuring that the procedure governing an examiner’s report on a neighbourhood plan allows the neighbourhood to meet him halfway, as it were, or allows him to make helpful compromise amendments rather than full-scale deletions, which I gather is all too often the case.
As has been said frequently today, planning is a very complicated subject for the average lay man—that very definitely includes me. The noble Lord, Lord Horam, said that he was not a planning expert. If he is not a planning expert, I am a babe in arms. I have heard planning described as a minefield covered in a mist. In spite of this, villages, communities and neighbourhoods work really hard to master this misty minefield and over a long period of time—two years, five years, whatever it might be—they try to get to grips with the complications of the planning system, not to mention the complications of the diverse needs of their community and the divergent local views on how it should be developed, in line, of course, with the local plan and the NPPF. That point has been made several times and I thoroughly endorse it.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I very much support the amendments in this group tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. Clearly, they are probing amendments and I look forward to the response from the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, to the points raised.
It is important that we ensure that communities are consulted and that they have confidence that if they are to make a local plan it should have some validity, particularly once they are into the process. These amendments seek to ensure that. Amendments 9, 10 and 11 look at the modification procedure and give the opportunity to move it from a written to an oral procedure. That is important. It may well be that it should be much more either/or, but at the moment it is much more towards the written procedure apart from exceptional circumstances. I am interested to hear what we get back from the noble Lord in respect of that.
We have also begun to mention a number of words in the debates on the Bill, such as “modification”. Words are important, particularly to planning. Planning is complicated. I am not a lawyer. I am a councillor and I am on a planning committee, but I rely heavily on the advice we get from our planning officers on looking at applications. Rules are also important, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, mentioned “the general rule”. What worries me is the flexible rule, which might be so flexible that it is not a rule at all. We need to be very careful about what we are doing here.
I would also like the noble Lord to tell us a little about the examiner. The examiner will look at an application and will want to determine and pass it properly, so we must hope that he is working to soundly based rules as well. It would be useful to learn about the rules they operate under. It seems odd that an examiner can simply throw out a proposal that has been agreed, especially having heard about how important these processes are from the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Goss Moor. So it will be interesting to hear about exactly what takes place and what the examiners are told. I am conscious that these are probing amendments and I look forward to the noble Lord’s response, at which point I may have one or two more questions for him.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, perhaps I may say as I crawl across the minefields in the mist having been battered by iron fists and with my feet held to the fire, that I will try to deal with some of the issues that have been raised quite fairly by noble Lords relating to this group of amendments. It may help if I first try to put this in the context of what the Government have done to promote and improve neighbourhood planning—just so that we do not lose sight of what is important.
The measures introduced by the Housing and Planning Act have sped up and simplified a number of processes, with, for example, new time limits being imposed on planning authorities and more transparency in committee reports. We have provided £22.5 million-worth of support for neighbourhood planning groups and have provided more than 1,800 grants to the value of over £10 million. Also, some £13 million has been paid out to local planning authorities to help them meet their responsibilities. I have referred to the Written Ministerial Statement of December 2016, which was provided to address the issue raised by communities about the transition problems around the operation of the five-year land supply requirements. This Bill will put it beyond doubt that decision-makers must have regard to neighbourhood plans that have passed examination—it is important to nail that. It also makes clear the advice and assistance that local planning authorities are able to provide to neighbourhood groups and it will bring neighbourhood plans into legal force as part of the development plan at an earlier stage, all of which is important.
Before I turn specifically to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, perhaps I may address a couple of points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, in the context of Schedule 1 relating to the procedure for examination as set out in new paragraph 12(1). The words “the general rule” replicate the language used in the Localism Act 2011 under the coalition Government. I appreciate that that is not the whole of the answer, but the phrase has been put in for good reason in that there is a substantial amount of case law that defines what “the general rule” is. I will endeavour once again in the compendium letter that I will send round to give examples of how it would operate.
I would also say to the noble Lord that new paragraph 12(2) makes it clear that it is not just the examiner who can initiate an oral hearing, or at least that it may be but he would be required to do so under new paragraph 12(2)(b),
“in other such cases as may be prescribed”.
It is not as if he has a totally unfettered discretion. Indeed, we may want to examine this heading when we discuss the specifics because it does provide for cases to be prescribed.
Lord Shipley
Can the Minister explain what and who it is who will do the prescribing?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
The prescribing would certainly be done by the Secretary of State, but obviously the Bill has not yet passed into law so no cases would be prescribed at the moment. Again, perhaps I may give an indication of the sort of circumstances where we anticipate it may be used.
I turn now to the amendments and again I thank my noble friend Lady Cumberlege for raising this important matter, and the noble Lords, Lord Cameron, Lord Shipley, Lord Kennedy, and briefly the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, who is not in his place at present, for their contributions. It may help noble Lords if I first explain the current examination process for a neighbourhood plan. The person appointed to examine a neighbourhood plan must be independent of those who prepared the plan and of the local planning authority, and have no interest in any land that may be affected by the plan. They must have appropriate qualifications and experience. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, raised the issue of rules in relation to this. Perhaps I can provide a link in the letter, but they clearly must have appropriate town and country planning qualifications and experience. There will certainly be rules under which they will have to operate. Noble Lords may perhaps want to do a more detailed examination of these.
The examiner’s role is to consider whether the plan proposal meets a set of basic conditions and other legal tests. Neighbourhood planning groups must submit various other documents to the local planning authority with their neighbourhood plan proposal. These include a statement setting out how the plan proposal meets the relevant tests. This statement provides the opportunity for those who prepared the plan to demonstrate that their neighbourhood plan proposal meets those tests. Those wishing to make their views known to the independent examiner, or to submit evidence to be considered, can submit written representations to the local planning authority during the statutory publicity period for the draft neighbourhood plan. The local planning authority must send to the independent examiner the draft plan proposal, any other document submitted by the neighbourhood planning group relating to the plan proposal, and a copy of any representations made.
My noble friend Lady Cumberlege’s Amendment 6A concerns the modifications that an examiner may recommend to a neighbourhood plan. It is already the case that the examiner of a neighbourhood plan must make a report on the draft plan. This must recommend either that the plan is submitted to a referendum or that modifications are made to the draft plan so that it meets the basic conditions and other legal tests for the plan as modified to be submitted to a referendum. It is only where an examiner is unable to make such modifications that they would have to recommend that the plan proposal is refused. With this clarification, I would ask my noble friend to withdraw that amendment.
I apologise to my noble friend that I have not taken her amendments in the same order as she proposed them. Amendment 6B would give an opportunity to provide further details on the procedure for examining neighbourhood plans. It is currently the case that, where a new neighbourhood plan has been examined, a local planning authority must reach its own view on whether the plan meets the basic conditions and legal tests required. The authority must do so having considered the recommendations of the examiner. It is then for the authority to decide whether a neighbourhood plan proposal, with or without modifications, should be put to a referendum.
Our planning guidance is clear that we expect local planning authorities to constructively engage with the community throughout the neighbourhood planning process, including when considering the recommendations of the independent examiner of a neighbourhood plan. Again, these are important matters raised by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege on which I will carefully reflect ahead of Report.
My noble friend’s Amendments 9, 10 and 11 concern the method of examination. The Government maintain that the process of examining neighbourhood plans by written representation in general provides a proportionate, appropriate and robust scrutiny. It is certainly an appropriate approach for plan modifications that make use of the new streamlined modification procedure in the Bill. By definition, such proposals will not substantially change the nature of the plan. Nevertheless, for new plans or for modifications to plans where the examiner considers it necessary to ensure adequate examination of an issue, or to give a person a fair chance to put a case, they must hold a hearing. In these cases, neighbourhood planning groups are entitled to make oral representations. I want to reassure noble Lords that the legislation is very clear. Communities already have the opportunity to have a say in writing throughout the examination process and, where appropriate, at an oral hearing.
Ahead of Report—and I shall endeavour to do this for all noble Lords—I think it appropriate that I set out the procedure whereby there is interaction between the examination and the neighbourhood plan. In setting out that procedure in discussion with my noble friend Lady Cumberlege and others, we can see where there are gaps where we may need to plug the legislation, if I can put it in the vernacular in that way. I accept that something must be going wrong with some plans. I am happy to look at that to see how we might address it. The general position is satisfactory, but I accept that something can obviously be done to make it more watertight. I thank my noble friend for saying that these were probing amendments, but with the reassurance that I have sought to give I ask her not to press them.
Baroness Cumberlege
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this mini-debate. Some really interesting issues have been raised. Although my noble friend the Minister has tried hard to explain that the system is working well, I understand that he realises that a few holes need to be filled.
It is not right that the examiner should decide when there should be an oral hearing. I was a magistrate for many years. I know that when you have people before you—the defendant, the prosecution, et cetera—you can really get to grips with what they are talking about; you can understand the people there before you. I do not think that that comes through in just documents or written representations. It should be an opportunity for those who have spent years—in some cases, five years—drawing up a neighbourhood plan to explain to the examiner, “This is why we’ve included this. This is why we’ve done that”. In our case, the examiner ruled out all sorts of things because he did not understand the locality, the people, the history or what we were trying to achieve. I can understand that the examiner has to work with a certain language—the planning language—but we who are volunteers and lay people are not versed in that language. I am sure noble Lords have realised that in my amendments I am using lay person’s language and not the proper language used in planning circles. Because sometimes the words are not right, the inspector has ruled out the policy that people really wanted, which really made that community tick and made it what it is.
I feel strongly that there should be an oral hearing. It is not up to the examiner but to the makers of the plan to decide whether or not they want an oral hearing—if it is something very modest, they may not want it. I am trying to shift the power away from bureaucracy to the people and the communities that we govern. The more we can do that, the more we instil trust in our population. I could go on a lot about trust, but I shall not.
I look forward to working with my noble friend and his officials to strengthen some of the provisions to make them work and to ensure that we are not reducing democracy by way of these laws. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Cumberlege
“( ) A neighbourhood development plan may include a phasing condition on development which is agreed with the local planning authority.”
Baroness Cumberlege
My Lords, I understand that the Grand Committee is a place where noble Lords cannot move a Motion that a noble Lord be no longer heard. Your Lordships have my sympathy and I apologise that I am again on my feet. This amendment is really important and is about a neighbourhood development plan including a phasing condition on development.
I have tabled this amendment because we have already seen communities being overturned, which can cause real social problems. Phasing is important to assimilate people coming into a community. However, on a practical level, the Bill is part of a vehicle to enable the Government to announce the building of a record number of houses. It will coincide with the inevitable changes that Brexit will bring, many of which we still know nothing about. They are incalculable. Some may be good, others may not be so good. We may see jobs leave the City, for instance. I was interested to read in the Times of 25 January a headline on financial clearing houses which stated that loss of clearing would cost the City 85,000 jobs. Of course, that may or may not be the case. However, if a loss of those jobs on anything like that scale occurs, it will make a huge difference to developments that are in train or have already been built.
We must also consider what will happen if we have fewer immigrant builders. What will be the effect of that on the housing market, which has traditionally had its ups and downs? We do not want new buyers to be plunged into negative equity or find they have new homes that they cannot sell. That would serve nobody well. Developers are business people and I am sure that they will not be seduced into building homes that they cannot sell. They would prefer a longer-term strategy, and I support them in that. At this very uncertain time, it is judicious not to try to break records for the sake of political expediency. I strongly believe that building cosy nests on a rotten bough can end in tears. The phasing of developments makes sense. I hope that my noble friend will agree that it should be incorporated in the Bill on Report. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, has moved a very wise amendment. I hope that the Minister will accept it in due course.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, I, too, support the noble Baroness. I assure her that she need not apologise for anything as she has raised some very interesting issues in the course of the Grand Committee, and has done so with great passion and commitment.
I raise a related, but perhaps slightly tangential, issue concerning the impact of having a lot of development all at once. Currently, developers argue that Section 106 or community infrastructure levy contributions should relate only and very specifically to the development they are undertaking. That may sound a reasonable argument but it is highly problematic as it completely fails to take into account the cumulative effect of a number of developments taking place around a village, or, indeed, taking place over time. It is very difficult to argue with legal certainty that the need for a new school, for example, is related simply to one development as opposed to the cumulative impact of a number of developments. Therefore, that issue needs to be looked at as it goes to the point about the acceptability of development to local communities. They also need to feel that the funding mechanism will be there. Furthermore, developers often argue that the money should be used only for very narrow purposes and not for the benefit of the wider community. The Government need to look at the acceptability of development in this regard.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Cumberlege for moving this amendment. Before I look at the substance of it, on housing need generally I think it will be borne out by statistics that even if all migration were to stop now—it will not because the Prime Minister made clear that we will still very much need the brightest and best for specific areas of activity in the country—there is still a truly massive backlog of housing that needs to be supplied. There is no gainsaying that. There is a massive catch-up operation to be done, and all political parties over the years contributed to this problem by not building enough. There is little doubt of that. I part company with my noble friend on that specific point.
On Amendment 7, moved by my noble friend, local communities within a designated neighbourhood area are responsible for deciding which policies they want to include in their neighbourhood plan. They can, if they choose, include policies on housing delivery and housing sites if they consider them appropriate for their area. They will develop their housing policies by considering the types of development needed for their area and will identify suitable locations for housing development. If the policies and proposals are to be implemented as the community intend, a neighbourhood plan must be deliverable.
Where a neighbourhood plan is used to allocate sites for housing development, the local community must assess whether those sites are deliverable and developable. Paragraph 47 of the National Planning Policy Framework provides details of what needs to be considered. As part of this consideration, those preparing the plan must take realistic decisions about the timescales for delivering those houses and the issues that might affect this, such as the area’s infrastructure needs. This might require them to consider phasing the delivery of development to ensure that they have a realistic plan for delivering their housing policy within required timescales. It is certainly open to neighbourhood groups to do that now and for that to be part of the neighbourhood plan. Where communities consider this necessary, they should of course have clear evidence as to why there should be a restriction on when a specific site or sites will come forward for development.
These are important matters but should essentially be left to the judgment of local communities. Maybe we need to make clearer that that is a possibility but then it is a matter for the relevant neighbourhood, advised by their local planning authority. These people are best placed to make such decisions, which are more appropriately addressed by policy documents and guidance than legislation. As I previously indicated, the Government set out their policy on these matters in the National Planning Policy Framework and in planning guidance, to which both local planning authorities and those preparing neighbourhood plans must have proper regard.
I hope I have reassured my noble friend on this point. Just before I leave this particular amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, raised an issue regarding funding from community infrastructure. We shall come to this in the next group but, just briefly, I think 25% goes to the relevant parish council or neighbourhood group. It is up to them how to spend that; it does not have to be related to the infrastructure for which the levy was paid. As I say, we will come to that on Amendment 26 and can look at it in more detail then. In the meantime, I ask my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Cumberlege
I very much thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for supporting this amendment. We go back to the situation of the examiner. My noble friend the Minister said that already you can have phasing but we wanted it and it was completely crossed out by the examiner. I do not know what advice is given to examiners but something like this really needs strengthening. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said, this is about more than housing or bricks and mortar; it is about the people who live there. It is about trying to get diversity in our population because we know that that strengthens it. It is about schools. It is about health centres. It is about all the infrastructure that we need. Phasing can help that.
Years ago I was involved in this area and we built 171 houses. It was a huge development but we also ensured that the infrastructure was there to support it. If we do not have some phasing, we will end up in a real mess. I take the point about negative equity. Once you get negative equity, you get a very disenchanted population. Phasing is important. I look forward to working with the Minister. I hope I will not have to bring this back on Report and that we can come to some accommodation. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Beecham
“with reasonable payments made by local authorities for the purposes set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) to be recovered from the Secretary of State.”
Lord Beecham
My Lords, Amendment 12, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Kennedy, relates to Clause 5, which is headed, “Assistance in connection with neighbourhood planning”. We have heard a good deal about the need to support local communities in developing their local plans and seeing them implemented. The amendment seeks to ensure that they have the wherewithal to do that.
Clause 5 is the Government’s initiative to ensure that support is given. It prescribes that as part of the process:
“A statement of community involvement must set out the local planning authority’s policies for giving advice or assistance”,
for the making or modification—a word that has been much used this afternoon—of neighbourhood development orders and neighbourhood development plans. Of course, this is a matter which requires considerable experience and skill. The assumption, therefore, is that the local authority will provide the resources for the local community to obtain advice and support in going through the process.
I suppose in one sense this could be regarded as a new burden and therefore should or could fall into the general position that is purported to apply to the imposition of new burdens; namely, that if it is a requirement of legislation, the Government will ensure that local authorities’ costs in meeting that obligation are met. But in my experience it is as well to be explicit about this and that is the purpose of the proposed new clause, which would require the full recovery of costs in connection with the development of a neighbourhood plan. The local authority would support the community in its commissioning of works but the cost ultimately would be met by the Government.
Given the tenuous position within local authority planning departments, of which we have heard much in the Chamber and today, it is imperative that the matter be adequately resourced. As we have heard so many times, planning departments are under huge pressure. As the noble Baroness pointed out, they have lost staff to private concerns. It is difficult to recruit and retain staff. In some ways happily, the volume of work is growing, which we want to see. The Government have now come round to conceding, particularly on the housing front but also in other areas, that considerably more investment and building need to take place. In the context of that shortage of staff, it is particularly important given the competing pressures on departments that communities should be assisted in securing whatever help they need in the process. I hope therefore that the Minister will concede that this is right way forward if we are going to have properly developed neighbourhood plans with local communities fully engaged and equipped to make a contribution to the ultimate decisions, which without that professional support would not take place. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege
My Lords, this is my swansong; this is the last time that your Lordships have to endure me. I have an amendment coupled with this one, but I say to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, that I so agree with him. It is really important that we do not try—to use an expression appropriate for a planning Bill—to make bricks without straw, because it does not work; we need resourcing.
My amendment is a little different, being about the community infrastructure levy, which it would increase. It is a probing amendment, but if it is intended to continue the direction of travel towards localism and the greater empowerment of parish and town councils, we have not only to find some financial incentives for communities to accept development—although many of them do at the moment—but to encourage planning permissions for the building of houses. That was a significant feature of the coalition Government’s housing and planning reforms and a source of funding to principal councils.
One such initiative was the community infrastructure levy, which came into force in April 2010. It allows principal councils to raise funds from developers undertaking new building projects in their area and to fund a wide range of infrastructure needed as a result of the development. The community infrastructure levy-charging authorities are required to transfer to the parish or town councils 15% of the levy receipts arising from development that takes place in their area, rising to 25% for areas with an adopted neighbourhood plan.
Unfortunately, research suggests that local councils have been passed only 1% of the community levy receipts—just £92,000 despite principal councils collecting more than £9 million between April 2013 and June 2014. That is largely because it is not mandatory for principal councils to have a community infrastructure levy scheme in place and it has the effect of communities accepting development but not benefiting from the share of the levy to invest in local infrastructure needs and priorities.
It is vital that communities which are pro-growth benefit financially from policy incentives such as the community levy so as to invest in locally identified infrastructure needs and other community priorities. The first part of my amendment would address this issue by requiring local planning authorities to introduce the community infrastructure levy within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed. I am sure my noble friend the Minister has more recent and up-to-date information about how this policy is being delivered, so I look forward to his response.
Paragraph (b) of my amendment is simply intended to increase the incentive for communities to embark on the development of a neighbourhood plan. At present, areas with an adopted neighbourhood plan are entitled to 25% of the levy. However, it does not happen everywhere. I should like to see neighbourhood planning grow, and for more communities to get involved and take a positive approach to future development in their area. To accelerate the uptake, I think a further range of measures is needed to build on efforts to date and, in particular, to ensure that communities benefit financially from development. Increasing the amount of the community infrastructure levy would provide an enhanced incentive. It would also have the added benefit of relieving some of the pressure on the parish precept as the principal means of income to invest in local projects, assets and infrastructure. I am sure my noble friend has other ideas as to how some of this could be achieved. This is a probing amendment and something that I think is worthy of discussion.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I understand the reasons behind this amendment and I sympathise very much with them. However, to force all local authorities to impose a community infrastructure levy—a CIL—is actually not practical. I speak as a member of one authority that does not impose a CIL, and there are quite a lot. There are parts of the country where the viability of development is marginal. Whether it is infrastructure, commercial or housing development, the difficulty is making it stack up financially. In my part of the world, there would be more development allowed, promoted—and welcomed to some extent—if it were financially viable. If it is not financially or only marginally viable, imposing a CIL would simply result in less development. It cannot be imposed everywhere, nor should we look at areas that can impose CILs with green eyes—as we look at a lot of the country with green eyes on financial matters. We have to survive in the environment that we are in. From that point of view, I cannot support the first part of this amendment although, where CILs are imposed, the second part might well be reasonable.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market
In the debate on the last amendment, I raised the question of the community infrastructure levy and Section 106 because that amendment was more about what the planning authorities can get. This amendment is about what the neighbourhood planning areas will get. I quite understand that the Minister will want to wrap up his responses, so there is the question that I raised on the earlier amendment about the impact of having to be directly attributable on the ability to access this money. I am also told there is a problem in that many developers insist on having specifically costed projects before they will sign an agreement for Section 106 or CIL. That is a problem if this is the first of a number of sequential developments. A local area may very well not have a detailed specific cost, but they are, in effect, building up a pot. In my local area we did that for a new relief road, though it took five years and something like four phases of development to reach it. Specifically, to the point of neighbourhood planning areas, I have also been told that some planning authorities are insisting that the neighbourhood planning areas have to have a general power of competence in order to be able to spend CIL money.
The points I have raised have all been raised with me by the National Association of Local Councils. Perhaps, rather than go into too much detail in his reply, it would be helpful if the Minister could undertake to meet that body again to go through those concerns and make sure that everybody is on the same page. It could then disseminate the information using its networks.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate on these amendments. I turn first to Amendment 12 tabled in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Beecham. I understand the desire to ensure that adequate funding is available for local planning authorities.
I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, that the Government’s rigorous new burdens doctrine ensures that local planning authorities receive the relevant resources to meet their statutory obligations under the neighbourhood planning process. Since 2012, more than £13 million has been paid out by the department to enable local planning authorities to meet their neighbourhood planning responsibilities. Some 104 different local planning authorities have submitted claims for the current financial year, and under the current arrangements where applicable, these authorities could have claimed £5,000 for each of the first five neighbourhood areas and the first five neighbourhood forums that they designate. For those authorities where a referendum date was set, they could also claim a further £20,000 to cover the costs of an examination for each referendum.
Evidence compiled by my department in August 2015 found that the current funding arrangements adequately cover the neighbourhood planning costs for the majority of local planning authorities. I appreciate that that is almost 18 months ago but I would be happy to share this evidence with noble Lords and I will ensure that it is sent on to those who have participated in the debate. We continue to review the level of funding available to local planning authorities and I can confirm that funding will continue to be available for the next financial year. Further details will be announced shortly, ahead of the next financial year.
I now turn to Amendment 26 tabled by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege. I share her desire to support neighbourhood planning, and that is why we currently allocate a proportion of community infrastructure levy receipts to those areas with an adopted neighbourhood plan, as she correctly acknowledged. It is a local choice, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, pointed out, for areas to introduce the levy based on economic viability and infrastructure need, and of course that will vary from area to area. Take-up has increased by 144% since April 2015. The current number of authorities which have adopted the community infrastructure levy is 132, and a further 86 have taken substantive steps towards it, which totals 64% of local authorities. However, I emphasise that this is a local choice. There are clear benefits in many cases and it may be that we need to look at publicising those more widely, but of course it is not for everyone.
It is also important that local areas have a choice over how the money raised by the levy is spent. The 25% neighbourhood share already allocated for communities with neighbourhood plans provides a real opportunity for those areas to have a say over how the levy is spent in their area. Communities can also influence how the levy is used across their local authority through participating in the development of the local plan and the charging schedules which set out the local authority’s infrastructure priorities.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her contribution more widely in relation to the community infrastructure levy and I am happy to agree to the meeting she has suggested in order to understand and consider some of the detailed concerns. That would be beneficial to me as well.
I turn now to the issue of how best to continue to incentivise communities, and I understand the wishes of my noble friend Lady Cumberlege in this area. The Prime Minister has made clear that this is a particular priority for the Government. An independent review of the community infrastructure levy has recently reported to my department. The review group considered a wide range of issues including the take-up of the levy and the use of the neighbourhood share. We are currently reviewing its recommendations and once again I will provide further information on exactly where we stand on that.
With the reassurance that the Government are already considering the recommendations and the need perhaps to publicise the benefits of the community infrastructure levy more widely by giving evidence of how communities can benefit from the development of their area, and continuing to review the level of funding available to local planning authorities—the White Paper will have something to say on that as well—I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his constructive response. I was rather taken with his notion that the Government have a rigorous policy towards meeting new burdens. I would have thought “rigor mortis” might be a more appropriate description of their performance in that area but he is clearly well intentioned and we hope to see some evidence of that as the legislation goes forward.
Significantly, the figures he quoted on the community infrastructure levy were quite alarming in many ways. From what he said, authorities are not necessarily taking full advantage of what is currently available. Has the Minister considered talking to the Local Government Association about that? This matter should be taken forward in that way. I will certainly ensure that the points he made today are heard. I hope that process can be tackled. It is for the noble Baroness to comment more specifically on that subject since she raised it but there seems to be an issue here. One way or another, the system does not seem to be working adequately, yet apparently the goodwill is there on the government side to ensure it does. Perhaps after the event we could look at ways to promote the use of what should be a helpful instrument for both local authorities and the communities they represent.
Lord Greaves
We have had this discussion on previous Bills. In my authority, for example, it is not through lack of willingness or knowledge of CIL that we do not impose it. It is simply that if we impose it, it will make particular brownfield sites even less viable. On brownfield sites, we have to subsidise housing development to get it going and apply a kind of negative CIL, paid for by the council. That is the only way to do it. There is a mismatch here between different parts of the country.
Lord Beecham
I am not suggesting that all local authorities are able or would wish to impose the levy, for the very reasons that the noble Lord has just given. The question is whether there are authorities that could do so without the kind of impact the noble Lord described on his authority but have not yet taken advantage of it. It is pointless to speculate on the nature of those authorities but I suspect that some district councils, for example, might not have the officer resource to deal with what ought to be something that would benefit them. That matter should be looked at by the Government and the LGA together. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Beecham
“Approval of draft neighbourhood development plans by referendum
(1) Paragraph 14 of Schedule 4B to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (referendum) is amended as follows.(2) After sub-paragraph (2) insert—“(2A) The outcome of such a referendum shall only be valid if the turnout is equal to or greater than 40%.””
Lord Beecham
My Lords, this amendment is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Kennedy. It deals with referendums. We now have some experience of referendums in this country—perhaps rather regrettably. Of course, the position in the local scene is that it is an issue which would test the degree of support for local initiatives of the kind that the Bill envisages. I do not know but perhaps the noble Lord is in a position to say what kind of turnout has been engendered in the referendums that have been held. I understand that they are not required to be held and there are other means of consultation. However, it seems important to secure and recognise a substantial degree of public support, as reflected through a reasonably pitched turnout.
Forty per cent does not seem excessive, but it would show a degree of engagement and interest on the part of the local community which ought to be recognised. I suggest that it would give an incentive to local communities and their authorities to debate issues very fully. I should have said that the amendment has the support of the Local Government Association, as did the previous one. In the circumstances, I hope the Minister will acknowledge that this measure would be an incentive to authorities and local groups to engage fully with their communities to ensure a turnout that adequately reflects public engagement with an important process. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I do not support this amendment as it implies that a huge amount of work in developing a neighbourhood plan could be lost if 39.9% of the electorate turned out to vote on it. We have in this country a history of assuming that those who do not vote are abstaining. It seems to me that the current system works perfectly well. If some people—perhaps a majority of the electorate—decide not to vote, that is their right. It would be very wrong if all the work of a lot of people over a substantial period of time could be lost because an arbitrary figure of 40% was imposed. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has not justified that figure. I would remind him that a large number of local councillors would not have been elected to local government if a 40% turnout figure had been imposed. Indeed, I remind him that he himself in 2014 was elected in the Benwell and Scotswood ward of Newcastle upon Tyne with a turnout figure of 32.1%. However, I do not think that anybody in your Lordships’ Chamber would wish to say that that result was not valid. I hope that the noble Lord will think very carefully about proposing a requirement that there should be a 40% turnout of the electorate on a referendum relating to a neighbourhood plan.
Baroness Cumberlege
My Lords, I share the views that have just been expressed but do so reluctantly as I have had a lot of support from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and others. At the last local elections the turnout was 30.9%. I wonder why the 40% figure has been proposed. I do not know enough about these referendums. Do you have a postal vote in a referendum? Do you have a means of voting in a referendum without actually being there? If that is the case, how about the old, the lame, the housebound, those in hospital, those on holiday or those away from home on business? They might be just as interested in what is going on in their local community but not able to take part in a referendum. I do not know whether there is a postal vote or some other means of taking part. If there is, that is a very good thing. However, I still think that the figure of 40% needs to be justified. Why 40%? Why not 20%, 30% or 50%? I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, knows the answer and that he will tell me.
Lord Stunell
My Lords, I was quite surprised to see this amendment, which takes me back to the Commons Committee stage on the Localism Bill when a long succession of amendments were proposed by Labour Members that could be summed up as wrecking amendments designed to disable the process, but they were swept aside. I had thought, from what I have heard from Labour Members in this House and Labour spokespeople in the House of Commons, that it had now become part of the accepted culture of the Labour Party that the neighbourhood planning process is a beneficial one for local communities and should be supported.
That made me look at the numbers which are being talked about. It is 40%. If we divide it by 10, we have 4%, and that would still be more than 10 times as many local residents involved in a local plan than are involved in a district local plan or what used to be a unitary development plan. In fact I could probably add another nought to that because the percentage of local residents in an area who have actively participated in the standard pre-existing planning process is minute. They become engaged only after the plan has been signed off and when a developer puts in a proposal. That is precisely what is wrong with the current situation and is what the neighbourhood planning system is designed to overcome. So there should be no threshold, or perhaps it should be more than the number who contributed from the planning area to the preceding local plan. It would be so small a number that we would not need to consider it.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I intervene only briefly because I made reference to turnouts in my speech at Second Reading. It may well be that the figure of 40% is too high, but our concern is that a plan can be approved on a very small turnout, which itself could cause problems. That is why we have put this amendment forward for debate, but it is certainly not an attempt to wreck anything. As I have explained before, I am a councillor in Lewisham where we are actually producing our own neighbourhood plan. We are about a year into it because it is a very complicated process, but it has definitely involved many members of the local community and I am supportive of that, as is my noble friend Lord Beecham.
Perhaps there should be a discussion about what would be a legitimate figure. Would a turnout of 1%, 2% or 5% be legitimate? At what point would a plan genuinely have community backing when it is put to a referendum? That is the point of the discussion today, rather than any attempt to wreck the provision. I think that we have had a useful discussion that has covered a range of issues.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Kennedy, for raising this matter. I am not sure whether they believe in the 40% figure, 4% or 2% because that is not entirely clear. Perhaps I may say that I do not think that their hearts are quite in it. The most alarming thing about the debate is that on this basis, Newcastle would have been deprived of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and Lewisham possibly deprived of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, to the detriment of our national life. I would have thought that the presence of the noble Lord’s name on the ballot paper would have ensured a really high turnout. More seriously, this is not something that we can pursue.
Lord Shipley
Just to assist the noble Lord with further information. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, was elected on a turnout of 40.61%.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I think we now know why the figure of 40% appears in the amendment.
In all seriousness, clearly we would all want to see higher turnouts, but regrettably much of our national life turns on low turnouts. In May 2016 the overall turnout in English local elections was 33.8%—the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, bucked the trend. The average turnout for neighbourhood planning referendums is 32%. The principles of neighbourhood plan and neighbourhood development order referendums are consistent with all referendums and elections in our country. People are given the right to vote but are not obliged to do so. With this in mind, we cannot support the 40% threshold. The Electoral Commission’s data show that the overall turnout in English local elections since 2007 has exceeded 40% in only three years.
As the Minister for Housing and Planning, Gavin Barwell, highlighted in the other place when a similar amendment was tabled in Committee, of the approximately 240 neighbourhood planning referendums that had been held at that point, around 170 had had a turnout of less than 40%. The amendment would drive a coach and horses through the legislation and could jeopardise the whole neighbourhood planning process and the hard work of so many people and communities to produce neighbourhood plans, which the Government support. With this clarification, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, it is interesting to be identified by the Liberal Democrats as having a low polling achievement, when at the general election, was it 8% or 9% that the party of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, managed to achieve? However, to my mind the issue was not so much about a particular figure as about trying to ensure that there is significant involvement of local people in making a decision.
I did not know the statistics that the Minister referred to and I am grateful to him for answering my question about that. Those figures suggest that there is in many places a reasonably high demand—30% or so, whatever it might be, is a good response to something such as this. But the object ought to be to encourage as much as possible a turnout on these decisions. I am not wedded to the 40% figure. Perhaps a different approach might be to provide financial and other support to promote referendums, without necessarily imposing a limit, but to work with local authorities— again, perhaps with the LGA—to develop a scheme to maximise the involvement of local people in a system which is supposed to engage them in evolving policy which will affect their communities. Perhaps it could be looked at afresh from that perspective without identifying a particular figure, which I accept is very much an arbitrary one. But we are all concerned to see public engagement increasing as much as possible. There may be ways to do that.
In the circumstances, of course I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, and I hope that the turnout in the next elections in Newcastle will be somewhat higher.
Neighbourhood Planning Bill
Thursday 2nd February 2017
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeNeighbourhood Planning Act 2017 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 86-III Third marshalled list for Grand Committee (PDF, 125KB) - (2 Feb 2017)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Amendment 14
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
“Permitted development: change of use to residential
Where the Secretary of State, in exercising the powers conferred by the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, makes a general permitted development in respect of change of use to residential use as dwelling-houses, the developer must apply to the local planning authority for a determination as to whether the prior approval of the authority will be required as to—(a) transport and highway impacts of the development;(b) contamination risks on the site;(c) flooding risks on the site;(d) noise impacts of the development;(e) minimum space standards for the dwelling-houses;(f) in cases where the authority considers the building to which the development relates is located in an area that is important for provision of particular services (for example, offices), whether the introduction of, or an increase in, a residential use of premises in the area would have an adverse impact on the sustainability of the provision of those services;(g) whether the location or siting of the building makes it otherwise impractical or undesirable for the building to change use to a use falling within Class C3 (dwelling houses) of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987;(h) impacts of air quality and noise on the intended occupiers of the development; and(i) the impact of neighbouring buildings and their uses on the intended occupiers of the development.”
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my usual interests as this is the first time I have spoken in Grand Committee today. I refer the Committee to my registered interests and specifically declare that I am a local councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and one of the many, many vice-presidents of the Local Government Association who will declare their interest in the course of our proceedings today.
Amendment 14 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, seeks to provide the local community and planning authority with a degree of influence in developments that have been approved by way of permitted development rights in respect of a change to residential use. The amendment sets out those matters for which the developer has to apply to the local planning authority for a determination as to whether they require prior approval. If not dealt with properly, all the matters listed in the amendment could lead to inappropriate development or development that is not sustainable and does not enhance the area, potentially causing significant problems for the local community.
On subsections (a) to (e) in the proposed new clause, I hope the Government will agree that issues such as contamination risks on the site are matters that should be considered by a competent authority. We can all think of former industrial areas that may now be desirable, having been converted from working buildings to offices. However, before development proceeds, there should be a requirement to look at the operations that have taken place there to ensure that there are no consequences for health and other matters. Equally, matters such as space standards are important. Subsections (h) and (i) raise matters for consideration including the level of air quality and noise on the intended occupiers. We have all seen reports in the media on poor air quality, its effect on people’s health and the number of premature deaths that it can lead to.
Locating dwelling houses in an industrial area may not be the best thing for the occupiers. Subsection (f) raises the important issue of the area being a place where businesses operate. Such an area could have considerably more vehicle movement and have services operating early in the morning or late at night. It has been desirable to keep these areas well away from residential areas, and the introduction of homes can lead to complaints and pressure around the matters that we have highlighted. It can also put into question the viability of businesses in the area.
I grew up in Southwark. At one time, it had a very busy and extensive economy around the docks. Look at Jacob’s Island, Canada dock, Greenham dock and Surrey dock. Today, these places are residential, but at one time they were home to big industries—at the time of Dickens or the two world wars. When they were industrial sites, there was very little housing in the area because the work that went on would not have combined with people living there. The industries have now moved away and those areas have become quite desirable. It is important to understand, however, that you cannot have a wharf building with people living on one floor and, on the floor below, all sorts of activities taking place, such as the trading of goods and services. That would not have worked at all due to all the issues I have talked about—vehicle movement, health issues and all the other problems. The amendment seeks to give the authority the opportunity to consider whether a conversion to residential use would have an adverse impact.
Amendment 44, also in my name and that of other noble Lords, seeks to give the power to a local planning authority to publish a cumulative impact assessment. This assessment would look at the impact on the environment and the sustainability of particular services that results from the incremental impact of the action which is taking place under permitted development. By doing that, it would bring in an element of scrutiny. This gives the authority the power to produce the report, look at the evidence and publish it, and see whether it needs to suspend those permitted development rights because they are causing problems. The report is available to the public and the authority retains the right to review it and change its decision at a future point. Both these amendments give local planning authorities many important rights that they need in order to look at these developments. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
My Lords, I also declare an interest. I have interests listed in the register and I have a pending legal case concerning a planning application. I have taken advice from the Clerk of the Parliaments and have been told that the sub judice rule does not apply here. I support Amendment 14 and I have been asked by the noble Lord, Lord Porter, to introduce his Amendment 44.
On Amendment 14, I am not opposed to imaginative reuse of buildings: it is sometimes a very good way of preserving or conserving them. In my area a huge mental asylum has been turned into housing. It is of modest architectural merit but it provides homes for people, and those people, fortunately, do not know its distressing and disturbing past.
I can also think of redundant churches, some of real architectural distinction, that have been preserved by being transformed into homes. I am sure noble Lords know lots of other examples. However, I share the caution of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and other noble Lords, that changes of use should not be given without careful consideration of the consequences. There should be a requirement for a community impact assessment.
There are many short-term financial gains to be made by turning employment sites into housing, especially if it is, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has said, large-scale development. That can, however, have a detrimental effect on a whole area, and very long-term implications. I think back to the multi-storey office blocks, built for another purpose: it is appropriate for them to be occupied by staff during the day, but they may not be suitable places in which to live.
We have learned from the mistakes of the past, such as the badly designed tower blocks with broken lifts—places of misery and centres of crime. Now they are loudly cheered as they are demolished and come tumbling down. They were recognised as unsuitable places to live in and proved not to be socially beneficial. New tower blocks, however, appear almost daily, crowding the skyline. Presumably, considering the stringency of building regulations, they are good places to live in.
I wonder, however, whether converting office tower blocks of concrete and glass is an appropriate thing to do. We are in the middle of a housing boom right now. Booms do not last for ever, which is why the rush for numbers may be expedient now but not necessarily a solution for future housing needs. We have to be very careful, therefore, to get the balance right between homes that are desperately needed now and the long-standing impact on a local area. I think of my own business. I certainly could not run it on the hoof: my staff and I need a base. We are technologically pretty able but we still need a base. So we must look at the employment opportunities in an area before giving them up.
I move on to Amendment 44. The noble Lord, Lord Porter, has asked me to speak to this amendment on his behalf because unfortunately he cannot be here today; he is speaking at the District Councils’ Network conference in Warwick. The noble Lord, Lord Porter, would have told the Committee that permitted development can be a useful way of speeding up building the homes, infrastructure and communities that are needed. Councils should, however, have powers to consider the impact that new developments are having across an area. Many areas, particularly in London and the south-east, are concerned about the rate at which office space is being converted to residential sites. This could have a very negative impact on local employment and economic growth. The British Council for Offices has estimated that between 3 million and 9 million square feet of office space were converted in England in one year. From April 2014 to September 2016, there were nearly 9,000 applications for prior approvals for office-to-residential permitted development; nearly 3,000 of those did not require prior approval and an additional 4,000 were granted.
The Local Government Association and local councils have expressed their concerns about this issue, so in an attempt to address the problem a number of councils have introduced Article 4 directions to remove the permitted development rights for office-to-residential conversions. However, there have been limitations to the scope of the Article 4 directions in places and they will in many cases be restricted to certain areas within the local authority boundary. There are 17 local authorities that have individual buildings, roads or zones within their local area that are exempt from the rights until May 2019, including the City of London and Manchester city centre.
I share the concern of my noble friend Lord Porter and the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Tope, that local planning authorities and their communities should have a greater say on the cumulative impact of new development falling within existing permitted development rights that affects their local area. I am saying this rather than my noble friend Lord Porter, but local authorities should have the right to ask: “Is this desirable housing or are we providing the slums of the future, with all the social problems and attendant costs that poor-quality housing brings?”.
Lord Tope (LD)
My Lords, my name is to Amendment 44 and I would certainly have been happy to add it to Amendment 14 as well, which I support. I first declare my interest as yet another vice-president of the Local Government Association. An interest in many ways more relevant to this debate which I no longer have to declare is that until May 2014, I was for 40 years the local councillor for a town centre ward in a south-west London borough. We debated the effect of permitted development rights, particularly the conversion of offices to residential development, during the passage of the Housing and Planning Bill less than a year ago. In Committee and on Report, we had some spirited debates led by the even more spirited noble Lord, Lord True. I think that he was speaking more in his capacity as leader of Richmond Council, another south-west London borough. Sadly, both debates were very late at night and inevitably therefore curtailed.
I will not repeat all that I said a year ago but this issue has had, and continues to have, a devastating effect on the town centre ward that I used to represent. It has particularly affected the town centre. I cited nine months ago the figures I had had from my local authority, showing that in the 18 months between the coming into effect of the prior approval permissions and being able to obtain an Article 4 direction to cover that area, the town centre lost 28% of its office space. This was just in that 18-month period. Many people assumed that those were vacant offices but they were not. Sixty-two per cent of those offices were then currently occupied and the businesses occupying them were, politely or impolitely, asked to leave. Employment was directly lost from the town centre, with an inevitable effect on its economy—not just the work that goes on in the offices, but all the commerce that is brought by the people working in them. Some businesses were able to move elsewhere; others, sadly, have gone out of business, with a consequent loss of jobs.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendments and thank noble Lords for what they have said because, although I thought this was a serious issue, I was unable to take part in debates on the then Housing and Planning Bill. It is clearly very important. Permitted development is a useful tool when used proportionately. It has been able to free extra capacity to build housing, in many cases, very appropriately. When the National Policy for the Built Environment Select Committee was doing its Building Better Places report, this came up as a formidable problem. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, has described it. It is to do with the scale and the concentration in particular areas. I will be very grateful if the Minister has any figures that show how much conversion of office space to residential there has been and a geographical breakdown that shows some notion of the scale. We are getting housing development outside the normal planning provisions. Once that happens, essentially none of the planning rules applies. One of the things that exercised the committee was that the casual conversion of office space to residential space was compromised because of the absence of space standards and, I think, normal building regulations. I would be grateful if the Minister will state the official position on the lack of acceptable agreed building standards in buildings that are being converted.
There are two social impacts of casual conversion. One is on the nature of the living accommodation that is being created in this era of desperate demand for housing. What sorts of lives are people living? The other impact is that with 28% more housing instead of office space, the demand on services is quite different. Therefore paragraphs (a) to (c) of the proposed new clause are extremely important. Does the department have any assessment of this? Has it done any work on the impacts that can be measured? What is the Minister’s judgment about that? We need more information and to know more about what the department and local authorities know about the way this is working.
Amendment 44 raises an important principle. The point about planning changes is that single changes are manageable and have a useful, and often positive, effect, but cumulative change can be very different. Cumulative change is what the noble Lord, Lord Porter, raises in his amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, represented him very well and spoke about development rights and the impact on sustainability overall. The only analogy I can make—and I hope it would be contained in Amendment 44—is with conservation areas. In conservation areas, you have permitted development rights. You may be able to advise individual householders to put in wooden windows rather than plastic windows or not to put a porch over the front door, but after a while control and discipline slip and the character of the conservation area can be completely compromised. One has to be extremely careful about the nature of the slope when one embarks on permitted development rights. The notion of cumulative impact is very important.
I do not know whether there is anywhere in planning law the concept of a cumulative impact which could inform the way this amendment could be very usefully attached. If there is, there is something to be gained from thinking intelligently about how Amendment 44 might be pursued. It is obvious that local authorities ought to have more control over what happens in the exercise of permitted development rights, and this is very timely because we have now had five or six years of accelerated deregulation, of which permitted development rights are probably the most conspicuous aspect. It is time that we step back and look at the impact of that in relation to local authority competence.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated in the debate on the amendments in this group. Before I respond to some of the specific points that have been made on the two amendments, let me say a little about permitted development generally.
Permitted development rights have long been a part of the planning system and have been recognised as a beneficial way of simplifying the need to secure planning permission. The current permitted development rights for England are set out in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 and provide flexibility, certainty and reduce planning bureaucracy. The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, asked about the number of additional homes that have been delivered by permitted development rights. I am particularly proud that development rights in the latest year for which we have figures, 2015-16, delivered an additional 13,800 homes. We are looking to see if we have a geographic breakdown of that, and I will certainly pick up on it.
Baroness Andrews
Are those 13,000 homes generated by the conversion of offices?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I believe that this is all permitted development rights conversion to residential.
Baroness Andrews
It would be useful to have a breakdown of the number generated by the conversion of offices.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I suspect that that forms the bulk of them but I shall endeavour to get that information.
Permitted development rights are making a real difference in providing homes in town centres, rural areas and brownfield sites, supporting our housing delivery ambition. We should welcome that permitted development rights provide that opportunity.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and my noble friend Lady Cumberlege for Amendment 14, which seeks to prescribe those matters which must be considered by the local authority as part of the prior approval process in any future permitted development rights that allow change of use to residential. When new permitted development rights are designed we work to ensure that any matters that we think require the consideration of the local planning authority are included in the prior approval contained within that right. Certain criteria have to be considered in this prior approval process for the change from office to residential, and these include some of the matters contained in the proposed amendment.
Four matters that have to be considered on office-to-residential prior approvals are: transport and highways impacts of the development; contamination on the site; flooding risks on the site; and the impact of noise from commercial premises on the intended occupiers of the development when it shifts, as is proposed, to residential. So they are tailored to consider those specific points. We recognise that in all cases of change of use to residential, the prior approvals that are set out are important. However, this is not necessarily true of all the other proposed prior approvals in the amendment.
The current approach to permitted development certainly simplifies matters—it cuts out some of the bureaucracy and helps in relation to costs for the applicant and the local authority. Amendment 44 covers some of the same territory but is wider. It was tabled initially by the noble Lord, Lord Porter of Spalding, who is not in his place, but was ably spoken to by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege and supported by other noble Lords. In the Government’s view the proposal is far too wide. There will be exceptional circumstances where a national permitted development right is not appropriate in a particular location. This is why an effective process to allow local planning authorities to remove permitted development rights already exists. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, referred to this and said that it had made a difference. To be fair, he said that he had hoped it would have gone further but that it has made a difference. As noble Lords will acknowledge, this is true in some of the areas that are hardest hit.
I have been listening carefully. There are issues relating to change from office to residential which have had an impact in some communities on the availability of commercial premises. That is undoubtedly true. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, spoke of his personal experience and made reference to the experience of my noble friend Lord True, who is not in his place, who raised this issue in relation to Richmond.
Article 4 provides part of the answer but obviously fairness demands that those affected are given an opportunity to be heard, that they are given notice and that they are compensated where necessary. However, I am pleased to offer the reassurance that the Article 4 process gives planning authorities the flexibility to withdraw rights in exceptional circumstances, while ensuring the fair treatment of those affected if they are not able to pursue the development. I accept that there is a concern more generally about these issues, and although I believe that these amendments—in particular Amendment 44—go far too far in requiring consideration across the board without being properly targeted, I acknowledge that there is an issue that should be looked at. That point was well made. However, as I said, these amendments go far too far.
I am not sure about the point that was raised concerning cumulative impact, and I suspect that that will be very difficult to define. I do not think it is recognised in planning law but I will investigate that. I think that challenges of cumulative impact would arise depending on how large the area was and so on, but I do not think that it would be easy to tackle.
I would like to reflect on what has been said in Committee today and, without prejudice to the outcome, to go away and perhaps speak to other noble Lords who cannot be here, such as my noble friends Lord Porter and Lord True, as well as others. I shall be very happy to have an open door to discuss this matter but, in the meantime, and with the reassurance that I have given, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I thank the Minister. Before withdrawing the amendment, I would like to raise one or two points with him. The Article 4 direction is not widely used and is not that easy for local authorities to use. The Minister said that Amendment 44 goes far too wide. I thought that it was for the Government to set the broad parameters of policy and then for local authorities to apply it locally. I would not expect the Government to be very specific but I do not see why they would not want to give a wider power, with an authority then looking at how it applies locally and impacts locally. I would welcome further comment on that.
On Amendment 14, I am very pleased that the Minister was able to respond in respect of the first four items in paragraphs (a) to (d) and I thank him for that. However, there are the other items listed in paragraphs (e) to (i), and I do not know whether he can comment on those. I draw his attention, in particular, to paragraph (h), which refers to air quality. Deaths from poor air quality are now regularly reported on in the media, and that is a particular problem in London and elsewhere. If development were to take place on a former industrial area, that could be an issue.
Paragraph (e) refers to minimum space standards. One development that I know of is Lewisham House in Lewisham—the old Citibank tower. It is not the most attractive building in the world—I do not know whether the Minister knows Lewisham town centre. Apparently, at some point in the future it is going to be converted into largely one-bedroomed properties but I do not know what the minimum standards will be. I suspect that the plan will be to have something like 230 one and two-bedroomed properties there, and they will not be particularly big. The whole question of space should be of concern to the noble Lord and to the Government in general. I hope that the days of rabbit-hutch developments are long behind us, but that is something that the noble Lord should certainly look at. There are a number of other places that I know of where I do not know whether the developments have taken place. Lewisham House has not been developed yet—it is sitting there waiting for that to happen. However, we would not want rabbit-hutch developments if we could possibly avoid them.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I thank the noble Lord for that. In answer to the question, “Do I know Lewisham?”, I have certainly visited it on occasion but, through the noble Lord, I feel I know it better than just from the two visits I have made there fairly recently.
In relation to the points he is making, there has to be a balance in what we do here, and I think that noble Lords would accept that Amendment 44, talking as it does of giving the power, seemingly unchallenged, to local authorities to suspend permitted development rights indefinitely, goes too far. I have offered to go away and reflect on this but I have made it absolutely clear that we cannot accept that amendment as it stands.
Article 4 directions are open to boroughs and other areas to use. In fairness, this is one area where they try to look at the cumulative impact. So, contrary to what I have just said, there are areas where we try to assess cumulative impacts, which is part of the Article 4 consideration. But, as I say, I accept that there is an issue to look at here. I want to go away and reflect on this, so I do not want to get down into too much detail on the position of the different London boroughs or elsewhere. However, I am happy to go away and have a look at it, without prejudice. I hope that noble Lords will take up that offer.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I thank the noble Lord, and of course he is very welcome to visit my ward in Lewisham any time he likes. I can show him one or two places that I have mentioned in our debates as well as other problems I have. I am quite happy to show him. It might actually help us in our debates over the next few weeks. I thank him for his response and am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
“Land use following lapse of planning permission
If planning permission lapses, the local authority may direct the use of that land for purposes relating to priorities in the local development plan or neighbourhood plan.”
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, this amendment, which is in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, seeks to find a way of dealing with the problem when land is just not being used—where planning permission has been agreed but nothing happens and the planning permission then expires. The amendment would give power to the local authority to direct the use of the land for the priorities as detailed in the local development or neighbourhood plan and in line with the priorities set out in the local process we discussed in our previous sitting, and in keeping with the NPPF.
We have a serious problem with land not being used, especially in London where there is a particularly high demand for homes. Again, I can give many examples from my own ward where there are small sites with signs saying “planning permission for X number of houses”, but not much is happening and people are waiting for the land value to increase. Communities and local authorities already have some powers to get things moving, such as the community right to reclaim land, which has been on the statute book for many years. That power enables public bodies to dispose of land. There is also the community right to build so that communities can propose site developments in their area, and which also gives local authorities additional power to get things moving locally.
I hope we will receive a positive response from the Government today. Maybe these matters will be dealt with in the White Paper, I do not know; but we need to get these sites built on. They are an eyesore. Leaving things as they are, with permissions but nothing ever happening, is a problem. We have often talked about the number of permissions already agreed in London but with nothing ever seeming to happen. We need to get things moving. I beg to move.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, as this is the first time I have spoken in Committee I draw the Committee’s attention to my entry in the register of interests.
I fully support the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in this amendment. The problems he has listed are those relating to London and other urban areas. However, they are not isolated to just those areas. Those of us in rural areas suffer significant frustration when planning permission has been applied for and given but nothing happens. Land is often left untouched for many years when it could have been productively used for key priorities in local development or neighbourhood plans.
Occasionally, spoiling tactics are employed. A local authority can identify a particular use for a parcel of land which does not meet with the approval of either the owner or those living in close proximity. As we all know, anyone may apply for planning permission on any piece of land; they do not have to own it. It certainly helps the process if the applicant is the owner, but this is not a requirement. Spoiling applications are submitted, appear to be in accordance with the local plan and gain approval. Thereafter, nothing is done to the site and those objecting feel their mission has been accomplished.
In such cases, and those listed by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, I support the local authority having the right to direct the use of the land in order to fulfil the priorities in the local plan or neighbourhood plan. After all, both plans will have taken a great deal of time and effort to be completed; they will have gone out to extensive consultation and been thoroughly examined before being adopted. It is therefore only correct that the aims of those plans should be implemented as far as is possible. I believe this clause would help achieve that aim, which is in the general public’s interest. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for moving and speaking to Amendment 15, which is in group 9. This amendment, tabled by the noble Lord, would allow local planning authorities to direct the use of land upon which planning permission has expired for the purposes of its priorities, as set out in a local development plan.
Authorities should normally take decisions on development proposals within their area in line with the priorities set out in the development plan, together with the other policies of the plan. That principle is already enshrined in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and set out clearly in the National Planning Policy Framework. Both the Act and the framework are clear that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan, where its policies are material to an application unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Thus where planning permission has lapsed, any new proposals for development which require planning permission must be determined on that basis.
The planning history of a site, including any recently expired planning permissions, may be a material consideration when considering any fresh proposals. The weight to be attached to any earlier permissions will be a matter for the local planning authority but the importance of the plan remains unchanged. I appreciate and support the intention of the new clause proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell. However, I do not believe it is necessary at the moment. The noble Lord mentioned the forthcoming White Paper, which we hope will be forthcoming very soon. It will cover this issue, as I have mentioned many times before in the Chamber and elsewhere. This is an issue that we must confront and not just for London and urban areas. I fully accept what the noble Baroness alluded to there.
Perhaps I may bring the Committee back to this legislation, which is designed to streamline processes and deliver more houses. We should not lose sight of that. We all say that we are wedded to it but we must be careful to ensure that it remains a central feature of the thrust of the debate, and of the legislation. If that much land is held by developers, they have fewer excuses for land-banking. I say gently that if that land were developed more quickly, although it would not crack the problem in its entirety, it would go some way to doing so.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, very much for the invitation to Lewisham, which I look forward to fulfilling—not necessarily on a day when Millwall is playing at home but on some other day. With the knowledge that this issue will come forward in the White Paper and that we will have a longer process of having a crack at it in a deeper dive—along with that friendly reciprocation of his invitation—I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I want to speak briefly to Amendment 15, which my noble friend Lady Bakewell has spoken to. I know that Lewisham is closer to this place than some places are, but if the noble Lord is issuing a general offer to visit wards that some of us sitting here represent on local authorities, he might have a few letters in the post. But he would be welcome indeed to come to Colne any time he wishes and I would be happy to show him some of the problems we have that are different from those in Lewisham and other parts of the south-east.
Having cheekily said that, there is something behind this amendment about what happens when a planning permission which has been given, perhaps in detail, then lapses and that permission is no longer in line with a local plan. For example, if there has been a local plan and the permission has been given, a neighbourhood plan may then be adopted which does not have to accord exactly, as I understand it, with the local plan on site allocations but has to be in general conformity with it. If a neighbourhood plan for a village says that a piece of land which has planning permission for housing is not the most suitable while a different piece of land can be allocated—one which local people would prefer to be allocated under the neighbourhood plan—and if that keeps the same number of new houses built in that area, or even more, what then happens?
There is a wider issue: developers and planning committees—planning officers—tend to assume that if a planning permission has previously been given, for example for a change of use, and has not been taken up, and the same application is put in again after four or five years, it ought to be granted, on the precedent that it has been granted previously, and yet circumstances may have changed. There is a very important issue here relating to detailed applications which, at the moment, do not always result in the most satisfactory outcomes because of the assumption that although planning permission has lapsed, it is really still there and all you have to do is fill in the forms, pay the fee and everything will be okay.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I will seek to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, on both points.
First, if the planning permission has lapsed, a fresh application has to be put in for the use of the land, and it must conform to the local plan at the time, including any neighbourhood plan that has become part of the local plan in the meantime. Secondly, in planning law there is no presumption that permission should be given in relation to an application with a lapsed permission. That would not be the case. The committee might want to take into consideration the fact that a lot of work has been done and look at it, but there is no presumption in law that it should be adhered to. I do not think that planning authorities are under that misapprehension but if they are we need to make it clear that that is not the case.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I am pleased by his comments and am looking forward to the White Paper and these issues, hopefully, being addressed. I have put Questions down in the House before, and there is an issue with getting houses built in certain areas. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is right: there may not be a case for granting permission in certain areas. I accept that entirely. However, in certain areas there is pressure for building and the frustrating thing is that you have given permission to build on the site, then you drive past every day and nothing has happened. It is very frustrating.
I hope that the White Paper will address that. I hope also that the Minister will visit my ward; his predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, visited my noble friend’s ward while she was in his job. He may consider that too. If the noble Lord ever comes to Millwall I can assure him of a very warm welcome. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, knows, planning permission and compulsory purchase are big issues down there at the moment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Greaves
“Reviews of neighbourhood areas
After section 61I of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 insert—
“61IA Duty of local planning authority to review neighbourhood areas(1) A local planning authority must from time to time review the neighbourhood areas within its area with regard to—(a) the number and distribution of such areas in the authority,(b) the proportion of the authority covered by such areas,(c) the progress made in the creation of neighbourhood development plans in those areas,(d) the proportion of such areas in which the qualifying authority is a parish council or a neighbourhood forum respectively, and(e) the extent and effectiveness of the promotion of neighbourhood planning within the authority.(2) A local planning authority must consider the review undertaken under subsection (1) and in doing so consider—(a) how it may become more effective in promoting neighbourhood planning and adopting neighbourhood development plans,(b) whether to review its statement of community involvement in relation to its policies on advice and assistance in relation to neighbourhood plans in its area, and(c) whether to carry out a local governance review in any part of its area that is unparished.””
Lord Greaves
My Lords, Amendment 16 is about a review of neighbourhood areas and is particularly focused on the importance of existing parish and town councils as a basis for neighbourhood planning. It is a very important amendment and I am grateful, in promoting it, to the National Association of Local Councils for finding a way of getting it onto the agenda of the Neighbourhood Planning Bill. I should declare an interest as vice-chair—I think—of the APPG on Local Democracy.
One-fifth of the population of England is parished, according to the NALC. I was looking for the statistic—I have it somewhere but did not find it—on exactly how many neighbourhood plans are in parished areas. Perhaps the Minister can help me there. It is certainly over four-fifths. The great majority of neighbourhood plans have been promoted by the town or parish council, which is the qualifying authority in those areas. We know that 1,800 neighbourhood plans have been started, are under way or have been finished. In all of them, there is a clear relationship between the neighbourhood planning process and the town or parish council, but only a fifth of the population is covered by parish and town councils. The fundamental question behind the amendment is: what are the Government doing to set up more parish councils? Clearly, that must be with the agreement of local people, not imposed, but a lot of principal local authorities do not want any more town councils around the place and are not being very helpful.
I do not know what proportion of the population of the country is covered by neighbourhood plans, but it might be something like 5%. If that is the case, everything that we are talking about in earnest is very much a minority interest out in the country. If only one in 20 people in England is covered by a neighbourhood planning process of any kind, either neighbourhood planning is not for most people or, as I would suggest, it is not being sufficiently promoted to get more people involved.
Some planning authorities not only do not like parish councils, they are not very enthusiastic about neighbourhood plans. Clearly, if you are working on a local plan, you may not want to devote additional resources to neighbourhood plans. Although the responsibility for drawing them up lies with the neighbourhood planning group—either the forum or the parish council—it requires time and effort from local planning officers to ensure that it fits with the local development plan, planning law generally, and will work.
Most big urban areas have not got on with neighbourhood planning yet. Most neighbourhood plans are in rural villages or suburban villages. Some areas are pioneering—the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, will tell us about his—but there are not many in the big urban areas. However, it is not just the big urban areas that are a problem. If my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market were here—I think she is occupied in the Chamber—she would be talking about a town in her area that wants to get on with having a parish council and neighbourhood planning, but is being blocked by the local authority. So it is not just the big urban areas: unparished areas are missing out on neighbourhood planning.
I come back to the reasons why parished areas are taking the lead on this. First, the fact that there is a parish or town council means that there is a focus in that community to discuss and promote such a plan. There is an existing body of local councillors who are used to considering and acting on local issues and problems and giving their view on planning applications. Some of them turn up at planning committees for the principal authority to give oral evidence on behalf of their parishes, but send in their views in writing. Parish councillors are used to considering proposals and schemes by principal councils and government legislation. People ask them whether they want to take part, and they discuss it. In many parts of the country, including mine, they are taking part in community transfers, taking over land, property, facilities and services from district councils at parish council level, so they are used to this kind of thing.
Secondly, as well as being focused, they are a source of resources. They are not huge resources, but they have a clerk, to start off with, and perhaps some other staff who can do the initial things that need doing to get a neighbourhood plan steering group going and are used to dealing with correspondence, reports and all the rest of it in legislation. The other resource that parish councils have is money. They can use some of their precept money to supplement grants from the Government towards the neighbourhood planning process. On our previous day in Committee, we discussed how much the grants are and whether they vary, and I do not have any further information on that. Whether or not they are the same for all parishes, whether big or small, in most cases government grants for a neighbourhood plan will not be enough to carry out that plan. In some cases, the grant will be nowhere near enough. Parish councils are one source of local funding. They are not the only one, but they can do it.
On the other hand, forums are ad hoc and random, and they depend on somebody turning up and taking the initiative or a local group learning about it. There is no one in the community who will automatically consider whether to have a neighbourhood plan. This amendment states that local planning authorities must review their neighbourhood areas and look at how many there are, where they are, what proportion are parished, the progress that is being made and, in particular, the unparished areas that are missing out on neighbourhood planning and must consider how to promote neighbourhood planning better. The amendment puts the onus on planning authorities that are not terribly keen on neighbourhood planning to get keener on promoting it in their area. Finally, if places which are not parished ought to have neighbourhood planning, the amendment requires local authorities to consider undertaking a local government review to consider, with the local population, whether to start the process by setting up a parish council or a town council which would have the ability and resources to produce a neighbourhood plan. It would also be able to do everything else that parishes and towns do. I live in a borough which was mostly not parished when it was formed 40 years ago but is now wholly parished and the process has been almost entirely beneficial. I beg to move.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (LD)
I apologise for arriving a little late. Trains from the West Country are operating rather badly because of bad weather and the London Tube is operating really badly just because it is the London Tube, but it is a delight to be here now. Before I speak, I should draw attention to one of my interests which I have previously declared. I am the president of the National Association of Local Councils, and I will be speaking on an issue that it has raised. It is reflected in some of my noble friend’s comments.
It is clear that the great majority of neighbourhood plans that have been brought forward are in parished areas. I have represented a local community for many years, and I continue to live in one, and I have chaired a neighbourhood plan process initiated by a parish council. It is very obvious that parish councils, in communities where they exist, are very successful in moving things forward in representing community interests. In the context of neighbourhood planning, they provide an essential vehicle for initiating a plan, ensuring there is proper accountability to the wider community and, in the absence of sufficient funding for some of what happens, providing funding. In the case of our own neighbourhood plan, we initiated at a point where there was no government funding at all for the interregnum because the old fund had run out and the new one had not been established. The parish council, although a very small and poor one, was able to step into that breach.
Lord Horam (Con)
What the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said strikes a chord with me. I always represented very urban areas in the House of Commons. I remember rather similar problems, particularly from my time as the Member for Orpington, which was in the middle of the borough of Bromley in south London, not too far from Sutton. The idea of neighbourhood planning is, frankly, a serious joke. It simply does not exist. In fact, it is worse than the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, described it. He said that there was a vacuum and that essentially only a very small number of people, largely in rural areas, had neighbourhood councils, and that is true.
Planning for a neighbourhood in an urban area such as Bromley simply does not exist. In fact, it is worse than that. Orpington was historically a district council and had all the appurtenances of a district council. Indeed, the late Lord Avebury, who was the MP for Orpington, was a district councillor when there was a district council for Orpington, and the council was used to making plans for Orpington. Under the Heath local government changes, it then became part of the London Borough of Bromley. When councillors for Orpington put forward schemes for Orpington high street or whatever for the benefit of the local residents, inevitably when they went to the planning council in Bromley they were promptly overruled by the councillors for Bickley or Chislehurst, who had no knowledge whatever of the Orpington situation. That was to the fury of people in Orpington, who thus became convinced that Bromley was fundamentally an anti-Orpington organisation, and the sooner they got rid of it the better. They went back to Kent, where they had some power as a district council, but they had no power inside the London Borough of Bromley. Their fury was evident to me on many occasions.
It will please the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, to know that when briefly it was under Liberal Democrat/Labour control during the early part of the noughties, as they are called, when the Liberal Democrats were more of a power in the land than they are today, it attempted to meet this problem by forming ward committees—putting wards together and having committees which would consider planning issues on a level more local than the council level. It was a sensible initiative. Sadly, it did not attract much support from the local population. They thought it was another piece of bureaucracy which did not work, cost money and so on. It fizzled out but it was a brave idea, which I supported at the time. It would have given large boroughs such as Bromley—the largest borough in London, with areas such as Biggin Hill on the one hand and Orpington on the other, each with distinct personalities—some kind of local say in a way which the amorphous Bromley council, as such, has difficulty in giving it.
There is a real problem here. When one thinks of neighbourhood councils, one attaches to them an almost merry England kind of picture of lovely little parishes such as Grimsargh in Lancashire. I take my title of Lord Horam, of Grimsargh, because that is where I was born. It has a beautiful set-up, with a parish council and local church, and it works wonderfully. However, such a set-up has no meaning whatever in most urban areas, and yet it is in urban areas that we need it. I now live in Fulham close to the old Imperial Gas site, an area of pollution with a great deal of bad land, gasometers, gas works and miscellaneous offices. It is now Imperial Wharf, with Berkeley-built homes sold mainly to foreigners for a lot of money. You walk down there and find that there is no one on the electoral register because they are all foreigners and that all the languages are not English. It is a great tragedy that it has happened in that way. Obviously I am pleased that it has ceased to be a polluted site and is no longer used for the supply of gas—that is delivered by other means—but the way in which it has been developed has been of no benefit to the people of London or the people of Fulham. There was a need to look at that development from the local area point of view as well that of the overall Fulham and Hammersmith Council.
There is a problem here which I do not know how to solve. It is certainly the case that neighbourhood planning is lacking in most of our major urban areas, and I do not know how to deal with that problem.
Lord Tope
My Lords, to follow the noble Lord, Lord Horam, I should perhaps start by reassuring him that the London Borough of Sutton is still under Liberal Democrat control after 32 years and still has six area committees—and area committees are not the same as neighbourhood forums, let alone parish councils.
Lord Horam
I was referring to Bromley, which has no Liberal Democrat presence at all.
Lord Tope
I know there is a temporary cessation, but give it another year or two.
I strongly support what my noble friends have said in proposing the amendment. However, there is a particular problem, as my noble friend Lord Greaves said, in all larger urban areas—and Greater London is the largest urban area of them all. The problem is exacerbated because until comparatively recently Greater London was not allowed by law to have any parish councils. Since that became permissible under law—I think a little less than 10 years ago; I cannot remember exactly—there has been only one parish council formed in the whole of Greater London and no others. I do not know how many neighbourhood forums there are in London, and I do not suppose the Minister has this information at his fingertips, but, if it is available, I would be interested to know how many neighbourhood plans have been formed, or are in the course of being formed, in Greater London. Perhaps that will serve to illustrate—or, praise be, to deny—the point that the noble Lord, Lord Horam, and I are making. It is a difficult problem, and while I agree with my noble friends that parishing and parish councils are particularly useful and beneficial to neighbourhood plans, if we are to wait for the whole of Greater London to be parished then neighbourhood plans will be a very long time coming. Clearly, that is not the answer. It is a problem in other places too, but particularly in London.
In London, neighbourhoods are often named after former villages. So we know what a neighbourhood is, but it is a heck of a sight more difficult to decide where the boundaries of those neighbourhoods are. They are most certainly not the ward boundaries, because the wards, particularly in London, are based on arithmetic and not on community at all. For administrative convenience, a neighbourhood forum is likely to adopt ward boundaries, at least in part, but they are not necessarily the historic neighbourhoods. That is a particular problem in London.
I have supported parishing and parish councils all my political life, but while it may be desirable, it will not happen quickly enough for the purposes that we are debating today. Therefore, I would be very interested if the Minister is able to say something about the particular issues and problems in London, to which the noble Lord, Lord Horam, and I have referred.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I hope the Minister will understand that this is a very important issue. The reasons for that have been extremely well explained in the speeches that have been made so far. The noble Lord, Lord Horam, made an extremely helpful and important point, as did others, about the problems that exist. In a nutshell, those problems can be explained as follows. On the first day of Committee, my noble friend Lord Stunell pointed out that emerging neighbourhood plans are showing a greater appetite for more housing, precisely because they have more say in the way in which they build their community. In other words, it is in all our interests to promote neighbourhood planning. However, the second problem is that only around one fifth of the country is engaged in neighbourhood planning. As we know, in those places that do not have parish councils, it is a slower process. But as we also know, you do not have to have a parish council to undertake the neighbourhood planning process.
I hope the Minister will be willing to look at this issue between Committee and Report, because we will be coming back to this on Report. The Bill says that neighbourhood planning is important and must become more important. But as a consequence of that, local planning authorities must do more to promote neighbourhood planning. It is for them to decide whether that is through the creation of more parish councils under the review procedures that exist or through the other means that exist. This is a very important issue. It is not going to help the Bill if we simply end up with not many more people engaged with the process.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I have only a few brief remarks to make on this amendment. To go back again to my own ward, in Crofton Park, we have a neighbourhood forum and are tempted to set up a neighbourhood plan. We are one of the places in London that is trying to do this. It is a difficult process, but I certainly see the value of it. My fellow councillors and I, along with community members, are working towards that. We hope to get it approved and to put it to a referendum among local residents.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, is right: there is only one parish council in London, and it is the Queen’s Park parish council in Westminster. It was set up in 2014 after a referendum, and it is based on the Queen’s Park ward of Westminster City Council, which is a Labour-held ward—there are not that many Labour-held wards in Westminster—but it is non-political. I do not think that parties contested the election there, so it very non-political, and by all accounts it works very well and is a very good thing.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, was right in what he said about parish councils and neighbourhood plans. They are largely in more rural areas. I know the east Midlands well, and I have come across the Deeping St James Parish Council in Lincolnshire very close to Peterborough. I have many colleagues and friends who are involved in that parish council, and it works very well. They certainly look at their rural area and are very conscious of the planning that takes place there. I accept that in many cases it is as the noble Lord described.
The only issue I have with the amendment is that this is a new duty for local government and perhaps funding should be addressed as well. Perhaps the Minister will address that when he replies.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the many noble Lords who have participated in the debate on this amendment. Before I turn to the specific amendment, I shall make some introductory remarks which I hope will set the matter in its context.
Community members have said that a local planning authority’s input and attitude can make a significant difference to neighbourhood planning progress. We have also heard during our discussion of the importance of neighbourhood planning groups being able to access technical advice and support and financial support. All parts of the committee have spoken of the importance of ensuring that we promote neighbourhood planning, which is something to which all parties are committed. I am sure that that will make a difference. It is clearly beginning to make a difference, although I accept there is much ground still to cover.
I shall say a little about the advice available through the Government’s support programme for communities preparing a neighbourhood plan before we turn to the specific role of local planning authorities. The Government’s £22.5 million support programme has been accessed by communities across the country and has made more than 1,800 payments since it was launched in March 2015. The support available now is very different from that which may have been available to some of the early pioneers of neighbourhood planning. All those wanting to prepare a neighbourhood plan can apply for grant of up to £9,000 to help them do so. Those that fall into certain priority groups can apply for up to a further £6,000. I am not sure that that is widely known. I think there is work to be done to make sure that it is more widely known.
We have reflected on the experiences of early pioneers and responded to new challenges that groups have faced. For instance, specific toolkits and technical support are now available to help groups establish neighbourhood forums in unparished areas, which are usually urban areas, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, to assist with assessing local housing needs and to support those wishing to allocate sites for development. Any group wishing to modify its existing neighbourhood plan can also apply for support in the same way as any other group can on initially setting up. I applaud the work being done by those who are setting up neighbourhood forums or parish councils. Although there is only one parish council in London, there are neighbourhood forums in London and many work across boroughs, such as the Kilburn Neighbourhood Plan Forum which works across the boroughs of Brent and Camden on specific projects.
The Government have also established a national network of 132 neighbourhood planning champions. These volunteers are drawn from local planning authorities and neighbourhood groups and provide advocacy and peer-to-peer support. We are continuing to support them across England through further training and local networking events. Last year, the Government launched a national advertising campaign to promote take-up of neighbourhood planning, targeting 81 local authority areas through adverts in local press, local radio, online and on-street posters. I shall endeavour to provide more information on that. Perhaps it can be disseminated to particular councils that noble Lords will be familiar with so that we can share some of this information more widely because that would be appropriate.
If I have not said this already, and I do not think I have, I will write again. The letter regarding the first day of Committee is in the process of being finalised, and I would like to write another one to pick up points that I do not cover or fully cover in the course of today’s debate. So once again there will be a write-round.
I turn specifically to Amendment 16. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and others who have contributed to the debate. This is an important area. Already, communities in over 70% of local planning authority areas have taken up the opportunities offered by neighbourhood planning, but I fully acknowledge that that does not capture the fact that there are massive gaps. In other words, there are groups throughout the country but it needs to permeate much more widely. There is much more to do, as noble Lords have rightly said.
Local planning authorities have a legal duty to give such advice or assistance as they consider appropriate to facilitate neighbourhood planning. As set out on Tuesday in response to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, these duties are funded by my department under the new burdens doctrine. I can confirm that that funding will continue into the next financial year, and the amount of that will be released ahead of the new financial year so details of it will follow.
Planning guidance sets out the Government’s expectation for local planning authorities to take a proactive and positive approach, working collaboratively with those preparing a neighbourhood plan to ensure that neighbourhood plan proposals have the greatest chance of success. Building on this, Clause 5 requires authorities to set out in their statements of community involvement their policies for providing support to their communities. That requirement applies irrespective of whether there is any existing neighbourhood planning activity in the area and will bring transparency to the support that authorities provide, leading to more informed and equitable discussions.
The Government have set out, in the document entitled Further Information on How the Government Intends to use the Bill’s Delegated Powers, our intention to require statements to be reviewed at least every five years. While it will be for authorities themselves to decide whether the document should be revised, should an authority consider change unnecessary then it must publish its reasons why they are not updating the statement. The Government have also tabled an amendment to the Bill that would allow the Secretary of State to specify by regulations the content of those statements, and I think we are coming to those later.
Local planning authorities are also required to publish a map setting the designated neighbourhood areas in their authority area. Regulations also require authorities to publicise on their website, and by other means, when they designate a neighbourhood area or a forum, together with the progress of individual neighbourhood plans or neighbourhood development orders.
I turn to the part of the noble Lord’s amendment concerning community governance reviews, which are the reviews undertaken to decide whether new parish councils should be established. The Government have already taken steps to make it simpler for neighbourhood forums to request that new parish councils are created for their communities, and have supported communities up and down the country to set up new parishes through a £1 million investment over the past three years.
I can therefore reassure noble Lords that current requirements alongside measures in the Bill, together with government amendments that we have tabled, proactively promote neighbourhood planning and, as I have said, that we are seeking to publicise the benefits of neighbourhood planning.
I would like to cover some of the points that were made by noble Lords, if I can pick up those that I am in a position to answer. Those that I cannot, I will identify and write on later. We understand that around 90% of neighbourhood plans are in parish areas, a point that I think was made.
I was asked about the number of communities that have neighbourhood planning. I can say that over 2,000 communities in England have at least started the process of neighbourhood planning. If I am able to give a more detailed breakdown on that, I will do so when I write.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, raised the specific issue of the need occasionally, or perhaps more than occasionally, to change the boundaries of parishes that may be quite historic, and it may therefore be appropriate if that is revisited at times. At the heart of the neighbourhood planning process is the principle that it is for communities to decide what they plan for. Therefore the boundary of a neighbourhood area does not need to comply with administrative boundaries, and neighbourhoods can bring plans forward.
Specifically on changes to neighbourhood areas, I direct the noble Lord to Clause 4, which sets out some of the procedure. I appreciate that he was aiming more widely—in the sense of how to tackle the problem—but the procedure is covered by Clause 4. If there is anything else I can pick up on that in the write-round, I will do so.
The noble Lords, Lord Tope, Lord Horam and—I think—Lord Shipley, also raised the issue of how we tackle London specifically, and perhaps it relates to a wider area. I will consider that. There are quite a few neighbourhood forums in London, but no parish councils. I accept that, and I will see whether there is anything that we can usefully contribute on that.
I think that those are the main issues that were raised. If I have missed anything I will pick it up in correspondence. We take this issue seriously, and I will seek to address in correspondence some of the specific points raised in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in introducing this valuable amendment. With that reassurance, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for the positive and constructive way in which he responded to this amendment. It gives some hope that the Government might, in addition to letting us know what they are doing, put a bit more oomph behind this process. Before I comment on the Minister’s response, I have one or two comments for other noble Lords—and I thank all noble Lords who took part.
My noble friend Lord Taylor of Goss Moor talked about changing parish boundaries. Since responsibility for local governance review passed to the local authority and no longer requires the heavy-handed involvement of the Boundary Commission—I am not sure when it was—the process has been quite easy. If a local authority wants to review parish boundaries it can do so through the local governance review, which sets out exactly how it should take place. It can do it for the whole authority area or for just one or two parishes—to tackle a particular problem, such as the one my noble friend mentioned. It does not, therefore, need a new process, just for the local authority—in this case presumably Cornwall unitary council—to agree to do it.
The noble Lord, Lord Horam, reminded me of the only time I have been to Orpington. It was an extremely long time ago, and the first time I ever knocked on a door was on behalf of a Liberal candidate: Eric Lubbock, in the by-election of 1962. Before his sad death last year he was, of course, for many years, Lord Avebury. I remember it well. I would not claim to be an expert on Orpington but I would have thought that Orpington and perhaps some other communities there, such as Biggin Hill—where I remember traipsing around on unmade roads—would be an ideal place for a parish council. It ought to happen.
I am a member of an authority and was heavily involved in setting up area committees about 20 years ago. It is important for area committees on a local authority to be given real powers and not just be talking shops. We have had area committees with real powers. In fact the political job I most enjoyed in my life was chairing the Colne and District area committee for a number of years—again, quite a long time ago.
My noble friend Lord Tope said that we knew what neighbourhoods were but drawing boundaries was always extremely difficult. I think people bring that up as an excuse for not doing it. Drawing boundaries is not difficult if you know what community you want to define, and its core. Then you have to find a way to draw the boundaries with the consent of the people who live on and around them. It is usually quite possible. People know the part of the borough, or whatever, that they live in and, if they do not, a sensible decision has to be made. However, in most cases, drawing boundaries is not difficult.
The important, and more difficult, job is deciding what the core community is to start off with. Sometimes it is the local authority ward. If the local authority ward has been long established—I was about to say “and has been there a long time”, which would be tautologous—because of the activity that has taken place on a ward boundary basis and because that is what the councillors represent, then those boundaries, which initially were pretty arbitrary, take on meaning over the years. That is the case with some of the new authorities that were set up in 1974. In some cases, wards are perfectly reasonable places but, again, it is a question of judgment. In other places where the wards have recently been redrawn, that has resulted in complete nonsense for neighbourhood and community purposes, and things have to be done differently.
Lord Beecham
“(1CA) The development plan documents must contain references to—(a) a threshold for social and affordable housing in the area;(b) the impact of the proposals in the documents on energy efficiency in dwellings and infrastructure in the local area;(c) flood protection for the local area;(d) the impact of the proposals in the documents on air quality in the area; and(e) the provision of green spaces and public leisure areas.”
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I refer again to my interests as a Newcastle city councillor and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. My noble friend Lord Kennedy referred to Queens Park. Perhaps I should declare an interest, given what their Rangers did to my team last night. However, I do so not to wish Queens Park Rangers well.
Turning to this group, Amendment 17 stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Kennedy and the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege; Amendment 18 is in my name and that of my noble friend; and Amendment 17A is in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay of Llandaff and Lady Watkins, who do not seem to be in their places, although I assume that somebody will speak on their behalf.
The amendments in this group flesh out the Bill’s prescription of matters that must be included in development plan documents. Amendment 17 includes five substantive issues that ought to be addressed, and on which current government policy is either non-existent or inadequate. The first relates to the provision of social and affordable housing. As noble Lords are aware, affordability appears to be a pretty elastic concept for the present Administration, exemplified by the definition of affordability in relation to rented housing, as 80% of private sector levels, and the definition of starter homes for purchase, as up to more than £500,000 in London. A much more realistic approach is required, but the principle should at least be explicitly acknowledged in development plans, which should, as exemplified in the other areas covered in the amendment, be designed to provide not just “development” but communities.
Despite President Trump’s refusals to acknowledge them, energy efficiency and flood protection issues are increasingly important areas of concern given the growing evidence of the damage that climate change engenders. So is air quality, as underlined by the recent appalling revelations of schoolchildren suffering from the effects of vehicle emissions while they are at school, just a couple of miles away from where we are today—my noble friend Lord Kennedy referred to that issue. Clearly, the provision of green spaces and public leisure spaces should help in this context, as well as being an obvious requirement for any development, new or old.
Noble Lords will no doubt recall the famous picture of David Cameron and the husky in his green days, proclaiming that a Conservative Government would be the greenest Government ever. Well, he shot the husky—metaphorically speaking—and the green agenda became, in his less than elegant phrase, “green crap”. Now is the opportunity for the Government to return to that agenda and, in particular, to ensure that it is embodied in this Bill.
Amendment 18 seeks to ensure the provision of a minimum number of dwellings in any development plan, after consultation locally. In that context, it will be important for locality not to be confined to the area where development might take place, and to ensure that the need for housing in the wider local area is taken into account. The experience of Stevenage, hemmed in by its surrounding county and district areas and without developable land of its own, should not be repeated.
The amendments do not include reference to an issue that I have repeatedly raised; namely space standards, which my noble friend touched on. As noble Lords will recall, in recent years, space standards have fallen substantially below those in Europe. Perhaps when moving his amendment concerning guidance on the housing needs of the elderly and the disabled, which we very much welcome, the Minister could indicate whether this too could be included alongside those matters.
Clearly, we endorse the suggestion in Amendment 17A that the education, health and well-being needs of the population are also reflected in the development plans. I beg to move.
Amendment 17A (to Amendment 17)
Baroness Andrews
“(f) the education, health and well-being needs of the population.”
Baroness Andrews
My Lords, in the absence of the noble Baronesses, perhaps I can speak to the amendment. This is completely spontaneous, but I feel quite strongly about it. The issue is one that surfaced very conspicuously in the Select Committee on the Built Environment; that is, the absolute necessity of planning places that essentially support and nurture the health and well-being of the whole community. Plans must explicitly include designs for such spaces, rather than spaces that, at their very worst, encourage criminal activity because they are small and narrow and do not allow for sufficient activity. It is very interesting that Milton Keynes, in its 50th year, has been praised for the quality of its environment and its particular ability to promote well-being through its green spaces. We can all agree that education and health are part of the fundamental infrastructure of our communities. Good schools, good health services and good health opportunities are part of what makes a community successful. I will leave it at that. The amendment deserves a longer debate, but in the absence of the noble Baronesses, I want to put my comments on the record.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I thank the Minister for tabling Amendment 19, which lies in this group and derives from a lengthy debate in the other place. It seems extremely important to address specifically the housing needs that result from old age or disability, so I hope that the amendment will secure support. Regarding the other amendments in this group, a number of these issues are very important and will be debated elsewhere in our consideration of the Bill in Committee. But some of them will also depend on what is actually said in the housing White Paper, which will be published at the beginning of next week. In that sense, we have to reserve our positions with a view to waiting for Report.
Baroness Cumberlege
My Lords, my name is attached to that of the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Kennedy of Southwark, on Amendment 17. It is quite right that we should set our priorities in these documents so that the community knows exactly what is in our minds. Its provisions as set out in paragraphs (a) to (e) are really important.
First, Amendment 17 refers to affordable housing. In an earlier debate I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Tope, who said something quite true: that very often the conversion to offices does not allow for affordable housing. Some of the units being built really do not accommodate family-sized residences for people who want to live there, so affordable housing is critical.
Secondly, the amendment refers to,
“energy efficiency in dwellings and infrastructure”,
and we certainly want warm homes. Since I first got involved in planning, the building regulations have become very interesting. We built an office near to us and found the other day that the amount of insulation and everything that we have to put into it because of building regulations was really encouraging. We need to ensure that that continues.
Thirdly, the amendment refers to,
“flood protection for the local area”.
We sit between two towns. They were both seriously flooded and that caused anguish to those involved, so that is really important. More than that, when we design the sites and think about where housing will go, flooding really must be a consideration because to build on the flood plain is a disaster, as we have seen in these two towns. We should avoid it.
Lastly, the amendment refers to,
“green spaces and public leisure areas”.
In towns and cities, the green spaces are very often described as the lungs within an area. They allow people to breathe. I think of children desperate to get out of their houses and kick a football around or play, or do whatever they want. That also applies to young people and people of a certain age. It seems important that they also have that opportunity, so I strongly support this amendment.
I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Bourne, who really has listened carefully to what people have said to him. I very much welcome his Amendment 19. I also thank very much the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, for coming in on the spur of the moment to move Amendment 17A for the two noble Baronesses who are unable to be here. She is absolutely right that we need to ensure that what we build is healthy and will improve the quality of life for the people in those areas. It is important that we see the thing in the whole, not just bricks and mortar. I very much support these amendments.
Baroness Andrews
I would quite like to speak to the other amendments, if I may, and welcome the Minister in the name of my noble friend. What we are looking at in these amendments is something rather more radical than somebody tacking on to the development plans some fundamental issues such as housing affordability and so on. It invites us to revisit the local development plans. The point about the elements that have been identified, including flood protection, which is more and more of an issue, is that they are exactly the elements that should inform and drive the shape of the local development plan. They are not accidental outcomes—they should be shaping the quality and priorities and the relationship between the local development plan and the local economic plan, led by the LEP. So those additions, as identified, would give us a better opportunity to imagine the sort of communities that we want and give us proper inputs to create a more robust as well as more creative local development plan, which at the moment is very remote from most people. So the only people who tend to get involved in this protracted and complicated process tend to be those who already know the process and have something specific that they want to say.
I turn to Amendment 19 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, to say how much I welcome it and say a few more things, if the Committee will bear with me. This is a really important step forward, but I have some concerns about it, which I want to raise with the Minister. I may be wrong, and I would be happy to be corrected, but this is the first time when the challenges of ageing in terms of housing needs for elderly and disabled people have been recognised in primary legislation. Many of us have been working to that end for quite some years, and seeing it in this Bill is extremely welcome. I look forward very much to following it through with the noble Lord. I would be interested to know why it is felt to be the right move at this time.
My concern is whether it will meet the challenges of an ageing society. I am anticipating much of what the Minister may say, I suspect, but my caveats start here. One of the most predictable things in policy-making is demography; we have known about the demography of the ageing society for 30 or 40 years and known about the impacts. What we have done essentially is to fail to plan for it, because it is in the “too difficult” box—and now it has caught up with us and it is pretty monstrous. We were told in evidence to our Select Committee on the National Policy for the Built Environment that in 20 years’ time, by 2037,
“the number aged between 70 and 80 will grow from 4.5 million to 7.5 million”.
That is another 3 million elderly people. This winter we have seen just in the past three or four months the impact of winter on A&E and the health service in general, and it is clear to me and to many others that we have a model for funding and organisation of the health service that is unsustainable.
The resources that we have, and the conversations that must lead to action, are the ones for housing. What we are debating here is essentially not about housing but about the front line of the health service, and how and where and under what conditions elderly and disabled people live is becoming a prime order question for healthcare and social care policy and not just about finding a housing solution. In another context, we know that 60% of total household growth in England up to 2033 is expected to come from households headed by someone aged 65 or over, and many of them will have disabilities that come with age. Most people want to age in place and live and die at home—and that is part of the responsibility of government. Only 2% of the country’s housing stock is in retirement housing.
In addition, the amendment reflects the responsibility that the Government feel that they have to provide for children, as well as adults with disability; it recognises those needs. But it is really beyond time. We were told in our Select Committee—I keep quoting it; I am conscious of that—that,
“only 4% of the current housing stock met basic accessibility criteria”.
That is a shockingly low figure.
In the context of the amendment and what I have just said, does the guidance recognise that changes are required not only in the amount of specific and specialised accommodation across the range of healthcare and housing needs for elderly people, but also in relation to the need to plan for the housing of elderly people as a whole in housing supply policy? I would argue that we are not providing niche market housing. We should be planning as a whole for an elderly and ageing society. That is the only way to build in foresight and anticipate the needs of the future, and it is the only way to create a national housing policy.
Can the Minister therefore ensure that the guidance that he is planning will make explicit the economic and social argument across health and social care? Local authorities have to know that this is an urgent need, but that it would also help them to hit their other policy objectives. They need to know that it is not only economically efficient but also socially efficient, in terms of health and social care. Frankly, if I were in charge of all this, I would prioritise the handyman services, so that you could get the adaptations—in the homes that need them—that keep people out of hospital or get them home more safely and quickly.
Will he also recommend—and this is in the guidance—that all new homes are built to lifetime home standards, so that everyone has the chance to stay where they are? We were working, in 2008, towards a mandatory standard. I understand the political changes that have driven a more deregulatory agenda, but we now have optional standards. However, since 2004 places such as London have adopted a universal lifetime home standard that has been extremely successful. It is compulsory and has led to a significant increase in provision, and there seems to be no evidence that it is a deterrent because of extra costs.
My second set of questions—I will try to be brief—is also about the context of this amendment. In relation to the NPPF and local development and neighbourhood plans, I feel that this is putting the cart before the horse. Although the cart is very welcome, I would like to see the horse involved. My fundamental question is whether we can count on this planning guidance to achieve the changes that we need in what local authorities are going to plan for and secure. Current planning policy requires authorities to plan for housing for older people. McCarthy and Stone—with which the Minister will be familiar, and one of the biggest builders of retirement housing in the country—told a CLG Select Committee on housing in 2014 that 65% of planning applications for buildings for older people are rejected first time round by councils, and went on to say that measures around the need for local authorities to plan for demographic change were neither clear enough nor likely to be powerfully enforced in their current form.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Best, is not in his place because he has been a great inspiration behind this. We put forward a recommendation by the All-Party Group on Housing and Care some time ago—I think it would be welcomed by local authorities and providers—that the NPPF itself be strengthened and made clearer in relation to planning for an ageing society. That would be wise, because the references in the NPPF are rather vague and insubstantial. It says, in paragraphs 50 and 159, that local planning authorities should,
“plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends, market trends and the needs of different groups in the community (such as, but not limited to, families with children, older people, people with disabilities, service families and people wishing to build their own homes)”.
I do not think that that is enough in the light of what we are facing and need to do. The Minister has an opportunity to do it because the NPPF is under review. Can he tell us whether the issue has surfaced in the review and the consultations; whether the DCLG is looking at strengthening those sections of the NPPF; and, if not, whether he will commit to looking at how it might be done? There will be no better opportunity.
I have a final comment on the next stage, the local development plan. In relation to the earlier amendments and the identification of things that might go into local development plans, which I support, the point is that this is guidance. It would be entirely logical for it to be in the development plan, so that the guidance had some attachments to it: for example, to set ambitions for lifetime homes. Would the Minister be prepared to meet me, with his officials, to talk about whether this is a possibility and how it might be done?
Turning to the guidance, I have some specific questions. Can the Minister give me some examples of the tone and nature of the guidance, and the degree of detail that we might expect? For example, would he include guidance on how best local authorities might assess our present and future needs, and the range of those needs? Will there be a specific requirement to plan within the housing supply targets at local and neighbourhood level? Will there be specific guidance on how to assess the financial viability of, and benefits from, investments in lifetime homes standards? Where will local authorities go to get the best advice? Will there be advice on how best to link planning with social care and health, and achieve genuine collaboration on setting targets? What provision will there be for consultation with older people about getting a home that they say is the right size for them—usually a smaller home—since “right sizing” is a better term than “downsizing”? Will the Minister ensure that the guidance goes to those dealing with both local and neighbourhood planning? And how will he ensure that this guidance is followed and implemented, which is the only question that really counts? Will he take advice from agencies such as Age Concern, as well as from Habinteg, FirstStop, Berkeley homes and McCarthy & Stone? There are lots of people who know about how to deliver this properly.
I have gone on quite long enough and I think that the Minister will get the message. I look forward very much to seeing the guidance, and I wonder when we will have it. I presume that in the housing White Paper, which we are looking forward to so much and on which the Minister has already given many hostages to fortune, we will have something on this as well.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I too want to speak in support of Amendment 19, which I welcome enthusiastically for two reasons. First, I believe that it signals important progress for the Government to propose their own amendment specifying that the Secretary of State must issue guidance which requires local planning authorities to,
“address housing needs that result from old age or disability”.
This is surely common sense. On the one hand, as the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, has already argued very persuasively, demographics show that we are an increasingly ageing society. On the other hand, thanks to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and subsequent disability rights legislation passed by your Lordships’ House, disabled people increasingly, and rightly, want and expect to be able to live independently. The supply of more accessible housing is essential to them realising that goal.
Therefore, it makes sense to plan for the future now, in the present. This amendment simply reflects that reality. However, in my view, it does more than that, which is my second reason for welcoming it. It also has real symbolic—even radical, as the noble Baroness said—significance because it underlines the importance of inclusion not just on paper but in practice and, crucially, on an anticipatory basis.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated in the debate on this group of amendments. Before I turn to non-government Amendments 17 and 17A, perhaps I may highlight some important issues which deliver clear social and environmental benefits. They are important matters that should be addressed through a plan-led system.
Clause 6 puts beyond doubt the Government’s commitment to a plan-led system: a system where all local planning authorities have development plan documents in place to ensure that sufficient land is allocated for housing in the right places to meet needs, with roads and other vital amenities required by communities. At Second Reading, several Peers raised the frustration that many communities face when their local planning authority has not put its own local plan in place, or the policies in the plan are out of date. The Bill makes clear the Government’s expectation that all local planning authorities must have up-to-date plans to deal with those issues.
However, as my honourable friend Gavin Barwell, the Minister for Housing and Planning, outlined during discussion in the other place, as long as authorities have policies to address their strategic housing and other priorities, we want them to have more freedom in the type of plan that is most appropriate for their area. The Government have put local and neighbourhood plans at the heart of the planning system. We put local authorities and communities at the forefront of shaping a vision for their areas and deciding how to meet their development needs. The existing regime reflects the understanding that local planning authorities, together with local communities, are best placed to set out future development for their local area.
I turn to non-government Amendments 17 and 17A. As the Minister for Housing and Planning stated in the other place, we need to guard against attempts to duplicate matters which are already addressed in national planning policy. Perhaps I may also address a couple of slightly extraneous points made by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. I assure him that we are certainly not following any of President Trump’s policies. On climate change, which was specifically raised, although it is not central to this legislation, I reassure him that there is a very strong bipartisan approach which I pursued with the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington. We fulfilled our international commitments by signing the climate change treaty—I know because I was there—and very much follow the policy set out in the Climate Change Act 2008, passed by the then Labour Government, of setting carbon budgets.
I move now to the specific points addressed in these amendments. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, for moving Amendment 17A on behalf of the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Watkins, who I know feel strongly about these issues, and enabling it to be part of the debate.
The matters addressed in these amendments relate to affordable and social housing, energy, flooding, air quality, green spaces, education, health and well-being. All are clearly addressed through the National Planning Policy Framework. I do not propose to read out all the parts of the framework that cover each issue. However, for example, paragraphs 99 to 104 of the framework require local authorities to shape and direct development to protect people and property from flooding, including through strategic flood risk assessments. Furthermore, paragraphs 120 to 124 require local authorities to safeguard people from unacceptable pollution risks; paragraphs 73 to 74 and 76 to 77 deal with the need for local authorities to provide green spaces and public leisure areas; and paragraphs 69 to 78 set out how local authorities should use the planning system to create healthy, inclusive communities. Noble Lords will be aware that legislation already protects land registered as common land areas.
Local authorities are already required by law to have regard to national planning policy and guidance when preparing their local plans. At examination, the extent to which a draft plan accords with national planning policy is one of the matters that the examining planning inspector will check. The planning regime is already set up to ensure that local authorities have regard to such important matters as those raised in this amendment.
There is no doubt about the importance of the issues raised, all of which help to create attractive and sustainable places. However, specifying them afresh in the Bill would lead to unnecessary duplication and prescription. I therefore do not believe that Amendments 17 and 17A are necessary. They would also limit the freedom for local authorities to choose the type of plan that is appropriate for their area, contrary to the intention of Clause 6.
I turn to Amendment 18, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. I fully recognise the importance of ensuring not only that housing is delivered but that the appropriate number of dwellings for an area is agreed at a local level. As noble Lords will be aware, housing is a key priority of the Government and we are clear that we must build more of the right homes, in the right places. To achieve this, it is essential that local planning authorities have an up-to-date plan in place which identifies, as far as possible, the housing needs of their local area. This provides the certainty communities deserve as to the number and location of new homes that will be built.
The very same concerns I expressed on the previous amendments apply here. This issue is addressed more than adequately in paragraph 47 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Local planning authorities must identify and plan to meet, as far as possible, the market and affordable housing needs of their area. Failure to include this information in a local plan may lead to the plan being found to be unsound at inspection stage. We are clear that local communities must be consulted during the plan-making process, in accordance with both legislative requirements and the local authority’s statement of community involvement. Additionally, neighbourhood plans offer a further opportunity for local communities to become involved in planning for the development needs of their area. Alongside this, the Bill includes further measures to ensure that communities are involved from the outset in wider plan-making activity in their area.
In short, I understand the concern that some local planning authorities currently have no local plan, while others do not have up-to-date plans in place. This has a negative impact on the allocation of development sites. However, measures introduced in the Bill will ensure that, in the future, plans are put in place more quickly. Clause 6 will ensure that local planning authorities set out their strategic priorities, including housing.
On government Amendment 19, I thank noble Lords for their warm welcome of this provision. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, I, too, believe that this is the first time that it has been recognised in this way in legislation. To echo what my noble friend Lord Shinkwin said, it is of great symbolic importance as well as practical effect. It sends out a powerful message, just as the Disability Discrimination Act did in 1995. I am proud of the role of my party and other parties in securing that legislation.
The important issue of the housing needs of older and disabled people was raised in the other place, particularly through my honourable friend Heidi Allen. I appreciate that the devil will be in some of the detail and we would not expect all the detail to be in the legislation, but I am certainly happy to meet the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross—she is not in her place, but she has been very interested in this legislation and has vast experience through Age Concern—and other noble Lords to see how we can take this forward in a meaningful way. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, will also have a valuable contribution to make. It is important that we secure sensible legislation and sensible policy moving forward, as I am sure we can.
I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, that there is provision for this in the National Planning Policy Framework, which we will look at. Also—another hostage to fortune—I think that there will be something in the White Paper to enable us to discuss it more fully. I am keen to ensure that, having made this commitment, we get it right. We have to deal with many challenges. Indeed, it is part of the wider issue across government of health and social care. The impact of an ageing population affects probably every government department that you can think of—it applies to DCMS, the Department for Education and other areas—so there is something to be done across government, which I hope we can take on board as well. As a bonus, the aim is to do something for this part of the community. It is important that we do that but it should have the effect of freeing up some housing that this group is in. That, too, is to be welcomed. As I say, I thank noble Lords for their welcome of the amendment.
More specifically, there is already a structure in place that recognises these needs. We have mechanisms through local authorities, the National Planning Policy Framework and building regulations. We need to build on those. The Government have listened carefully to the concerns that have been expressed by many Members in the Commons and the Lords, across parties, about these issues.
Understandably, specific questions were raised. I will try to pick up some of those details in responding by letter. I hope that I have given a broad view of where we are going, but I am, as I say, happy to engage with noble Lords on the more detailed approach as we take the policy forward. With that, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, my noble friend Lady Andrews and the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin. My noble friend Lady Andrews touched on the issue of the necessary provision of suitable accommodation for the elderly. That resonated strongly with me. Just in these last few days, I have been contacted by a tearful lady whose elderly mother is living in two-bedroom accommodation—a house rather than a bungalow—where she is effectively confined to the ground floor. Alas, the poor lady is incontinent and is finding it almost impossible to manage in that accommodation. She is applying to be rehoused, but we have very few alternatives to her present accommodation. Over time, we have not provided nationally for this kind of problem, which unfortunately will grow, as she has made clear.
The Minister, in reply, suggested that everything we have discussed today is already included in legislation covering different aspects of planning and development, but Clause 6 specifically concerns the content of development plan documents, and it seems sensible to bring together the various strands in one place. He is gilding the lily somewhat when he speaks as though everything is being done to secure proper guidance in relation to the matters raised in the amendments and our discussion, notably energy efficiency and climate change. To be fair, I am not sure whether it was the present Government or the coalition Government who reduced the standards. Whatever the standards are, they ought to be part of a development plan so that everybody can grasp what is required of such a plan, be they developers or those in the community anxious to see proper development in their area.
I do not want to sound unnecessarily critical of the Government in this matter, because they are moving broadly in the right direction, but I regret that we cannot have the whole picture reflected in what should be an important development in planning policy. However, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Young of Cookham
“( ) In section 34 of that Act (guidance)—(a) the existing words become subsection (1), and(b) after that subsection insert—“(2) The Secretary of State must issue guidance for local planning authorities on how their local development documents (taken as a whole) should address housing needs that result from old age or disability.””
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I gave notice of my intention to oppose Clause 7 standing part of the Bill, which is grouped with my intention to oppose Clause 8, and I will speak to them both fairly briefly.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for signing up to my opposition to Clause 7 standing part of the Bill. When you read the clause, it is extraordinary to find it in a Bill entitled the Neighbourhood Planning Bill. There is nothing localist about it: nothing for local communities or planning authorities to decide, it just assumes powers for the Secretary of State to give directions. Perhaps it should not be here, or perhaps the Bill’s title is incorrect, but it is odd that it is in a Bill called the Neighbourhood Planning Bill. On the one hand, the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, says that the Government support localism and neighbourhood planning and they want local people and local councils to decide. On the other, we have the Government taking all sorts of new powers to instruct local authorities, councils and councillors.
Having said that, the most outrageous thing in the Bill is Clause 38, which we shall get to next week. That is something else. The first sentence of Clause 38 reads:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations make such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in consequence of any provision of this Act”.
That is localism in one sentence, is it not? But we will deal with that next week and, I am sure, again at Report.
I move on to Clause 8, which I again oppose, and am grateful to the noble Lords who have signed up against it. Again, it is bizarre. Where we have two-tier areas—a county council and a series of district councils—I do not think that there is any detailed planning expertise at county level, so it is odd to take a power to allow counties to take on those powers. Will the county then have to buy in those services, set up its own planning departments or commission the district council to do the work? That seems bizarre. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Baroness Cumberlege
My Lords, very often when we discuss a clause not standing part of a Bill, it is an opportunity to discuss broader matters and the whole of the clause. I am concerned about this clause because it gives me vibes that the Secretary of State wants to micromanage some local planning issues. I would like to understand the intentions behind this lengthy clause and the Minister to explain whether it furthers the cause of devolution of planning powers.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy: this is the Neighbourhood Planning Bill and yet that is not mentioned in all these clauses. Having been a Minister, I know that it is often extremely hard to get some policies that you feel keen about in the department into a Bill. I wonder whether this clause contains all kinds of policies that the department really wants to get legislated and that this is a hook to hang it on. I hope that that suspicion will be negated by my noble friend.
I am worried that the words “direction” and “direct” run through nearly every sentence and clause of the Bill. That says a lot to me. I have been trying throughout the Bill to separate the powers of the Secretary of State—the overall policy—from the local. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said, this is not about localism but about the Secretary of State having power to intervene in local issues.
I am also suspicious about whether this is a first step towards getting local authorities to merge. I know that we are talking about planning documents, but I wonder whether this is a first step towards merging local planning authorities. In my area, two planning authorities have willingly combined their back office services. That is fine: it works great, saves money and so on, and we, the inhabitants of those areas, are quite content with that. However, we would resist very strongly if two local authorities were forced to merge because the Secretary of State at that time felt that it would be a good thing to do. That should be resisted, and we would resist very strongly.
I wonder about the content of the clause. Even if it is only about getting authorities to prepare joint planning documents if they do not want to do so, is that a good thing to do or is it a first step? To me, bringing about mergers is about diplomacy, not autocracy. I fear that this has elements of autocracy, but I hope my noble friend will put me right. I am very concerned about this.
As to Clause 8—again I may be mistaken because it is a long time since I was involved as a county or district councillor—in my area of East Sussex, the county council has devolved all the local planning it can to district and borough councils. The county council makes decisions on mineral extraction, waste management, schools, libraries and roads but it does not do detailed planning. It seems slightly odd to make it the default authority for local planning if district or borough planners fail to live up to expectations.
The Bill deals in detail with housing, sites, employment and things of that sort which towns and parishes know a lot about. I thought about what police authorities do when they have problems in their local areas. Of course we get problems in local authority areas. The police get another police force from outside the area to look at the problem, as it knows about policing. If we want a system whereby we can bring together authorities and unpack some of the difficulties that they are facing, would it not be better to get a well-regarded local planning authority to come to help? That seems a better choice. I may have misread both these clauses, so I hope the Minister will put me right.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville
My Lords, I was a county councillor for 20 years and have been a district councillor for eight years, so noble Lords will not be surprised that I shall speak against Clause 8 standing part of the Bill. All local authorities are under extreme pressure following many years of budget cuts, and services are being squeezed. In county councils and unitary authorities, children’s services and adult social care are demanding more and more of their budgets. Are the Government seriously proposing, at this critical time, that county councils should take over the preparation and execution of districts’ local plans?
In Somerset, all districts have local plans in place that followed due process and were adopted. There are, of course, other areas of the country where this is not the case, but beating them over the head with a stick hardly seems the way to bring them into line. Paragraph (b) of new Clause 7B inserted by Schedule 2 refers to upper-tier county councils being invited to prepare or revise the development plan. This gives the impression that if a district council has drawn up a plan with which the county council has some disagreement, it can blithely take it over and amend it to its own ends, regardless of how pertinent and important the plan may be to the inhabitants of the district.
The District Councils’ Network opposes Clause 8 because: county councils do not have the local planning expertise required to discharge this proposed function, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said, which could lead to further delay; the expenditure incurred by county councils in discharging this function could lead to further additional costs, which would adversely impact on the existing planning capacity of district councils; and there is a lack of clarity about who will be legally responsible in the event of a challenge to an adopted local plan if it is approved through this route.
Surely the Government are not looking to burden county councils with this additional work to replicate that which has already been undertaken by district councils. Neither level of local authority is looking for extra work at a time when one is desperately trying to find the money to care for the vulnerable and the other is desperately trying to facilitate the building of much-needed homes in accordance with the Government’s agenda. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Lord Beecham
I have some doubts and concerns about these provisions. How does Clause 7 relate to combined authorities? How does it fit with the devolution proposals if:
“The Secretary of State may direct two or more local planning authorities to prepare a joint development plan document”?
A number of areas are about to elect a mayor and become a combined authority. Within that combined authority, however, there will still be constituent local authorities. How does the provision in Clause 7(2) apply to those areas? Can the Secretary of State direct two or more of the authorities within that area to prepare a joint development plan document, when there is an elected mayor and a whole new structure is being created?
Clause 8, on the county councils’ default powers, states:
“Schedule 2 makes provision for the exercise of”,
those powers,
“in relation to development plan documents”.
That assumes a straightforward situation of a county and districts, but in at least one controversial area, I think I am correct in saying that a court case is proceeding about the proposals which affect some parts of Nottinghamshire County Council and the Sheffield-led new combined authority. That may not quite be its name but the Minister will understand what I am talking about: the mayoral authority that will encompass Sheffield and adjoining authorities, to which I think two Nottinghamshire districts wish to affiliate for some purposes. They will, however, remain part of the county council for other purposes—unless of course this is seen, as the noble Baroness implies, as a step towards a back-door reorganisation of local government. Some of us have concerns about that.
How would these default powers affect that area, assuming that the mayoral authority is created with these two district councils? I think I may have said Nottinghamshire, but Derbyshire is in fact involved in this, rather than Nottinghamshire. There may be a similar problem in Nottinghamshire. How would those arrangements be affected by the provisions of Clause 8? I quite understand that the Minister may not be able to answer that immediately but, if that is the case, he will no doubt write to me.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I shall be very brief but want to ask the Minister four specific questions about Clause 8, which will help us when we come to Report. Clause 8 was a late addition to the Bill; it was not in the initial draft that went to the House of Commons. It would help if the Minister could explain why it was felt necessary to include it.
My first specific question is: can a county refuse to undertake the work and, in that case, what would happen? Secondly, can a county subcontract the work to somebody else, which would presumably include the use of consultants? Thirdly, if it does, how is local knowledge about the district in question going to be guaranteed in constructing the plan? Fourthly, with reference to Schedule 2, it looks to me as though a county can charge a district whatever it likes, so what action do the Government plan to ensure that cost recovery is reasonable?
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Before the Minister responds, on the point raised by my noble friend Lord Beecham about difficulties with the Sheffield city region, my understanding is that it is North East Derbyshire District Council and Chesterfield Borough Council in Derbyshire which wish to join. I think that Bassetlaw District Council in Nottinghamshire may also want to join. The legal action is being taken by Derbyshire County Council, which of course partly comprises the north-east Derbyshire and Chesterfield areas. The problem is with three districts in two counties, but one county council has raised the legal action on the points that my noble friend outlined.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I thank noble Lords for the debate on this part of the Bill. I will try to take Clauses 7 and 8 in that order. There were certainly some questions on which I will need to write with fuller answers, but let me first turn in general to Clauses 7 and 8.
These measures contribute to the Government’s objective of ensuring that all local planning authorities across the country have up-to-date development plan documents—the documents that collectively form the local plan. In particular, Clause 8 ensures that there is not a void and that we have a local plan. We would have been heavily criticised if we had left an obvious hole in the system where no one was preparing a development plan, but I will come to that.
The Government are committed to a plan-led system in England. We have put communities at the heart of that system, and I hope that I can leave no doubt in your Lordships’ minds that we want communities to have confidence in a system that takes account of their views, while delivering the growth that the country needs.
I also want to kill one hare that was set running, which I had not heard before. There is no agenda, let alone a secret agenda, for mergers of councils. This legislation is about neighbourhood planning. Until today, nobody had raised with me that this is about a secret agenda to merge authorities. It is not, it is to try to ensure that we have a full pattern of what is needed for the planning of the country. It is important, therefore, that where local planning authorities do not have an up-to-date plan in place, the Government should take action to resolve this situation. We would have been roundly and correctly criticised if we did not have such plans.
I turn first to Clause 7, spoken to ably by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy—I apologise for my short absence during his speech—and my noble friend Lady Cumberlege. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and other noble Lords spoke more widely about this.
We want to encourage collaboration between local planning authorities so that strategic priorities, particularly for housing, across local boundaries are properly co-ordinated and clearly reflected in individual plans. The Local Plans Expert Group which was asked by the Government to examine what measures or reforms might help to ensure the efficient and effective production of plans recommended that more could be done to encourage local planning authorities to work on joint plans. The Government agree with this recommendation, and it forms the basis for the clause.
The idea of joint planning and working collaboratively with neighbours is not new. We know of more than 40 local planning authorities, right across England, that are working on joint plans. There is no agenda about encouraging or, even less, forcing them to merge. My honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Planning referred during debates in the other place to representatives of Norwich City Council who told him about how they were working with South Norfolk Council and Broadland District Council districts to produce a combined plan across the three districts. We are also seeing joint plans being developed as a result of devolution deals, such as the Greater Manchester spatial framework.
Authorities working jointly with their neighbouring authorities can see that there are benefits to be had. For example, there may be cost reductions to individual authorities through working collaboratively on evidence or through shared examination and legal costs. A joined-up plan-making process, where key decisions are taken together, can also assist local planning authorities to plan for housing.
We know that some areas across the country are having real difficulties in addressing issues that require solutions across geographic boundaries, such as planning for housing need in areas with significant constraints, and collaboration with neighbouring authorities may help to resolve some of those issues.
Clause 7 inserts new Sections 28A to 28C into the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and makes consequential amendments. I wish to emphasise that this power can be exercised only where the Secretary of State considers that it will facilitate more effective planning of the development and use of land in the areas of one or more authorities. During the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, I wrote down a reference that he gave to Clause 7(2)(a), I think. I do not think that there is a Clause 7(2)(a), but if we could discuss it afterwards, I am happy to get a full read-out on it and write to him.
New subsection 28A(5) provides that:
“The Secretary of State must, when giving a direction under this section, notify the local planning authorities to which it applies of the reasons for giving it”.
That is a clear provision which ensures that it can only be used appropriately. Presumably, like other provisions of statute, it will be subject to judicial review which, while it is not something that we want to encourage, is a backstop if people feel that any Secretary of State has got it wrong, as may happen on occasion under any Government.
New subsection 28A(3) states:
“The Secretary of State may give a direction under this section only if the Secretary of State considers that to do so will facilitate the more effective planning of the development and use of land in the area of one or more of the local planning authorities in question”.
So it is to be used sparingly.
The noble Lord asked five questions about Clause 8. The first question was about why it is needed. It is because we need a plan if there is a gap. His second question was about whether the county council is required to do it. No, it is absolutely clear in Schedule 2 that it is an invitation to the county council. The county council does not have to take up the invitation. He raised several other questions including whether county councils can subcontract this. I suspect not, but I will correct that in the letter if I am wrong. He asked how local knowledge is to be guaranteed. That is specifically the reason this is needed. The Government would look to intervene in this way if we believed it was the only remaining lever to ensure that there is a local plan. The alternative would be the Secretary of State intervening directly, which would not be very local. This is an attempt to get the vacuum filled by the most local appropriate authority, otherwise it will not be done. The most desirable outcome is that the district council does it. The whole procedure can be prevented by the district council doing it, and that is exactly what will happen in the vast majority of cases. We would be roundly criticised if we did not have such a provision.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, raised some fair points about the impact of this on combined authorities. Clause 8 supplements existing powers to invite the Mayor of London or a combined authority to prepare a development plan, so it is already in existing legislation for an authority in its area. Again, I will take up that point in more detail, but I think that is the provision.
The essence of this is that it is within the power of district councils to ensure that the powers introduced by the clause are never used. That is what we hope will happen. I am of the view that it would be only in the rarest of circumstances, where there is not a plan in place, that this provision would be needed.
Questions have been fairly raised about the skills and capacities of county councils and whether they can turn down this role. We anticipate that there will be discussions with them about what happens if there is no plan. They are the next nearest directly accountable authorities and have knowledge and understanding of the development needs of the area. They are familiar with the planning process and are already involved as statutory consultees in the local plan’s process, and many work with their district councils on cross-boundary issues.
As I said, we would be rightly and roundly criticised if we did not have these provisions. They are needed in order that we can cover the whole country. They are long-stop provisions which I anticipate will not be much needed. They are only on the basis—particularly in regard to Clause 8—that if there were not such provisions it would mean direct intervention by the Secretary of State and the department, which is not what we want in a neighbourhood planning process.
Baroness Cumberlege
I am comforted that there are no secret agendas for mergers, and I thank the Minister for his assurance. As to collaboration between authorities, my noble friend told us that 40 authorities have agreed to provide joint plans. Presumably that has been done without the clause in the Bill. Are the plans likely to be more sustainable because the authorities are working willingly together rather than having joint plans imposed on them by the Secretary of State? I take my noble friend’s point that the power will be used sparingly. That sounds wonderful in debates in this House, but when it comes to the actuality, if it is not written in this document, people will have no recourse to come back.
I am disconcerted by the way in which the clause is framed, its extent and the words threaded through it about the Secretary of State making directions and so on. It is not a light touch but a huge amount of interference from the Secretary of State in local matters, and that I resent.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
On that specific point, perhaps when the Minister responds he can tell the Committee how the policy has arisen. Where are the examples of the councils that do not have these plans? Why do the Government think it so necessary to take such a wide-ranging power, as the noble Baroness asked? Clearly, there must be some very serious problems that the Government want to address for them to take such wide powers. I would love to be informed about what those are.
Lord Shipley
The Minister kindly answered three of my four questions. The missing answer was on the right of a county to charge whatever fee it wishes to. It is an important issue and, if he prefers, the Minister can write to me, but in Schedule 2, lines 31 to 40 rather suggest that a county can charge a district whatever it wishes.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I shall take up those points. In response to my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, this power will be used sparingly, and the Secretary of State will have to give reasons. In preparing their joint plan, the authorities concerned can, if they wish, reject the plan—they are not obliged to adopt it. I repeat that there is absolutely no hidden agenda here. As my noble friend correctly said, it is certainly better where joint plans emerge. That is very much the view of the Government and the Secretary of State. We anticipate that that will be the case in the vast majority of circumstances. We know that, occasionally, local authorities do not necessarily have the capacity. There will be cases—even if there are not, we still have to guard against the possibility that there could be—in which the Government will have to have a backstop power in relation to these matters. That is what this is. The Secretary of State has to give reasons. The authorities concerned can turn down those reasons.
In relation to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, I am advised that there is cost recovery for the work done. I hope that answers his question. If I am wrong on that, I will correct it in a letter.
Lord Shipley
I am happy for the Minister to write to me. Clearly, we need to define what cost recovery is, because the definition of necessary costs currently lies with the county and not the district. There has to be a system that everybody understands.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
That is an entirely fair point. As I said, there is a system to ensure that costs may be recovered, but I will elucidate that, if I may, in my letter.
I apologise, but I have forgotten the point that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, made.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I was asking for information on the councils that are failing in their duties and so require the Government to take on these powers. Perhaps there are no councils in that position and the Government are taking the power preventively— I do not know. If there are, which authorities are they?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I am sure the noble Lord was listening very carefully to what I said. I said that we need backstop powers in case that situation arises. I hope that I did not indicate that there is an existing list of authorities against which we thought we were going to use this measure. It is a backstop power. When the noble Lord’s party was in power, it was responsible. I am sure that he would expect any succeeding Government to be the same and to ensure that these powers exist in case they are needed because an authority is not stepping up to the plate.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
That makes it a bit clearer: at the moment, there are no councils against which the Government would need to think about using this power; it is a backstop power. It is good to have that clarified.
When the Minister responded to the debate on Clause 7, he also said that councils will have recourse to judicial review. I have never heard a Minister at the Dispatch Box suggest, in proposing legislation, that the backstop measure is that someone can seek judicial review. Ministers do not usually like that. I think it is an amazing thing to do and I hope it is available for people. However, I am slightly worried by the confidence the Government have in their legislation when their immediate defence is to say, “Don’t worry, you can go off and seek redress in the courts”.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I must correct that very serious accusation. I was not encouraging people to bring legal action. I was explaining, in case noble Lords were not aware of the fact, that this statute, just like any other, is justiciable on its interpretation and that people will have rights at law. That is the point I was making.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I was not suggesting that the Minister was encouraging people to bring legal action. But he certainly said that people would have redress through judicial review. It seemed odd to hear that from the Dispatch Box while we are discussing legislation.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, as a lawyer and somebody who sympathises when somebody has a legitimate compliant, which they may do, against any government department or local authority, I think it is absolutely right that that right is put on the record by the Government. That is all I sought to do. I do not think there is anything improper or extraordinary in that.
“( ) Section 18 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (statement of community involvement) is amended as follows.”
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, before I turn to government Amendments 21, 22, 23 and 130, I shall make some introductory remarks which I hope will set the context for our discussion. We have been clear that we want to see a more collaborative and effective planning system. We have discussed the energy and passion that many communities invest in the preparation of neighbourhood plans, and we are committed to seeing that number grow. We discussed that particularly in relation to the amendment so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. We also recognise that not all communities may wish to prepare a neighbourhood plan. Some communities and their local planning authorities are working collaboratively on the local plan for their area, and we want to encourage that. This is also a point we discussed during our first day in Committee.
Clause 11 will clarify how communities can be involved in decisions about the wider planning of their area. It extends the matters to be set out by a local planning authority in its statement of community involvement. This will ensure that authorities include in these statements their policies for involving their communities and others in the preliminary stages of plan-making. Specifically in relation to their functions under Sections 13 and 15 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, these include a local planning authority’s survey function and the preparation and maintenance of a local development scheme. The latter must set out the development plan documents that collectively make up the local plan for the authority’s area, their subject matter and geographic coverage and the timetable for their preparation and revision.
Including an authority’s policies for involving local people in the work an authority will do to survey its area will help local people understand and express views on the changes that may be taking place in the local population, which may influence the type of housing needed, for example, or in the local economy, which may influence the type of accommodation business may need. Changes such as these will drive the development needs of an area that any plan may need to address.
Requiring an authority to set out how it will involve local people when taking decisions on the development plan documents that it will prepare will encourage a discussion between the local planning authority and its community on whether communities may wish to prepare a neighbourhood plan as an alternative to one or more of the authority’s documents. The changes introduced by Clause 11 pave the way for more informed and equitable discussions between local planning authorities and their local communities about the future local growth and development of their area and the sorts of planning documents that will shape these changes.
Government Amendments 21, 22 and 23 will allow the Secretary of State to produce regulations which set out further matters which local planning authorities must address in their statements of community involvement. They will ensure that the Government can clarify further for communities, including neighbourhood planning groups and others, how they can play a role in the development of their area. For example, the amendments will enable the Secretary of State to require authorities to set out how they will provide advice to neighbourhood planning groups on the relationship between a neighbourhood plan and the plans that the authority has prepared or is preparing. This was an issue raised in the other place which my honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Planning committed to consider further. The amendment responds to that concern. It will also ensure that we can leave communities in no doubt that authorities will set out who they propose to involve and when and how they can get involved.
Government Amendment 130 amends the commencement provision in the Bill to ensure that the power to make regulations in Amendment 23 comes into force with the passing of the Act. I beg to move.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, these amendments are broadly welcome—I think. The devil will be in what the regulations say, of course, but if they are not as benevolent as the Minister is suggesting, we will have a row then. Otherwise I think they are all right.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for enlightening me, if not other members of the Committee, as to the otherwise completely incomprehensible terms of Amendments 21 and 22. Not having been given a crystal ball to look into, I could not really understand what they were about, but he has partially explained them, for which I am grateful.
However, on Amendment 23, we are again in the business of secondary legislation. I do not know whether the Government have yet consulted at all on the regulations and whether there is any chance of seeing any draft regulations before Report, but it would be interesting to know whether they had embarked on a consultation with the Local Government Association, for example, about the contents of any such regulations. Again, it looks like the Government imposing a particular way of proceeding on local government, possibly without any real exchange of views about how that might best be achieved. As we know, other Committees in your Lordships’ House have expressed great concern about the increasing reliance on secondary legislation that all too often emerges without any real evidence of effective consultation about what it should contain.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I thank noble Lords for their participation in this debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for his almost wholesale welcome, and I hope to avoid the punch-up—
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
The provisional punch-up, yes. I will certainly seek to avoid that.
I have some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, about the rather obscure, not to say Delphic, nature of the provisions; they took me quite a while to get through as well. With regard to more detailed information on policies and so on, we supplied some supplementary information to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which I will ensure is circulated to noble Lords to provide more detail on the thinking behind this.
We certainly want to ensure that we discuss the way forward on the issue. This provision was widely welcomed in the Commons, and it is our intention that it should be a means of ensuring that communities are properly involved. I do not think there is anything sinister here, so I am happy to share what documents we have and use them as a way forward.
“( ) After subsection (3A) insert—“(3B) The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe matters to be addressed by a statement of community involvement in addition to the matters mentioned in subsection (2).””
Lord Beecham
“Guidance on clustering of betting offices and pay day loan shops
(1) Before exercising his or her powers under section 41(1), the Secretary of State must issue guidance to local authorities on the granting of planning permission for change of use to betting offices and pay day loan shops.(2) This guidance must set out the manner in which policies in neighbourhood plans and local plans about the number, density and impact of betting offices and pay day loan shops are to be taken into account when determining applications for change of use, in a way which prevents a deleterious effect on the neighbourhood or local area.”
Lord Beecham
I am really disappointed: I thought we would have a long debate on the technical amendment replacing “and 10” with “10 and 11”, government Amendment 130, but perhaps we can defer that pleasure.
Some of your Lordships may recall the almost holy alliance that I entered into with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark and—I cannot read my own writing, but two bishops—in connection with fixed-odds betting terminals and betting shops, and the damage they were inflicting on local communities. I referred to high levels of crime affecting local communities and involving a great deal of police manpower, exposure of staff to violence and the facts that a large proportion of commercial crime occurs in these premises, that they are generally aimed at relatively poor communities and that they are a social menace.
The object of this amendment is to require the Secretary of State to issue guidance to local authorities on planning permission having regard to concerns expressed nationally, not just in debate on the Policing and Crime Bill, when we discussed amendments and the Government assured us that consultation was taking place. Can the Minister tell us how that is progressing and, if it is making progress, whether the Government intend to use this Bill to provide measures in the planning system that might help to deal with what is a growing problem in many places?
A similar concern, although hopefully without any violence involved, relates to payday lenders. I seem to recall reading fairly recently in one newspaper that payday lenders had more than one outlet in an area and people go from one to another. The individual lender will have a limit, but someone can go to three, four or five of these places and take out loans. Obviously, they are usually people in high financial need and very vulnerable. There is potential to attack that problem, in part at least, through the planning system, which is what the amendment is intended to facilitate, without prescribing anything beyond the fact that guidance should be issued. We are not asking the Secretary of State to lay down and impose rigid rules, but to offer guidance to authorities, which I think are increasingly sensitive to this issue, especially, but not only, in more deprived areas. I hope that the Minister will undertake to see whether agreement can be reached or an alternative proposal made when we get to Report. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, in his amendment. I simply ask for the Minister’s guidance, either now, in writing or at Report. I draw his attention to the Fixed Odds Betting Terminals All-Party Parliamentary Group, which launched a report earlier this week on the subject. It drew attention to the London Borough of Newham, which has succeeded in using cumulative impact assessments to curb the development of new bookmakers. Broadly speaking, the noble Lord’s amendment is about change of use and new betting offices and payday loan shops. The APPG report was about fixed-odds betting terminals, and I am not sure that it directly related to the location of payday loan shops. However, there is clearly a problem with cumulative impact. Newham Council has adopted policies to curb the development of new bookmakers. The APPG says that:
“While being a helpful mechanism to stop the expansion of future bookmakers, this would not, of course, provide a mechanism to deal with current bookmaker premises and clustering”.
There is, therefore, a very serious issue here and it would be helpful if the Minister could look at it before Report, with a view to having a further debate at that point.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I will make a couple of brief comments before the Minister responds, including one about payday loan shops. I should declare in this context that I am a director of a credit union—London Mutual Credit Union, which is based in London and covers four London boroughs: Southwark, Lambeth, Westminster and Camden. We are also the credit union to the Armed Forces: a number of our members are from the Armed Forces.
I was conscious that the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, and others, encouraged the Government to take action in the previous Parliament in respect of the interest rate, and that is very welcome. There is, however, an issue—we certainly get it because our main office is in Heaton Road in Peckham. About 10 doors along is The Money Shop. We often get 50 to 60 applications to join the credit union but also people walking in off the street. Often they have been to The Money Shop and, because of difficulties there, people have suggested that they go down to the credit union. They join, and the first thing that we do is try to find out what their problem is: how big their debt is—get it all out of them. Then, if we can, we will find them a loan. We want to pay that direct to The Money Shop, to end the problem there, not just give it to the people themselves.
There is, however, an issue with a number of these high street shops and how they operate. I would certainly like to see more action—more ability for a local authority to look carefully at its area and see whether there are enough such shops. Unfortunately, as we have all seen, the problem is not borrowing more money, it is getting a grip of your finances and controlling them. Credit unions are one type of organisation that can help with that, along with others such as money advice services.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for his amendment, and other noble Lords who participated in the debate, including the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy. The amendment reflects the importance of planning at the local level to address local issues. I was particularly interested to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about the all-party parliamentary group covering betting, the experience of Newham and the local action that it has taken on fixed-odds betting terminals in betting shops.
It may be helpful, first, to remind noble Lords of the important planning changes we made in April 2015 specifically to allow local planning authorities to consider the merits of any application for such uses, and to provide the community with an opportunity to comment. Prior to April 2015, the use classes order grouped betting shops and payday loan shops with other financial or professional services in the A2 use class. This meant that any financial or professional service could change use to a betting shop or payday loan shop without a planning application. Now they would need such an application. Additionally, under permitted development rights, new betting shops or payday loan shops could be opened in any property used as a restaurant, café, pub or other drinking establishment, or hot food takeaway. These changes could be made without local authority consideration.
Responding to concerns raised at that time about the clustering of such uses on the high street, the Government made changes to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order. We took betting shops and payday loan shops out of Class A2 and made them sui generis, or a class of their own. This change was made precisely so that a planning application would be required for any additional such shop. This would allow for local consideration of any issues that might arise due to the change to such a use in that area. Local planning authorities, therefore, already have the ability to manage any additional clustering through their local plan policies. It is not for national government to set out how many betting shops or payday loan shops there should be, and where they should be.
Where a local planning authority is concerned about the clustering of such uses, it should ensure that it has an up-to-date plan with robust policies in place. We know, as has been demonstrated, that some local authorities are already putting in place detailed policies in respect of betting shops and payday loan shops that reflect their individual local circumstances, and setting out the position in respect of the numbers and location of those shops.
The National Planning Policy Framework provides local planning authorities with the policy framework to plan for a mix of uses, promoting the viability and vitality of their town centres. Such policies should be based on sound local evidence and tested at examination. Policies contained in the local planning authority’s development plan must be taken into account when determining any application for a new betting shop or payday loan shop, unless any material considerations indicate otherwise.
Noble Lords will be pleased to know that, as he committed to do in the other place, Gavin Barwell, the Minister for Housing and Planning, met yesterday with the Minister for Sport, Tourism and Heritage, who has responsibility for gambling. They were able to discuss the issues emerging from the review of gaming machines and social responsibility measures undertaken by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. As noble Lords would expect, there was a positive discussion to consider how we can continue to work together effectively to take forward any proposals arising from the review, which I understand is likely to report later in the spring. I have not as yet had the opportunity to have a detailed discussion with my honourable friend in the other place. If there is any additional information, once again I will include it in the write-round. There is, therefore, an agenda that will continue to have our attention, recognising the concerns that are widely expressed, and of course this goes much wider than planning.
Although we consider that local planning authorities have the tools they need, we will continue to work closely with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. However, it is not for national government to set out in guidance how many betting shops or payday loan shops there should be in an area. The tools are already with local authorities. These are local issues that should be dealt with through local planning policies. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Beecham
I am slightly disappointed with the Minister’s reply. The Government are not slow to offer guidance about a range of issues when it suits them, but on this occasion they seem to be something of a shrinking violet. If the Government are concerned about this, I do not understand why they will not take the opportunity to push for change—which is all they would be doing—by offering guidance. They would not be instructing local authorities as to how many such shops there should be; they would be offering guidance in a way that guidance is offered across a range of issues.
If the Government are taking this problem seriously—I am prepared to concede that that may well be the case—I encourage the Minister, in consultation with his colleagues, to recognise that this Bill provides a way of highlighting the issue and advising and supporting local authorities in dealing with what is a growing social problem. Otherwise, ultimately we may have to resort to primary legislation, but goodness knows when that might be. This could make a contribution at an earlier stage, and, after all, I do not think that the Government would be entering into a hugely complicated issue if they were to accept the amendment. However, in today’s circumstances, I am prepared to beg leave to withdraw it but I may wish to return to this on Report.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I did not want to say that this was not an issue—that certainly was not my intention. I wanted to say that we have engaged with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I await a detailed discussion with my honourable friend as to how that meeting went, because I think that there are broader issues. If there are specific planning issues where I think we can make a difference, I shall be very keen to look at those, but I think that the tools are already there for local authorities and perhaps we need to get that message across. However, it is a specific subset of a planning class. They already have the powers and we certainly do not want this to be an imposition. I am not suggesting that the noble Lord was saying that; indeed, he was saying the opposite—that it was directing them.
I shall be very happy to report back further on how the discussions went, perhaps involving the noble Lord’s ally, although I have some doubts about the security of an alliance where you cannot remember the name of your ally.
Lord Beecham
If I had an ally at all, it would be the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol.
“Right to reject a second development application
A local planning authority has the right to reject a planning application if the applicant, or any associated individual or body, already has planning permission to build 50 or more homes in the area.”
Lord Cameron of Dillington
My Lords, first, I should say that I tabled this very much as a probing amendment. We all agree that we desperately need more houses for the next generation, and the Bill attempts to loosen the planning system so that we get more permissions to build more homes via improved neighbourhood plans and curtailing the possibility of delays caused by overprotectionist pre-commencement conditions. So far so good, but improving the planning system will not necessarily result in more homes being built. We need some sort of incentive or leverage to make the builders build.
In this context, two bits in the early evidence sessions in the Commons interested me. One was a question from Kit Malthouse MP to Hugh Ellis of the TCPA. He asked:
“On that point, is it possible for a developer to obtain a large permission in an area, and then not develop it out, and then challenge a refusal on another site in that area on the basis that a five-year land supply has not been fulfilled?
Hugh Ellis replied, “yes” and Kit Malthouse went on to spell it out:
“Therefore, by being patient, they are able to blow a hole in the land supply and get a permission that they otherwise would not have done, and double up”.—[Official Report, Commons, Neighbourhood Planning Bill Committee, 18/10/16; col. 32.]
That merely confirmed what other people had been telling me for some years. It was that short conversation that led me to table this amendment as a possible solution. It is not necessarily the only solution. It is worded in such a way that the initiative remains firmly in the hands of the local planning authority. It does not have to refuse a second application from a developer or builder, but it is to be hoped that if there is any hint that the developer is playing speculative games, the local planning authority should have the incontestable right to refuse him or her permission, however suitable the second site may be. I use the word “incontestable” advisedly, the point being that local planning authorities have a duty to fulfil their five-year land supply, which is as it should be, but they need more tools in their toolbox than the current planning system gives them.
To take an alternative approach, a little later in that evidence session there was another conversation between Hugh Ellis and the Minister, Gavin Barwell. Hugh Ellis said:
“You have signalled, Minister, that you are interested in exploring how we can find new ways to challenge that”.
He is referring to the gap between planning permissions granted and houses being built.
“The critical issue is that from 2019-20 onwards, the private sector will probably go on building 150,000 homes a year, almost for ever”.
A little later, the Local Government Association representative added to the conversation:
“I will finish with an example from Croydon. If a planning permission has not been taken up within three years, perhaps a council building company … should be invited to step in and start building the homes that somebody promised they would build but did not”.—[Official Report, Commons, Neighbourhood Planning Bill Committee, 18/10/16; cols. 37-38.]
So there is another possible solution to the problem: giving local councils permission to build out an undeveloped site. An alternative could be for the local planning authority to divide the land up into smaller plots and sell them off to other builders who can guarantee to build them out within a given period of time. There was an article in the Times today which hinted at that as a solution.
Something has to be done. This amendment is entirely probing: to test the Government’s enthusiasm on this issue. There is no doubt in my mind that we cannot go on having national, local and neighbourhood plans for housing continually undermined by developers who do not develop. I expect that the Minister will tell me that all this will be in the housing White Paper, but I like to hope that he can give us some indication of government thinking in this area. I beg to move.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I am speaking on behalf of my noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, who is indisposed and has had to leave. I draw attention to my interests as set out in the register. I am another vice-president of the Local Government Association and a councillor in the Metropolitan Borough of Kirklees.
My noble friend wanted to say that, while some developers submit planning applications and build the homes for which they have been given permission, not all of them do so. It is not unusual for developers to gain permission but not to start work on site or, if they do, for the work to be at a low level and for the site then to be abandoned. This does not help the housing crisis that the country is currently undergoing. Local planning authorities and councillors believe that there are sufficient planning permissions to cover local housing needs, but they are thwarted when homes are not built in a timely fashion. There is currently little that they can do to encourage a developer to start and finish. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, would encourage tardier developers to take seriously the permissions they already hold and to build to meet the need. It is not intended to penalise the smaller developer who may be having problems financing his work but is aimed at those who have permissions for 50 homes or more, and who could make a real difference to the housing shortage by realising that these homes matter.
I turn now to Amendment 63. We have all seen sites around the country that have received full planning permission and where a digger has been on site and excavated a drainage ditch, then the driver has packed up and gone home. Often the digger is left on site. Perhaps metal barricades will be erected around the ditch, but nothing else happens. These sites can often be left for years before anything further is done. There is a notorious site in my area which was 40 years in development. As noble Lords can imagine, many things have changed in that time, such as the road network and all sorts of other things. It is a real issue that needs to be addressed. The country is suffering a housing crisis, and has been for many years. This will not improve unless we get developers moving to fulfil their obligations to build with the permissions they hold.
Encouragement does not appear to have worked in the past, so we must turn to sanctions. In my amendment I have not specified what “a reasonable time” for completion might be or what the financial penalties should be. I believe that these are best left to be determined by the size of the site and the number of homes not completed in an orderly fashion. The amendment appears to be all stick and no carrot, but I regret that the country has reached the stage where homes need to be built, and developers have to play their part in making that happen. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Duke of Somerset
My Lords, when I first saw the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Cameron, I was not sure that I would be able to support it. However, in his introduction to the amendment he certainly clarified some points, and I agreed with a lot of what he said. However, I see both good and bad points in this short amendment, and would like to offer two comments. First, I declare an interest as a landowner who has recently benefited from a housing development planning application.
On the one side, there are often planning circumstances in which a housebuilder will submit a new, revised planning application on a site where he already has planning permission. This could perhaps be to squeeze in more houses, to improve the layout or to take account of a potential Section 106 condition. The real aim, of course, is to increase profit on the scheme, which is often to the detriment of the vendor of the land.
The disadvantages of the amendment arise where it talks about the “area”. I am not sure whether there is a definition elsewhere of the word “area”, but I take it that it means the local authority area or the district council’s geographical area. Large national housebuilders may have various schemes on the go throughout an LPA, the aim of which is to provide more houses of the type that we really need, as we have already heard. The amendment could thwart these types of concurrent developments, to the detriment of aspiring occupiers. Therefore, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord for missing the first part of his speech moving the amendment. Like other noble Lords, I strongly sympathise with the objectives but I am not sure that the amendment as drawn is viable. The noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, has identified one or two issues with it, notably what is meant by “area”. We are not necessarily talking about a small area or even a city. There are now unitary authorities—for example, Durham and Northumberland in my part of the world—that are geographically large counties. For them, 50 homes is neither here nor there.
The objective that the noble Lord seeks to pursue is absolutely the right one, but the noble Baroness’s amendment is a better way of dealing with matters. She is looking amazed. I am always happy to congratulate the Liberal Democrats on getting something right; it usually happens in leap years, but not always. I think she has identified a better way of approaching the matter than the noble Lord, but what is important is that the noble Lord has raised the issue, which is something that has been in people’s minds for a long time.
I hope that this is an opportunity for the Minister to indicate what, if anything, the Government are considering doing to deal with what is something of a scandal. We apparently have something like 500,000 or 600,000 permissions not acted upon, at a time of huge shortage. The Government want to increase housing numbers, and there must be ways in which developers can be persuaded to get on with it or lose their permission. That could take a variety of forms, and the noble Baroness’s suggestion may more workable than the noble Lord’s. However, the main thing is that the Government should accept there is a problem and agree to do something about it in one form or another, in a way that will help to incentivise the implementation of planning permission and effectively remove the risk of permission being outstanding for long periods with nothing happening on the ground where it is most needed. I am looking forward to a sympathetic reply from the Minister on the issue, without his necessarily committing to either of the two projects.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated in this part of the debate, and in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for so ably speaking to an amendment at short notice. I wish the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, well and I am sorry to hear about her indisposition. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said at Second Reading and reiterated here today, there is one thing on which we are all agreed: the fact that we need more houses. I thank him very much for stressing that this was a probing amendment; I appreciate that point.
Before us are two amendments that take separate approaches to achieving essentially the same important objective of ensuring that once planning permission is granted, the development of the site should be taken forward as quickly as possible. That is absolutely right. Of course there may be circumstances that affect it, but I appreciate that it can be taken care of in legislation. This is what local authorities and the communities that they represent expect. I therefore thank noble Lords and the noble Baroness for putting forward the amendments in this group, which allows us to have an important discussion on the question of developers making good on their permissions.
Amendment 25, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, would give local authorities the right to refuse to determine a planning application if a developer already had a live permission in that local authority’s area for 50 homes or more. The amendment targets an issue that the Government are determined to address: the gap between permissions granted and the number of new housing units that are completed. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, that the amendment as drafted is not quite what is needed; to be fair the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said so too. It is a question of degree—the number of 50, for example, and some of the definitions that would be needed.
We have already taken important steps to tackle delays in the delivery of housing development once planning permission is granted. For example, a key point of concern and delay for many developers is the time taken to comply with planning conditions that can be discharged at a later stage in development, something that this legislation of course seeks to address. Issues with infrastructure can also delay or prevent housing development going ahead. To help tackle this problem, we have already launched the £3 billion Home Building Fund and a separate £2.3 billion Housing Infrastructure Fund. The Home Building Fund will provide loans to small and medium-sized enterprise builders, custom builders and off-site construction, and will unlock large sites throughout England. The Housing Infrastructure Fund will provide investment funding to local authorities to help support the development of necessary site infrastructure, such as water, energy and internet, to deliver up to 100,000 new homes.
Lord Cameron of Dillington
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. As I said in opening, the amendment was seeking to provoke the Government on whether they were addressing the problem from our perspective. I am glad to hear the Minister say that the Government are working on the problem and that it will be looked at seriously within the housing White Paper. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I know this is not the right amendment. It is only a provocative amendment to get some form of response from the Government, so I am happy to withdraw it.
“Public consultations
A local planning authority must extend accordingly the length of any public consultations regarding a planning application if any public or bank holidays fall within the consultation period.”
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
My Lords, this is a simple amendment. As I understand it, the position at the moment is that local authorities can decide to extend a consultation period but they are not obliged to do so. I believe that they should be obliged to do so because Christmas and August bank holidays are sacrosanct for families. It is a bit of a “slickie” if someone can slip in their application around such times —perhaps even by arrangement in less desirable cases—and it goes through, and then people come back from their few days away with their family to find that, suddenly, something they would have very much opposed has been passed. That is the reason for the amendment.
It is important that consultation should be carried out properly on every aspect of planning. It is not just a matter of time but also of the area where the application is for. In my experience, many planning authorities do not understand that in some streets in urban areas the houses are numbered 1, 3 and 5 on one side, and in other streets they are numbered 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Sometimes, they do not seem quite sure which houses they should serve the notice on. It is important that local people understand that something is being considered, so that they can decide whether it is good or bad for their area.
It is very useful in urban areas to put the notice on a local lamp-post or telegraph pole. However, it is not so useful when the next council officer who comes along sticks up a removal notice for someone who is moving house and obscures the previous notice. It is important that councils should be aware of what they need to do to enable people to understand local planning.
I went to a meeting in your Lordships’ House with Nick Boles, who had responsibility for this. One of the big discussions was about just who your neighbours are. If your house is on a corner, you can have four or five neighbours in different streets all around you. It really is important that the right people are notified. Even if it is not 100% right, at least a neighbour will say to you, “Have you seen the notice?”. However, if there is nothing there, you are at a terrible disadvantage. The first thing you know about it is when it has all gone through and it is too late. That is the reason for the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Judd (Lab)
I would like to say what a sensible amendment this is. It is impossible to overestimate the amount of cynicism that there is around the whole issue of consultation. There is too widespread a view that it does not make any difference because the planners will do what they want to do anyway, and that switches people off coming forward and participating. A lot of work has to be done to build public confidence in the consultation process. The very specific matter raised in this amendment is important because it is a real issue. I have come across it myself when people have said, “For God’s sake, it’s Christmas. We didn’t know that it was not exempt from the consultation period”. I hope that the Government and my noble friends on this side of the House will take the amendment seriously as a very practical and human suggestion.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor
I shall speak to Amendment 27A standing in my name but, before doing so, I want to say that it must be a relief to the Minister to have what I think are three sensible amendments all thrown at him at once at this late stage in the afternoon.
I do not think that there is anything to object to in the noble Baroness’s amendment. With the neighbourhood planning process that I led locally, we happened to have a consultation period over Christmas and new year, and I was slightly startled to find that I was not under an obligation to extend that period in view of the circumstances. In fact, we extended our consultation period well beyond what was required under the neighbourhood planning rules, and I think it is a common courtesy to do that in holiday periods. As that is not always a courtesy extended by those making applications, perhaps the Government should make sure that it happens.
In relation to Amendment 62, we had a similar need for statutory consultees to respond to what we were doing in a timely way, but they too are notorious for not always doing that. Therefore, I hope that that amendment, as well as mine, will get a positive response.
Turning to my amendment, in the previous planning Bill the Government accepted proposals that I made for modernising the process under the New Towns Act to make the way in which local authorities bring forward proposals for a new settlement—under what is now the garden villages programme that the Government have adopted—easier and more modern. There would still be proper scrutiny, but it would be a process that could work effectively, and the Government accepted that. Since then, they have had a response to the national garden villages and towns programme that I think has exceeded all expectations, as local authorities have seen the opportunity provided by taking low-value land to create really high-class settlements to meet housing needs and which does not involve building around the edges of historic communities in a way that often wrecks those communities. Although people can be very dismissive of nimbyism—the “not in my back yard” attitude—for a long time I have said that that argument is often the right one. The planning system was introduced precisely to stop urban sprawl. As well as protecting the green belt, it was associated with renewing our urban centres with brownfield redevelopment, which is very important, and with the establishment of new settlements. I am delighted that the Government have gone down that route and that there has been such a lot of interest in it right across the country. I know that there are many more schemes still to come forward, and they will mean that we can meet the housing needs of our children, as well as the need for employment facilities, in a way that we too rarely see with most estate housebuilding at the moment.
The New Towns Act was drawn up in a very different era, not an era of localism but one in which national government had huge powers. When a new town development corporation is established, although it is the local authority that brings it forward—we are talking about relatively small communities and garden villages meeting local needs—the current statute says that the board, when established, is appointed entirely by the Secretary of State, not by the local authority that initiated it, and that all expenditure has to be approved in detail, to the last penny, by the Secretary of State. Given that these organisations acquire all the planning powers for the area that is designated and will make a huge investment in the community when that happens, very few local authorities would wish to see the Secretary of State take all those powers. Very few communities would feel comfortable with that either. Most importantly, a Government committed to localism would not feel comfortable with it. To put it bluntly, the Secretary of State probably does not have time to decide the last few pennies of expenditure by a body developing a local garden village.
The amendment is very simple. It says that where a local authority requests the Secretary of State to delegate powers relating to appointing the board and the financial conduct of the organisation, and therefore in practice its work, the Secretary of State should delegate those powers. That opportunity is not currently in the hands of the Secretary of State. I hope the Government will agree that, given the support they have given this policy and given the take up, it would be useful to make that change. I hope we can get a positive response from the Minister on that today.
Baroness Pinnock
My Lords, I shall speak again on behalf of my noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. Amendment 62 is in her name. As my noble friend Lord Taylor said, it is an eminently sensible amendment.
For the past eight years, my noble friend Lady Bakewell has sat on a committee that considers planning applications. She is therefore painfully aware of the length of time that some statutory consultees take to respond. Whether it is the highways department or rights of way department of a county council, the Environment Agency, the Highways Agency, Historic England or the National Trust, some will be consulted on a regular basis and perhaps all will be consulted on some sensitive applications. Very often, their comments will be of a minor nature, but on larger applications their contributions will be critical to, for instance, traffic flow and pedestrian safety, as well as to ensuring that flooding considerations have been adequately catered for and to the protection of the built environment and flora and fauna.
My noble friend does not wish to name and shame those statutory consultees that are tardy in the extreme with their responses—she is very kind—but their silence, despite frequent reminders, causes planning officers a number of headaches. The applicant becomes irritated at being frustrated in their desire to proceed with their development and unjustly blames the planning authority for not getting on with it. Members of the local community, which may have been consulted by both the developer and the planning authority, wonder what is going on and when they might be able to attend the planning meeting and have their say. The ability to express their view in public is extremely important to neighbours and often to the wider community. It is an integral part of the democratic process. It can help protestors to see that there are viewpoints other than their own, even if they do not agree with them. It is not conducive to community cohesion for residents to have to wait, often for very long periods of time, before applications are considered in public as a result of the local planning department, in turn, having to wait for and chase consultees for their responses. The Government and local planning authorities are keen to speed up the planning process. This amendment would certainly be one step towards achieving that aim. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Judd in saying what a sensible amendment this is, as moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parks. The noble Baroness is very experienced in these matters: she is a former councillor in Westminster, she campaigns for leaseholders and she knows this area very well. She has come to the assistance of the House many times on these matters, and we are again grateful to her today. It is right that public holidays should be taken account of, particularly, as she mentioned, in August and at Christmas. They are not, and it is unfair that notices are slipped out when people are not around. I hope that the Government understand that and give a positive response to the issue raised by the noble Baroness.
I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, has had to leave the Grand Committee tonight. On her behalf, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, made the sensible and important point that statutory consultees should be made to respond in an appropriately reasonable time. I suspect we all know who we are talking about when we talk about those who do not respond—it is the same all over the place, and we should do something about it.
We support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Goss Moor. It seems practical and sensible that the power to appoint members of boards on new town development corporations should be devolved to the local authority, along with matters of financial conduct. I hope that we can get that agreed.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I obviously support both the amendments from my noble friends, particularly the one from my noble friend Lord Taylor of Goss Moor, which deals with a very important issue. The other two amendments in the group raise what some noble Lords might consider to be fairly trivial issues, but they are actually very important.
I make one further point about the issue raised by my noble friend Lady Pinnock. If you are taking a major planning application to committee towards the end of the 16-week period in which the Government say it has to be determined—for a new housing estate or industry or whatever—and you have not received a response from important statutory undertakers such as the Environment Agency or the highways authority, or if you are a county district and you are waiting for the county to wake up and submit a consultation response, you have a choice. You can either delay it beyond the deadline and take it to the next committee, which might be three or four weeks later, or you can determine the application without the specific expert advice that you need but have not got within your own authority. You will certainly not have the statutory advice in your own authority. If you do that, it adds to the delays in determinations. As we know, planning authorities are in danger of being sanctioned by the Government and having their ability to determine applications taken away if they do not meet the Government’s deadlines. It is out of their hands.
So what do we do? Do we pass an application that we think is dodgy but for which we do not have the evidence to turn down until we get the advice from the county or wherever, or do we risk being sanctioned and delay it? There is a serious issue here; it is not at all trivial.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parks, raised another issue. In all the years that I chaired committees with development control powers—what used to be the planning sub-committees, then the area committees—the greatest anger among members of the public came from their belief that they had not been consulted properly. They would be concerned and very worried about the planning application, but they would become angry because they had not been consulted. That is the way it is. They would say, “The notice you put up was too small”; “It was across the other side of the field”; “The bull came and removed it”; “Why did my neighbour get a letter and we did not get a letter?”; “The article in the local newspaper came after the deadline for sending in objections”, and so on. I used to say to them, “For heaven’s sake, you have got five minutes to tell us why you are against this—use your five minutes. You are here. You knew it happened. The consultation worked”. They would say, “No—you did not do this and you did not do that”.
This is a very sensible proposal because one of the things that people get most upset about is when a consultation happens over Christmas or Easter. They sometimes even say, “It happened in June when I was away on holiday and I couldn’t do anything about it”. As an authority, we are flexible. If objections come in after the deadline but before the committee, they all get reported to the committee anyway—we are not stupid like that—and people can come to the committee. Even so, people get upset about this issue. I do not think it needs primary legislation, it just needs a change to either the development order or the advice and guidance to planning authorities. The Government ought to say to authorities “Do not include bank holidays or holiday periods”.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has reminded me, as a member of the planning committee in Lewisham, that we rarely refuse applications —we always get advice on what we can or cannot do—but on a couple of occasions we have deferred applications on the basis that people have not been consulted properly. Sometimes the worst offender can be the council itself, if the housing department has not consulted properly. Some people come to the meetings and they are very cross because, as the noble Baroness said, the notice has gone through the wrong doors. People find out by rumour but those who should have been told have not been told at all. If that is proved to our committee, we will certainly defer a decision and allow a proper period for public consultation on the application.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated in the discussion on these amendments. I shall deal first with Amendment 27 and then move to Amendment 62 as they relate to consultation, and then come back to Amendment 27A.
On the amendment so ably moved by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, she has vast experience of planning so one listens particularly carefully to what she has to say. From what I can gather, the vast majority of planning authorities exercise discretion in going beyond the 21 days. Most would behave in an exemplary fashion, as Pendle and Lewisham clearly do, by being flexible where flexibility is needed. I have done a deep dive in the department to see whether there have been any complaints about this but I have not found any malefactors or authorities that are not coming up to scratch. This seems a sensible amendment, so I wonder whether my noble friend will meet with officials if she has evidence of bad practice—I am sure she does have—so that we can discuss what we can do. It is important that people are properly consulted and that there is some flexibility during the periods of bank holidays. I would not wish to prescribe a period and then find that all local authorities are saying, “We do not have to exercise any discretion now”. The discretion that is exercised is important.
In response to some contributions from noble Lords, it is inevitable that some people will come along to a planning hearing and be aggrieved that it is not going the way they want. They therefore seize upon whether the procedure has been correctly followed. I agree with the noble Baroness about proper service of notice. I recall some years ago getting a proper notice delivered to me in the proper time, where the development was half a mile away and I was not sure why I was being consulted. That does not matter, but if the reverse happens clearly it does. That said, there are rules that should be adhered to. So, in the write-round, I will ensure that I draw attention to those rules, because clearly they are an integral part of the system as well.
I turn to the amendment so ably spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, who is obviously on a roll now. Once again, this deals with statutory consultation but, on this occasion, in relation to statutory consultees. A couple of points cause me difficulty in responding positively to this amendment. The first is that the annual performance data for 2015-16 show that, on average, 98% of substantive responses were made by the key statutory consultees within the 21-day period or such other period as agreed. Part of the procedure is that the law provides for an extension on a case-by-case basis if the two parties agree to it. This performance appears to be consistent across small and large developments and we monitor that very closely through the annual performance returns that statutory consultees are required to provide by law.
Therefore, I am concerned that adopting the approach suggested in the amendment would lead to a worsening in the performance of statutory consultees. Extending the period to 28 days would mean that the good ones—the vast majority, I have to say—who respond within 21 days would then respond within the 28-day period, and this would slow down performance and affect housebuilding. That said, if the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Bakewell, have evidence, I would be very keen to see it. However, so far as we can see, this area is working well and I would be loath to extend the 21-day period. It would be something of a kick in the teeth for those who are working hard to achieve the 21 days, and it would be seen as geared to those who do not perform as well, who appear to be a small minority.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I certainly accept the point that the noble Lord makes. However, as with all these things, the vast majority of people may act properly but there will always be one organisation that does not. Another example that I can think of is when you get your highway repaired and then along comes the water board the following week and digs it all up to put in a new water main. Those sorts of things drive you up the wall. Reminding these organisations how they should operate may be something that the Minister can look at. There will always be exceptions and it may well be that it is one group of people that is always acting in that way in one particular area. I accept that the vast majority act perfectly properly, but it can be extremely annoying when things are not dealt with properly.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
The noble Lord makes a very fair point. However, we do not want to flex the legislation and extend the period for the very small minority that fail to meet the deadline when, as I said, the vast majority perform very well. That would send out the wrong message.
I turn to Amendment 27A, spoken to very ably by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Goss Moor. He was at pains to tell us that, like all the other amendments in this group, this is a very good one. We tend to agree: this is a sensible amendment. It seeks to move responsibility for any town development corporation established under the New Towns Act 1981 from the Secretary of State to the relevant local authority.
I say at the outset that I support the broad thrust of the amendment. This Government are supporting 10 locally led garden cities and towns and 14 locally led garden villages—high-quality new settlements of between 1,500 and tens of thousands of new homes. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has been an influential and important voice in the creation of our garden villages programme, and I thank him for his engagement.
We have seen a strong response locally to our offer of support for locally led garden cities, towns and villages, and we want to do more to help the places that are currently in our programme, and others which may become part of it in future, deliver. The Government recognise that a statutory delivery vehicle, such as a new town development corporation, may in some circumstances be a helpful means of co-ordinating and driving forward the creation of a new garden city, town or village.
The Government also recognise that, in line with our locally led approach, this statutory delivery vehicle, while enjoying significant independence to get on with the business of delivering, should be accountable not to central but to local government. I stress that. That is an argument that has been made not only by the noble Lord but by the Local Government Association and the Town and Country Planning Association.
If there is sufficient local appetite, we will consider legislating to amend the New Towns Act to enable the creation of development corporations, for which responsibility rests locally, not with central government. I reassure noble Lords that the Government recognise and support a locally-led approach to the creation of new garden towns and villages. This fits also with our devolution agenda more generally. As I have indicated, the statutory delivery vehicle of the new town development corporation already enjoys significant independence. However, I believe it should be accountable to local government, not central government.
To that end, should there be sufficient appetite we will look into making local bodies accountable for the new town development corporations, with new legislation should local areas show that they would use it. Discussions stemming from the White Paper would be the first step in exploring local appetite. I hope that with this reassurance and the statement of policy going forward, the noble Lord feels able not to press his amendment. Following the indications I have given, I also ask my noble friend Lady Gardner to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
I thank all those who supported what I had to say. I do not think it is at all onerous for the good authorities that are already doing what the amendment suggests, and it is important to help those who are living somewhere where they are not getting the benefit of this. However, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Neighbourhood Planning Bill
Monday 6th February 2017
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeNeighbourhood Planning Act 2017 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 86-IV Fourth marshalled list for Grand Committee (PDF, 105KB) - (6 Feb 2017)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux)
Good afternoon, my Lords, and welcome to the third day of the Grand Committee on the Neighbourhood Planning Bill. I apologise for the Clock, but the mini-clock that shows the length of speeches is correct. Do not worry about that. There may be a Division in the Chamber. If there is and the Bell rings, we will adjourn and resume after 10 minutes.
Clause 12: Restrictions on power to impose planning conditions
Amendment 28
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, first, it is good to see the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, back and looking in fine fettle. I shall speak collectively about government Amendments 28, 30, 35, 39, 40 to 43 and 50 to 55. I then look forward to hearing from other noble Lords on non-government amendments in the group.
Before discussing the detail of the government amendments, it may be helpful for me to set them in context. Clause 12(1) would introduce new Section 100ZA into the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This would provide the Secretary of State with a power to make regulations about what kind of conditions may or may not be imposed and in what circumstances.
Planning conditions, when used appropriately, can be an effective tool in ensuring we deliver sustainable development. However, there remain concerns that some local planning authorities are imposing conditions that do not meet the well-established policy tests in the National Planning Policy Framework: that conditions should be imposed only where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects. The purpose behind this power is to help remove costs and delays to the delivery of new development caused by the need to respond to unreasonable planning conditions.
The power will put on a statutory footing the national policy tests for conditions and, by reducing the number of unreasonable conditions imposed and which fail to meet the tests, help get more homes built more quickly once they have planning permission. I emphasise that in the exercise of this power, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the regulations are appropriate for the purpose of ensuring that any condition imposed on a grant of planning permission for the development of land is, in broad terms, necessary, relevant, precise and reasonable. This will not impact on appropriate protections for important matters such as heritage, ecology and flood mitigation.
As drafted, Clause 12 allows the Secretary of State to exercise this power in respect of any grant of planning permission. This includes planning permission granted not just for a single planning application for a specific scheme, but by an order, which could be granted by the Secretary of State, the Mayor of London, local authorities or neighbourhood planning groups. Development orders can grant planning permission for a particular site or geographical area and for a variety of specified types of development. In the light of responses to the Government’s consultation on this new power, to which a response was published at the end of December last year, we have concluded that it is generally not appropriate to apply this power where planning permission is not granted following the consideration of an individual application in certain circumstances. We therefore seek to amend the clause.
The amendment would restrict new Section 100ZA from applying to order-making powers. Development orders are not granted following an individual application and often grant planning permission to an area. They therefore may need to impose a number of limitations. It is important that a local planning authority or the Secretary of State can set out in an order those conditions that frame the type of development that would be acceptable. This can include a condition that the development, including the change of use, is completed within three years. Such a condition may be unreasonable when imposed following the consideration of a planning application, but not in the very different exercise of granting planning permission by order.
Given this, and in the light of the consultation responses on this issue, we have concluded that the new power to limit conditions should not apply to orders. Consequently, should the amendment be approved, the power will not apply to grants of planning permission in the following: development orders, simplified planning zones, enterprise zones, and development control procedures—that is, where government authorisation is required. This will retain the core benefit of the power in ensuring that planning conditions are imposed only when necessary, while protecting the flexibility afforded to grant planning permissions by these powers. With these arguments in mind, I therefore beg to move the amendment.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I have Amendment 38 in this string of amendments. With one in six homes at risk at present, it is quite clear that homes need to be built which protect residents from increasing flood risk. I have put down this amendment because I noted that the Government, both on Report and in Committee in the Commons, were remarkably un-keen to delete this clause, so my thinking is that there is more than one way to skin a cat. If one feels as I do about the issue of flood risk, there is perhaps the potential for exemptions. I have tabled this amendment because all the evidence from around the UK shows that we need drainage standards and designs for drainage to be agreed up front. If they are not, it is not good for the housebuilder or the local authority, and it is certainly not good for the home owner.
In Scotland there is a legal requirement to have sustainable drainage on any development, but developers are not obliged to engage with Scottish Water on the design and building up front. This results in housebuilders producing their own designs, which Scottish Water then has issues with. The result is that 90% of these drainage systems are not adopted by Scottish Water. In Wales, however, developers have to have an agreement with the sewerage undertakers on a specific design before they start on-site. This system works and does not hold up developments. This shows that the designs for sewerage and sustainable drainage need to be settled at the beginning of the process, and local authorities need the powers to enable that to happen. If the prohibition on local authorities imposing pre-commencement conditions goes ahead, that cannot happen. What then will happen is that developers will not be certain about the drainage, the adoption or the maintenance, there will be commuted sum disagreements, developers will in all likelihood put the arrangements into a private company with no quality assurance on the drainage—it will probably end up being a tank somewhere in the ground rather than a scheme that enhances the environment or the area for the homeowner—and future flooding issues will be left for the local authority and the homeowner to pick up.
The Government have given us no evidence that there is a problem. The examples the Minister sent round in the letter to noble Lords were just a series of quotes, mainly from the annual reports from the housebuilders. I have gone through the government consultation and there is no indication of the scale of the so-called problem, and no single citing of a concrete example. It is therefore no surprise that only a minority—44%—of those who undertook the government consultation supported the proposal to prohibit local authorities from imposing pre-commencement conditions. Therefore, there is not majority support from the Government’s consultation for this measure to go ahead.
Of course, planning conditions imposed by local planning authorities should be reasonable and necessary. However, as the Government themselves said on 24 January in response to the EFRA Committee’s report on flood prevention,
“the robust planning approach in place is the best way to control development so that it does not add to flood risk”.
As such, pre-commencement conditions should be seen as a positive tool to deliver this, as well as to ensure that permission can be granted.
To be blunt, this approach is also putting the cart before the horse. After a battle with noble Lords, Clause 171 of the Housing and Planning Act requires the Government to review planning law on policy relating to sustainable drainage in England. That review by DCLG and Defra is currently under way and is due for completion by April. At this point I must say that I am grateful to the Minister for the offer of a meeting on that issue, which I understand is now scheduled for later this week.
The Government have provided no real evidence that there is a problem. Evidence from Scotland and Wales shows that we need to ensure that flooding conditions are settled up front, and there is a real risk here of pre-empting any decisions following the Government’s own review, which we are expecting in the next few months. On that basis, it is absolutely essential that the Government address the issue, and if they will not go as far as removing the whole clause, they should make exemptions for important issues such as dealing with flood risk; otherwise, we will be putting home owners of the future in real danger.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, I will make my usual declarations as we start this the third day in Committee on the Neighbourhood Planning Bill. I am an elected councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
This first group of amendments is concerned with Clause 12 and Schedule 3. Government Amendments 28, 35, 40 and 42 all seek to add the word “relevant” before “grant of planning permission”. Perhaps the noble Lord can tell us a little more about why this is deemed necessary and it was not in the Bill in the first place. All the amendments tabled by myself and my noble friend Lord Beecham, who will be with us later—he is attending a funeral at the moment—are probing in nature. They seek to understand the Government’s thinking so that we can be clearer on the objectives, challenge the Government and provide alternative solutions.
Amendment 29 tabled in my name and that of my noble friend seeks to put in the Bill a provision for the Secretary of State to allow local planning authorities to make exceptions to the power being taken by the Government in Clause 12(1)(a) to (c). It is becoming clear how inappropriately named this Bill is—it is a complete misnomer. In this clause the Government are again taking more powers to order local authorities to do things. I can see nothing “localist” about that and nothing that supports neighbourhood planning in any way, so Amendment 29 would allow in a small way some discretion for local planning authorities to make exceptions. But of course, the clause is in the Bill because the Government believe that local planning authorities are holding up the planning process with lots of irrelevant conditions. As I have said many times before, I am a member of a planning committee and I have never had a developer come before the committee and say, “The conditions you are attempting to impose on us are holding up the development”. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, that the Government have provided no evidence for this whatever. It is just not the case, and if there are delays, the Government should be looking at how local government can recover the full costs of its fees so that it can afford more resources in its planning departments.
Amendment 31 seeks to remove lines 37 and 38 on page 10 of the Bill. This extraordinary provision again seeks to give additional powers to the Secretary of State. Amendment 21 seeks to add two specific points which are important, in that account should be taken of the public interest and the sustainability of any development. I hope that all noble Lords agree that these are important considerations in making regulations and therefore should be included. Amendment 33 seeks to amend the Bill so that consultation should include local authorities. I am sure the Minister will tell us that of course the Government intend to consult local authorities, and I will be pleased to hear that, but it would be useful if he set out on the record clearly and specifically whom they intend to consult, because leaving it to chance, very broad and off the record is not the best way to ensure that the relevant bodies and organisations can come forward with their views.
These proposals also need some kind of appeals process built into them. This taking of new powers is a considerable step forward on the Government’s part, and an appeals process would allow a local authority to make its case by bringing in relevant local factors, hence my tabling Amendment 34. Amendments 36 and 37 address the need to seek a bridging agreement to pre-commencement conditions. This is a controversial part of the Bill and we are seeking to delete the provision or, if it remains, a way of dealing with the situation when agreement cannot be reached. A determination through a mediation process may be a way forward. As noble Lords will know, mediation is of course an established way to resolve problems. Again, it would be useful if the Minister told us today what he envisions will happen when the authority and the developer cannot reach agreement.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I first declare an interest as leader of a local authority—a London borough council. I must apologise to my noble friend the Minister and to other Members of the Committee. I was unable to take part in Second Reading because we had a full council meeting that day and I could not stay until the end of proceedings. I am also afraid that when the Bill was in Committee last week, I was abroad on an unbreakable work engagement and so was unable to take part in the first two days. However, I have read the debate carefully and rise to speak with due humility. Having read the proceedings, I hope my noble friend Lady Cumberlege will not be disinclined to intervene—I enjoyed reading a large number of her interventions.
I say to the Committee how grateful I am to my noble friend the Minister for his openness and, through him, the willingness of his officials to discuss difficult issues. That needs to be put on record immediately. As my noble friend knows, I am a little concerned about where these proposals are intended to go—we could be bringing out a Dreadnought to deal with problems on the local public pond which, frankly, could be sorted out. I am grateful for the elucidation that my noble friend set out, but we need to understand a good bit more about how these regulations might work. For example, there is a requirement that the applicant must give written consent agreement. How many pages of regulations will there be to say in what terms that will be? Will it have to be legally sanctioned? When will it have to be delivered, et cetera? It says also that the Secretary of State must carry out a public consultation before an order is made. How long will that take? With whom will it be? Will it be in an individual area or across the nation?
We all want to get development going more quickly. But my concern is that, in some circumstances—perhaps the noble Baroness opposite pointed to one when she talked about fear of flooding—pre-commencement conditions actually enable development to happen more quickly and with more consent, rather than, as is assumed, every council necessarily trying all the time to deter. I want to look very carefully at the detail of these proposals.
I am puzzled by the statement in subsection (2)(a) of the new section, to which the noble Lord opposite has referred, that the condition must be,
“necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms”.
Make it acceptable to whom—to the local community, to the neighbourhood, to the people who will be affected or to the planning inspectorate in Bristol?
On the other hand, I cannot follow the noble Lord opposite—even though I understand where he is coming from—in proposing in his Amendment 37 setting up a mediation process. I spoke about this on the previous planning legislation we had before us, in which the Government set up a sort of national arbitration service concept. If one does not define this very closely, there is a risk that everything would automatically go to some sort of statutory arbitrator. That in itself could also clog up the system. With all the good will in the world, it may be that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord opposite is as guilty of causing potential obstacles as overregulation would.
I am not going to support any proposal that this provision be struck out—I see there is an amendment to that effect. I understand the Government’s concern to get development but we have not seen enough evidence. Between now and Report, and perhaps when my noble friend replies, we might get to understand a little better where and when the steel of a Dreadnought will be seen emerging from the department. I am a passionate localist: so much in recent planning legislation is about centralism and making things harder in the guise of getting development. I do not accept the view that local authorities are always against development. I look forward to hearing more from my noble friend, today and between now and Report, on the justification for these proposals.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I have serious concerns about Clause 12, particularly about subsections (2), (5) and (6) in new Section 100ZA on pages 10 and 11. The Government are going to have to rethink this very carefully because, as it stands, Clause 12 will cause more problems than it solves. We have heard many reasons for this, but I will go further. What discussions have been held with the Royal Town Planning Institute? I ask the Minister that because it has sent a briefing on the Bill which states, broadly speaking, that there are advantages to pre-commencement planning conditions:
“These have certain advantages to applicants who may not be in a position to finalise details of a scheme but wish to secure a planning permission as soon as possible. They have advantages to local authorities because councils may have in practice limited legal ability to enforce conditions once a scheme is underway. Conditions are useful to the development industry in general because they enable schemes to be permitted which otherwise might have to be refused”.
If they were refused it would take longer and, as the noble Lord, Lord True, said, you may get faster and better planning decisions as a consequence of having pre-commencement conditions. Refusal of planning permission should, in general, be avoided because of all the complexities which are then introduced.
In telling the Committee what discussions the Government have had with the Royal Town Planning Institute, will the Minister explain what consideration they have given to the 15th report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which was written substantially on the subject of Clause 12? It points out that,
“the national policy framework confirms that planning conditions should only be imposed where they meet six tests. They must be: necessary; relevant to planning; relevant to the development to be permitted; enforceable; precise and reasonable in all other respects”.
So that already exists within the National Planning Policy Framework.
Paragraph 12 of the DPRRC report states that,
“the Government want to take this power because ‘there is evidence that some local planning authorities are imposing unnecessary and inappropriate planning conditions which do not meet the tests in national policy, resulting in delays to the delivery of new development’”.
There may well be such examples. If they do not meet the six tests, there is already a legal statutory requirement to demonstrate that the six tests are applied. But in paragraph 26 of the report, the DPRRC asked for,
“specific examples of pre-commencement conditions to help us understand the effect of subsection (5)”—
which my noble friend Lady Parminter talked about—because:
“None appeared to be included in the explanatory material accompanying the Bill”.
The committee had to ask the DCLG to provide a list of,
“details that developers have had to provide to local planning authorities before building works could begin”.
There are nine things on that list. With my long experience in local government, I can see a very good case for all nine of them. I will come back to this, with some practical examples of what goes wrong if you do not have pre-commencement planning conditions. But when I read that,
“installation of superfast broadband infrastructure”,
is not deemed to be required as a pre-commencement condition, I think this is wrong. We ought to have agreement on superfast broadband infrastructure, since within the next few years every part of the country is going to have it.
I will say more about this issue when we debate whether the clause should stand part of the Bill, but it seems to me that if that is the extent of the problem, the things listed are not in themselves significant problems. I am really starting to think that Clause 12 is not a good clause. We will look at this further on Report, but at present I have to say that this clause will cause more problems than it solves.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, I will follow the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, in his masterly demolition of Clause 12. My first point concerns the notion of relevance. Clearly, the committee really struggled with notions of relevance and found itself quoting, in paragraph 13, the memorandum, which illustrated,
“examples of the types of condition that the proposed power would prohibit. They include: ‘those which may unreasonably impact on the deliverability of a development, those which place unjustifiable and disproportionate financial burdens on an applicant, or those which duplicate requirements to comply with other statutory regimes’”.
That could probably cover every single impact of every aspect of development. These are vague and general in the extreme, so no wonder the important conclusion of the committee was that it would be,
“inappropriate for the Government to be given a power which could be used to go well beyond the stated aims of the Bill”.
Were these regulations to be enacted, the committee recommended that,
“the affirmative procedure should apply to the exercise of the powers”.
Do the Government agree that if this clause stands, the affirmative procedure will indeed be adopted?
The Delegated Powers Committee, on which I had the honour to serve for many years, does not make such recommendations lightly. This is a very serious indictment and a very serious conclusion. Do the Government intend to accept that the affirmative procedure should apply in this case?
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, I find these amendments very important and significant. If we are going to tackle the issue of regulation, it is terribly important that we get it right and that we tackle the real problems, not just theoretical problems or those identified by people who are discussing the issues at a rather remote level.
Let me be very direct: I live five miles outside Cockermouth, in the Lorton Valley. There is a tremendous debate going on at the moment about development in Cockermouth. It is not about whether the houses being built are liable to flooding; that is an issue, but it does not seem that they will be. However, people who have suffered terrible flooding experiences more than once in recent years now say that there is a risk that what is being done will contribute to the flooding of other people’s homes, because the drainage arrangements necessary for the number of houses being built are inadequate. This is a real issue and in our approach to it, we need to be careful and the Government need to take the points raised in these amendments seriously. This is affecting people now, and there is real anxiety. That anxiety is accentuated because in Cockermouth and the surrounding area, people are not convinced that the arrangements being made will prevent the repetition of flooding in future years. A great building programme is going ahead before the people directly affected have been assured that arrangements are in hand to meet the challenges that have arisen.
The issues raised this afternoon are crucial. I hope the Government will think hard about whether the clause is necessary and, if they are determined to go ahead with it, ensure that it meets the real issues that are affecting real people in real situations.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I speak with humility because I am not an expert in planning, but I do so because of the concern that this clause does not support the agenda of localism. My understanding is that if this clause stands, building may start before details have been agreed. Will my noble friend tell us what provision there is for local people to object to building once it commences? It seems to me that once building starts it is very hard to stop it rolling on and for local people to really have any input into whether it is acceptable. I also understand that pre-commencement conditions are one way to ensure appropriate design and quality, and that buildings are put in the right places. We have heard about drainage and flooding, but there is also the issue of whether these conditions enhance their local communities. I am concerned that this clause appears to load the dice against what local people may wish and I do not feel this is what we were elected for on our agenda of localism.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who participated in the discussion and debate on these non-government amendments—specifically my noble friends Lord True and Lady Hodgson, the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy, Lord Shipley and Lord Judd, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Andrews.
Before I address each of the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, I will make some generalised points about the position regarding pre-commencement conditions. The absence of pre-commencement conditions does not mean that one can start work automatically. The pre-commencement conditions, once agreed—or if there are none—enable the developer, for example, to raise finance and perhaps to put a construction team together with the security of knowing that he is likely to have permission, but it does not mean that the work will begin. Nor do the provisions of Clause 12 prevent local authorities with gumption—which is most of them, and many noble Lords here represent them—from agreeing conditions. It absolutely provides that conditions can be reached by agreement with the developers and this is what would happen in many cases. We make it absolutely clear that this is not preventing agreement between the parties, which I am sure would happen in the vast majority of cases.
Let me deal with the amendments in numerical order, if I may, so that I do not come to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, until later. I note that Amendment 29 was also tabled in Committee in the other place. The explanatory statement accompanying it explained that the intention, which was also made clear by the noble Lord, is to ensure a local voice in judging local circumstances and the impact of planning decisions. This intention is admirable, and it is absolutely the Government’s aim that the planning system remains centred on community involvement.
Subsection (1) is about ensuring that the well-established policy tests for conditions are adhered to. The proposed power for the Secretary of State to prescribe what kind of conditions may or may not be imposed, and in what circumstances, may only be exercised as provided by subsection (2) where such provision is appropriate for the purposes of ensuring any conditions imposed meet the policy tests in the National Planning Policy Framework. Those tests are reflected in the wording of subsections 2(a) to (d) of new Section 100ZA, which means that the Secretary of State can only use this proposed regulation-making power to ensure that any condition imposed on a grant of planning permission seeks to make the development acceptable in planning terms—in other words, that it is consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework —is relevant to the development and to planning considerations generally; is sufficiently precise to make it capable of being complied with and enforced; and is reasonable in all other respects. In other words, the Secretary of State may make provision in regulations only if such provisions are in pursuit of those policy tests.
For example, as set out in the Government’s consultation on these measures, we are considering prohibiting conditions that planning guidance already advises local planning authorities should not be imposed. These include conditions which unreasonably impact on the deliverability of a development, such as disproportionate financial burdens; which require the development to be carried out in its entirety; and which reserve outline application details. The Government have no intention of using this power to prohibit the use of any reasonable and necessary conditions that a local authority might seek to impose to achieve sustainable development in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, including conditions relating to important matters such as archaeology and the natural environment. The Government believe it would be detrimental to the planning process for regulations made under new Section 100ZA(1) to provide for local authorities to make exceptions to the prohibition of the use of certain conditions. To do so would create uncertainty for applicants and additional bureaucracy.
In fact, during our consultation on this measure, local authorities agreed overwhelmingly that conditions should be imposed only if they passed each of the national policy tests. As an assurance for local authorities and other interested parties, subsection (3) of new Section 100ZA includes a requirement to carry out a public consultation before making regulations under subsection (1). It is fairly clear what a public consultation is, and if a national condition is being talked of you would expect a condition on a national basis. If it is more localised—one cannot generalise: cases may differ; they will not all be the same—it will be dealt with according to the law regarding public consultations. I may write to noble Lords to reassure them on how that issue will be addressed, but the Bill makes it clear that, in talking of a public consultation, there is no intention to make this exclusive, and the local authorities will certainly be involved. That will afford the opportunity for local views to be put forward as part of the process of determining how the power will be exercised.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Perhaps the Minister is going to deal with this issue later, but nobody here, including me, wants to impose a single unnecessary condition on any planning application. I would not do that, and nor would other noble Lords present. However, the Minister seems to be describing quite a bureaucratic process for the local planning authority, and I wonder whether he is creating more of a problem than the one he seeks to solve. What we have yet to hear from him is the list of all these councils and planning committees throughout the country that are creating all these conditions. I do not know where they are, and if this measure is so needed, I hope he will give us an extensive list of all the offenders and what they are doing. We have yet to hear that from the Minister or any of his colleagues.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I have covered only one amendment so far. I appreciate that the noble Lord is making a central point and I will seek to respond to it, and if there are other points that he wants to bring up towards the end of our consideration, I will be happy to deal with them.
On Amendment 31, I recognise that there are concerns around the impact on sustainable development, which is evidenced by the fact that this amendment was also put forward in Committee in the other place. However, I need to be explicitly clear that the clause is not aimed at conditions that are necessary to achieve sustainable development. I reassure the noble Lord that appropriate protections for important matters such as heritage, the natural environment and measures to mitigate the risk of flooding will be maintained. If the planning authority in question is unable to come to an agreement with the developer it is obviously the case, just as it is now, that planning permission will not be granted. What we are seeking to do is bear down on those conditions that we think are not appropriate and do not need protection.
It may help noble Lords if I give some background to the same issue when it was raised in Committee in the other place by Roberta Blackman-Woods MP, the honourable Member for the City of Durham, who was concerned about a situation where a condition prohibited by the Secretary of State makes the development acceptable in planning terms but makes it unacceptable in social, economic or environmental terms. The purpose of the planning system as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. Sustainable development is recognised as being comprised of three distinct dimensions: economic, social and environmental. Each of these aspects is capable of being material in a planning decision. This amendment would remove a key element of new Section 100ZA(2) which ensures that the Secretary of State can make regulations only under subsection (1) in order to ensure that any conditions imposed are necessary to make development acceptable in planning terms. Subsection (2) is important as it constrains the power in subsection (1) so that it can be used only to ensure that any conditions imposed meet the well-established policy tests for conditions in the National Planning Policy Framework. To recap, paragraph 206 of the framework states:
“Planning conditions should only be imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects”.
This, as well as subsections (2)(b) to (d) are key safeguards to ensuring compliance with the policy tests, and I therefore believe that the amendment could run contrary to the noble Lord’s intention.
In addition, if by removing subsection (2)(a) noble Lords are seeking to ensure that conditions cannot be overlooked because they are unacceptable for other reasons, the existing drafting of subsection (2)(d) already adequately provides for this in its requirement for conditions to be reasonable in all other respects. Finally, as noble Lords are aware, before making regulations under subsection (1), as I have said, we are required to carry out a public consultation as set out in subsection (3). I appreciate the point made by my noble friend Lord True and others that perhaps it would be of assistance if I set out in a letter following today’s Committee session exactly how we expect the public consultation to play out, but it will give anyone with an interest an opportunity to be heard and for their views to be considered.
Lord Stunell (LD)
I wonder if either in that letter or perhaps in another one the Minister could set out to what extent the provisions of Clause 12 are or are not simply putting the National Planning Policy Framework on a statutory footing. Could he also set out whether to any extent it either goes beyond the framework or reduces from it?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, for that intervention. Obviously the National Planning Policy Framework stands independently from the Bill and I do not believe that any cross-reference is made in the legislation to the framework, but of course all planning decisions have to be made in accordance with it. I will deal with the point in the letter I will send round, but I think that all of the points which have been raised are covered in the National Planning Policy Framework as far as the Government are concerned and as far as the legislation allows.
Baroness Parminter
I am sorry to question the Minister, but can he confirm that in that consultation only 44% supported going ahead with the proposals? If so, that is a clear minority.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
From memory, I think that the noble Baroness is correct, although that is a majority of those who have a view—there were quite a few who ticked “don’t know”. As I have indicated, it was a majority—admittedly a bare majority—of those who gave a view: more than half offered either complete support or supported the principle. However, I will make sure that a link to that document is available for noble Lords.
I assure noble Lords that I recognise the intention of Amendment 37. We of course have to make sure that where agreements cannot be reached, a sensible solution can be found. However, there are a number of reasons why a dedicated mediation system, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, is not necessary and, indeed, may be counterproductive. As I have made clear, Clause 12 builds on best practice as set out in our planning practice guidance, which states that applicants and local authorities should engage at the earliest possible stage to come to an agreement on the conditions to be applied on a grant of planning permission. I am sure all noble Lords recognise and appreciate the importance of early and sustained engagement to help facilitate a constructive dialogue on the use of conditions. Let me hasten to underline that that is, I think, what happens in the vast majority of cases. The measures here will help to ensure that this takes place.
Existing routes are available to both local authorities and applicants in the unlikely event that there is disagreement on the conditions proposed. If a developer refuses to agree with a particular condition and the local authority deems it necessary, having considered it against the criteria set out in the National Planning Policy Framework, the authority can, and indeed should, refuse to grant planning permission. Nothing could be clearer, and that is the position the Government wish to stress. That is the intention of the legislation going forward; it is not to alter the basic provision that decisions are reached locally. Provided that they are in conformity with the National Planning Policy Framework, it is appropriate that, if the local authority cannot agree with the developer and there are relevant considerations in the framework, it should turn down the application.
At present, applicants would still have the ability to appeal to the Secretary of State against a decision to grant planning permission which is subject to conditions that they disagree with. Further to this, we consulted on our proposal to specify a default period after which the agreement of the applicant would be deemed to be given. Following the response to this consultation, we are of the view that it would be appropriate to introduce a 10-working-day default period. This could also act as a further incentive for parties to engage earlier in the process and discuss conditions that may be imposed on a grant of planning permission. We must acknowledge that adding a further formal step in the process by way of mediation could cause delays—here I find myself in agreement with my noble friend Lord True. In addition, it could actually discourage effective discussions between applicants and local authorities, who may simply wait, knowing that there is the safety net—as they may see it—of the mediation route as an alternative to meaningful engagement at an earlier stage. I hope noble Lords agree that encouraging local authorities and developers to work together to overcome any barriers to delivering the homes that the country needs is the most important step.
Lord True
My Lords, I will briefly intervene—it will be brief because I am enormously grateful for the very full answer given by my noble friend. I am grateful for what he said about clarifying “public consultation” and I agree with a number of things he said.
This point was made by others on the first day in Committee, and I will not go over it again, but this is a Neighbourhood Planning Bill. It is about getting things built, but built with consent, which is the trick one has to take. My concern is if a developer says, “I am not agreeing to any conditions of that sort—you can us refuse permission and we will see you in Bristol”. That is not empowering local people in any way. As my noble friend Lady Hodgson said, the risk is that that will happen, because if the developer decides that it does not want to agree, it is almost fast-tracked to the inspector whatever the local authority does, and that is not necessarily building consent into the system.
Perhaps the Government can wrestle with this point over the next few weeks. There really does not have to be any form of incentive in the law for responsible developers not to co-operate. For example, many local authorities have to deal with developers which have not discharged previous planning conditions—they have just ignored them and nothing is done. Someone comes along and says, “I am going to build here”. You see these people and say, “You have not discharged your previous conditions, so let us write something in here to make sure that you are okay this time”. They then say, “We are not agreeing, we are not signing on there”, so it goes through, but does the inspector always take account? I beg my noble friend, as he considers these things further, not to rig the system too far.
The second cautionary thing I would say, having listened very carefully to what my noble friend said about the phrase “acceptable in planning terms”—which does trouble me—is that I understand from my noble friend that the Government cannot rock along and say, “We’ll have a 24-hour casino on that site, thank you very much”, and that it is about restricting the proposed ambit of the planning. This seems eminently justiciable because it does not refer to the national framework at all, as my noble friend pointed out. So if a little local campaign group is armed with a neighbourhood plan or the local development plan, and the Government come in and say, “We are putting forward this regulation to make it acceptable in planning terms and, by the way, by that we mean the NPPF”, the Little Ditchcombe Action Group might say, “It is not acceptable in planning terms, or in accordance with what we have in the neighbourhood plan that we have agreed, or what has been put in the local development plan”, and you could find yourself in the courts—I do not mean my noble friend in particular.
We need to be very careful about how this phrase is defined—many a lawyer and many a judge would have a high old time and earn a few bob in deciding what that phrase means. It is only the second cautionary thing I would say and I very much welcome the spirit and terms of the clause. I accept the way in which my noble friend said that the Government were coming at it, but they need to be careful. There should not be too many more eggs in the developer’s basket and there should be as much definition as possible—please—before Report. With that, I will stop detaining the Committee.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I agree with almost everything the noble Lord, Lord True, has just said. I thank the Minister for his very full response, which is much appreciated. I agree with him—I do not want any conditions imposed, including those he termed “necessary”, “relevant”, “enforceable”, or “reasonable”. I think everybody in the Committee will be in agreement with that—there is no problem there whatever. He also said that these pre-commencement conditions are not necessary. That is good to hear, but I worry that at the end of the day this will all be either so vague that it will not make any difference or so detailed that it will threaten sustainable development. I am not clear about what I have heard from the Minister. I hope he will respond to us in his letter about where we are going because I certainly want to see development take place that is sustainable, that we learn from the lessons of the past and that we get things built properly.
I may have misheard him, but will these discussions between the planning authority and a developer or an applicant take 10 days—someone else may have said that—and if not, how long should that go on for? He is determined but, as the noble Lord, Lord True, said, the risk is that nothing is agreed and that everything goes straight off to the appeals process. That is not delivering development by consent—certainly not sustainable development and not development that is in accordance with the local neighbourhood plan, or the local development plan. I live in London, as the noble Lord, Lord True, does. Certainly, in my own ward we are developing a neighbourhood plan and we are putting hours and hours of work into that. It seems daft that if we agree something, we could then find it all just pushed to one side. I do not know what the Minister can say now, but I certainly look forward to seeing his letter.
In a moment we will debate whether Clause 12 should stand part of the Bill. I look forward to the Minister’s letter because we have still not had the list of rogue authorities. At the moment, I am convinced that the clause is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. We have had one or two problems with plugs and things but these are not massive. If there were these problems, the noble Lord would have listed them in his contribution; maybe they will be in his letter, which I look forward to.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord True for his response. Yes, it is the intention of the Government and I think we have demonstrated that we are keen on consensus in this area. We want to give power to neighbourhood planning; that is the essence of this legislation. However, we do not want to hamper developers and, therefore, housebuilding—which is central to all our aims—with unnecessary pre-commencement conditions. As I have indicated, it is absolutely right that these conditions can, and in many cases should, be agreed between an applicant and the authority. But we do not want to prescribe from the centre situations where this has to be the case. I will seek to enlarge on that in the letter I am writing. I will also, in relation to the plea from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, seek to give further evidence of the unreasonableness of some pre-commencement conditions, because that lies at the root of why we are seeking to bring in these powers. I ask noble Lords not to move their amendments.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I oppose Clause 12 standing part of the Bill. We have just heard how controversial this clause is. It is nothing to do with neighbourhood planning; it is all about the Secretary of State and the Government taking additional powers at the centre and issuing instructions to local authorities. Nothing I heard in the previous debate changed my mind on that. What lies at the heart of all this? It is a misguided notion that planning departments and planning committees—local authorities—are holding up development, not approving applications and generally being the root of the problem. That is nonsense. As I said before, I have served on a planning committee for many years and our planning department is certainly not sitting there deliberately not approving developments. The Committee has still not been given the evidence of all these problems; we await the letter.
No noble Lord present would dispute that we have a glut of planning permissions already approved in certain parts of the country. This is certainly the case in London and the south-east. I can walk around Lewisham, where I live, and see many applications that I have approved as a member of the committee and very little has happened. Once, in my own ward, nothing happened except a sign going up saying, “Permission to build x houses”.
We do have a problem with land-banking—people holding on to land, looking at its value but not moving forward. Again, I have never known a developer come forward to any committee I have sat on, either in Lewisham or when I was a member of Southwark Council, to suggest that the conditions the council was seeking to impose were somehow going to hold up its development. It was never suggested, in either authority, that we were a hindrance to development. I just do not see that that is the problem that the Government suggest it is. I contend further that some conditions can be positive in enabling things to get under way and agreed quickly, with the local authority and the developer or builder concerned moving forward in a collaborative way.
Baroness Parminter
My Lords, I gave notice of my intention to oppose Clause 12 and I support the words of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. Indeed, the response from the Minister to what I thought was a reasonable proposal to bring forward an exemption for conditions that are clearly reasonable has strengthened my resolve to support any move to delete the whole clause.
The reasons for that are twofold. I do not want to repeat what I said earlier, but one thing pre-commencement conditions do is overcome the situation at the moment whereby developers are paying the cost when it comes to pre-commencement conditions but the benefits are borne by other people—normally the local community or the environment, or through biodiversity benefits. Without pre-commencement conditions, of course the developer will say, “We don’t want to bear these costs”. Pre-commencement conditions account for those benefits—those externalities—and allow local planning authorities to ensure that those benefits that accrue to others can be accounted for.
In the Minister’s letter on what the unreasonable pre-commencement conditions are, will he also include a list of what are, in his mind, reasonable conditions? It seems to me that drainage is very much a reasonable condition, given that the benefits are accrued by home owners and the community but the costs are borne by the developer.
The second reason I am now more minded to support the opposition to Clause 12 builds on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord True. The Minister says that we will want local authorities, if they have the gumption, to turn these applications down. But let us consider a housing application for, say, 20 homes in a rural area. Let us say that a fairly reasonable, as I would see it, pre-commencement condition is attached for sustainable draining solutions but the developer does not agree. Those houses have agreement in the local plan and the neighbourhood plan. Is the Minister saying that this Government want local authorities to turn down applications that have the support of the local plan and the neighbourhood plan because they cannot get agreement on a perfectly reasonable proposal —in this case for drainage—that is part of a pre-commencement condition? That is what the Minister said. This is the nuclear option. If the local authority does not get agreement from the developer for sustainable drainage systems, the only option it has is to turn it down. That will increase delays and conflict in the system, which the Bill is rightly trying to stop. If we want to build homes, it seems to me that this nuclear option will not deliver what the Government want. Therefore, I support the proposal that Clause 12 should not stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
My Lords, I too oppose the question that Clause 12 stand part of the Bill. I have been tedious beyond endurance and I thank the Committee for its patience. At each stage I have tried very hard to ensure that there is a separation between the powers of the Secretary of State and the responsibilities of local authorities, working with their local communities. I share the deep concern of the Delegated Powers Committee, which the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, mentioned. It has deep reservations. We must be careful not to brush away the work of that committee and the recommendations it makes, because it is the watchdog for our legislative processes and thoughts and what we bring forward. I was interested that my noble friend the Minister said that he will take real cognisance of what it has been saying and will try to meet those concerns.
One of the things that surprises me in all of this is that the legislation that the Neighbourhood Planning Bill is based on is the Localism Act. We know that this concept has been warmly welcomed by so many who have embraced neighbourhood plans, and we know that there are many more in the pipeline. In reply to an amendment last Tuesday, the Minister told the Committee that the Secretary of State’s,
“current policies for intervention strike the right balance between the national interest and local autonomy”.—[Official Report, 31/1/17; col. GC 176.]
I have to say that in my area the experience was to the contrary. There was no planning issue of national importance and yet the Secretary of State intervened, with devastating results.
However, I am encouraged by my noble friend’s reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, when the Committee met last Thursday. He quoted his honourable friend Gavin Barwell as having said that,
“as long as authorities have policies to address their strategic housing and other priorities, we want them to have more freedom in the type of plan that is most appropriate for their area. The Government have put local and neighbourhood plans at the heart of the planning system. We put local authorities and communities at the forefront of shaping a vision for their areas and deciding how to meet their development needs. The existing regime reflects the understanding that local planning authorities, together with local communities, are best placed to set out future development for their local area”.—[Official Report, 2/2/17; col. GC 261.]
I say amen to that. That is absolutely what we want. That is what we are trying to achieve through this Bill.
I have referred almost exclusively to the Secretary of State and sometimes the ministerial team. But this is not personal and I want to get on the record how much I appreciate my noble friend Lord Bourne’s approach to the handling of the Bill. He has said he will listen and—I have to say, with great patience—he has. He has said time and again, “We will work with noble Lords in an inclusive way”, and he has and is doing so. He has asked for positive engagement. We are willing. Like Barkis, we are more than willing. I sense my noble friend is also willing to negotiate worthwhile amendments to improve the Bill. I welcome that and I look forward to his useful amendments when we come to Report.
I turn to Clause 12 specifically. As I have previously said, seeking that a whole clause should not stand part of the Bill gives noble Lords an opportunity to see the clause as a whole. My concern with the totality of this clause is that, contrary to what I am trying to achieve and what my honourable friend Gavin Barwell has said in another place, it does nothing to separate the powers of the Secretary of State from the responsibilities of the local planning authorities. My noble friend Lord True, whom I thank for his kind comments, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said that the clause does not mention neighbourhood planning at all. In addition, the whole clause is about the Secretary of State’s determination to control the work of local planners. The tenor of this clause is therefore that the Secretary of State does not trust the people. He does not trust local planners, who know the area best.
New subsection (1) gives the Secretary of State unlimited powers to waive conditions that may be very inappropriate to particular areas and populations. Again, therefore, we see the heavy hand that continues through nine new subsections, and the point of the Bill is quietly buried; it has nothing to do with neighbourhood planning. Surely the imperative is for local planning authorities to deliver the strategic policies of the Secretary of State, but apparently that is not enough.
I very much respect people who are on local authorities at the moment. When I read about them and look at what they are doing, it seems that they are working their socks off to deliver what is needed. But apparently, this is not enough, and the Secretary of State says that he must come in and tell them what to do and how. Therefore, as the Minister is fully aware, in our area there is total disillusionment with the neighbourhood planning process and fury at the intervention—the interference—in the minutiae of local planning from above.
The Minister went through all the new subsections in Clause 12, and I thank him for his full explanation. However, he did not address the issue: why is this clause necessary? Why does the Secretary of State risk antagonising local planners on a whim, removing planning conditions? Why does this require intervention by the Secretary of State? Planning pre-commencement conditions are important. They ensure the quality of development and its empathy with the local area. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, put it so well, saying that this is the essence of planning.
I was involved in a case years ago, in which 171 identical houses were to be built along a snake-like road. We turned that down, fought appeals and won them. We now have a development that has open spaces and all sorts of different housing: bungalows, terraced housing, and detached four-bedroom houses. It is a lovely area, and so different to what it would have been like if we had agreed to the original application. Conditions are important, because those are the ones we put in and which we eventually managed to get.
It is therefore about the quality of development. I pay tribute to the forensic way the Minister took us through the different new subsections. However, it is not good enough. We are losing the whole principle of neighbourhood planning and localism. I very much look forward to the letter that my noble friend will send, and I sense that there is already some rethinking on how this clause and the new subsections need to be amended. However, I urge him to go further. Can he be brave, and in his letter give us some hope that this clause may be deleted altogether? It is irrelevant in the Bill.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I have come to the conclusion that Clause 12 should be deleted from the Bill. I now see no grounds for it being continued with, because the evidence has not been satisfactorily produced. It comes down to this: developers want to build and sell houses, and residents want to enjoy living in them. Sometimes those two objectives are not compatible because builders can often not do what residents expected of them.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, but I am confused. I thought the Committee was talking about pre-commencement planning conditions—which are required to be discharged before the building commences—not other conditions that may have to be complied with during the course of building.
Lord Shipley
I do not know whether the noble Lord has read paragraph 26 of the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, but it says:
“We wanted to see some specific examples of pre-commencement conditions to help us understand the effect of subsection (5)”.
This was commented on by my noble friend Lady Parminter. The DCLG gave a list, setting out,
“details that developers have had to provide to local planning authorities before building works could begin”,
the first of which is,
“full details of a play area”.
I cannot see what the problem is with a builder telling the local planning authority where the play area will be and what will be on it. Secondly, there is a complaint—
Lord Lansley
It is not my job to defend what the DCLG is saying, but if that is treated as a pre-commencement planning condition then it would be objectionable. If it was simply a condition applied to the consent, to be pursued in the course of building, it would be perfectly okay.
Lord Shipley
As the noble Lord might understand, the problem is that once building has started it is much more difficult to get agreement on some of these details. The point that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has drawn to our attention is that there is nothing to prevent a builder telling us what the full details of the play area are planned to be. Indeed, if I was buying the property I might want to know that, because I might have children who would be interested in using it.
The details of all lighting on the development, including siting, design and lux levels, are seen as unnecessary pre-commencement conditions. They are not. As I mentioned, the installation of superfast broadband infrastructure is central to a housing development. There are others. I noticed,
“the full details of soft landscaping”.
Yes please: these are important. When a developer has sold all the houses on a site, it is much more difficult to get the soft landscaping put in to the standard that it should be. Also,
“precise location of bin collection points for specific plots”,
is seen to be an unnecessary pre-commencement condition. If you are living there, it may be that no one told you that you would have to take your wheelie bin 50 metres to the collection point because the bin lorry cannot turn round. Some of these are real-life examples. We need to be very careful when criticising local planning authorities for having set conditions that they think matter.
Because this is based on the complaints of housebuilders, will the Minister, when he replies in the letter we will be sent, copy in the replies to the letter the department sent to all the local authorities about these complaints to get their view on whether they felt builders’ complaints were justified? I very much hope that the department has taken on board the views not just of builders, but of the local authorities concerned.
I do not wish to detain the Committee any further, but the case for Clause 12 is no longer proven. As things stand, I do not think this can form part of the Bill any longer.
Lord Lansley
First, I apologise to the Committee: like my noble friend I was unable to attend the Committee last Thursday because I was abroad, but last Tuesday, while noble Lords were meeting here, I chaired a workshop that the Cambridgeshire Development Forum —once again, I declare my position as its chair—held with planning officers from Cambridge City and South Cambs councils. It considered a wide range of issues. I thought it important to talk to planning officers directly, not least to inform some of my contributions to our debates.
I want to speak because built into the structure of Clause 12—I address my remarks in particular to new subsection (5)—is the intention that best practice should be consolidated in a way that is likely to help us in our objective of building more houses more successfully and more speedily. What it comes down to is this: my colleagues on the forum and I spent a lot of time last year finding out some ways the planning process could be improved. Of 30 areas this was just one—it was not necessarily even the most important one, but it was important. There was a recognition among those in the development sector locally that there are issues with the way planning conditions are constructed. Conditions are imposed that are often non-compliant with the test that they should be imposed only where they are necessary and relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, and where they are enforceable, precise and reasonable. None of us wants to end up with unnecessary appeals because of excessive or inappropriate conditions. That delays everything and increases costs for everybody.
I am prompted also by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. He talked about conditions generally. Here we are talking specifically about pre-commencement planning conditions. There is a considerable problem, which I can see in the evidence the Government have given, in that if one has too many unnecessary pre-commencement planning conditions, the risk is that the discharge of those conditions will add to the delay. In fact, when one asks developers, as I have, it is often the issues associated with the discharge of those conditions that create more problems for development than agreement to them in the first place.
However, best practice is very clear. Joint working is what everyone should aim at, so as to reach the point where the committee making the decision can see what the agreement between the developers, the applicants and the local planning authority is likely to look like. It is a necessary part of informing members of the character of the decision they should be making. What we do not want is to allow some of the things that inhibit best practice—arising, for example, from planning officers’ inexperience. It was made clear that inexperienced planning officers simply load in conditions because they think that is the way to cover their backs. Experienced planning officers get their conditions right in the first place, so we want to encourage a process in which experienced officers negotiate and agree conditions with applicants.
We want to encourage applicants, which this legislation would do, to take the initiative and propose draft conditions. Obviously, those conditions should in large measure be standard conditions, and the structure of the legislation will encourage the use of such conditions, which should expedite matters. It will also inhibit the prospect of some of kind of last-minute ambush in the committee, because the conditions must necessarily be agreed with the applicant or the application must be referred back. If they are not agreed they can be refused, so I am not sure I understand the argument that authorities would be hesitant about refusing an application where a pre-commencement planning condition has been sought that is supported by planning policy in the NPPF. Why would they not refuse it when it is their job to pursue the appropriate response to an application that does not meet those criteria?
Baroness Parminter
The noble Lord is challenging my view. There is a real risk that a local authority will not refuse an application for 20 homes in a rural area, to use the example I quoted earlier. It will have the approval of the local plan and the neighbourhood plan, but the sustainable drainage option proposal that it can get the developer’s agreement to is for a weak tank underneath the ground, whereas what it actually wants is a sustainable solution that will enhance the housing development in the way described by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege—one that is to the long-term benefit of the area and will increase biodiversity. The developer will not agree to that; it will agree only to a tank under the ground, which is perfectly reasonable under the standards we have at the moment. The local authority might want to go that step further but it cannot. Should the entire application then be turned down—as I say, it has the approval of the local plan, the neighbourhood plan and local people—because the developer will not agree to the sustainable drainage option? That will increase the delay. Local authorities will not do this because of the risks. They will say, “Okay, we will accept the weaker proposals”.
Lord Lansley
The noble Baroness has constructed her own example, and I understand the point she is making. It seems to me that this legislation does not change the situation at all. At present, if it cannot agree the condition it is looking for with the applicants, it will refuse the application and the applicants will go to appeal. I do not see why on earth the situation will be any different after this legislation is introduced. To that extent, I do not see how the legislation causes any harm. On the contrary, it promotes on the part of the applicants the need to draft planning conditions with a view to seeking agreement. Moreover, this promotes not only best practice, as I said, but an expectation on the part of both the applicants and the local planning authority—both officers and members—that the conditions should be standard and/or drafted at the point at which the decision is made.
Another issue is conditions being drafted after the committee meeting has taken place, which can cause considerable delay. What new subsection (5) is driving towards is for best practice to be encapsulated in legislation and for there to be an expectation via a written agreement that the parties to the application and the local planning authority will get together and produce an agreement to put before the committee. That is entirely laudable and I am very sorry that Members of the Committee want to throw this rather important and useful baby out with the bathwater.
Lord True
My noble friend makes a strong point but I do not agree with him, I fear. I am not going to repeat the points I made on the previous amendment. The problem with new subsection (5) is that it effectively gives a veto to the developer and therefore a power, which may or may not be a good thing.
However, my noble friend made a good point in relation to, for example, a play area. We all understand that the wonderful civil servants who work for my noble friend are trying to do a reductio ad absurdum of what might happen, so they find a council that has said, “Oh yes, the play area has to have one of those spring things instead of a see-saw”. We all know that that would be ridiculous. Maybe it has happened. But there are things on that list, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said, that are actually quite important and germane. Anyone who has been on a planning committee trying to secure development in suburban or rural areas will know that lighting is one of the most fiercely contested things that local residents care about most. It is also one of the most difficult things to control.
No doubt some things on that list are silly. Perhaps my own authority is one of the bad authorities. We have occasionally have had a run-in with the people who want to put in boxes for broadband, not because we are against it but because they come and say, “We want to bang this box right in front of a grade 1 listed building”, instead of agreeing to put it a little further down the road, and they rush off and have dinner with the Chancellor and the Chancellor says, “This is ridiculous. We must have legislation”. This is the way the world works. We all know that.
Somewhere in the middle of all this is a sensible via media. Saying that you cannot develop until you put a Big Ears statue in would be completely ridiculous. But some of these other things are best dealt with at an early stage. Drainage is obviously a good one, as are sustainability and lighting. The problem with this goes back to my analogy right at the start—the old Dreadnought thing. Time and again, we poor local authorities face legislation in the dock—always local authorities, never the statutory undertakings, never the builders with the land banks. Only the local authority is to blame because the local authority is perhaps trying to reflect some of the opinions of its local people by whom it is elected. We are always put in the dock and the Dreadnought is brought out to deal with the silly local authority which says, “I must have a Big Ears statue before I give any permission to 150 homes”. Of course the Government want to deal with that.
I have an open mind on this clause, as I said, although I hear what my noble friend Lady Cumberlege has said and I do care about neighbourhood planning. Surely there must be a way through that is not just nationalising this massive power to deliver for the exceptions that are causing problems. Surely it must be possible between now and Report, with the spirit that my noble friend the Minister has displayed, to find a way to give the Government a power to deal with the authority that wants Big Ears before there can be a development, without actually taking away the ability of local authorities and neighbourhoods to protect what they think is important and have development with consent. That is all I ask for. If Clause 12 can find a way to do that, let us look at it. At the moment, it does need amendment. We will see what happens between now and Report.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for being absent during the discussion of the previous group, and the very beginning of this group. I am afraid I have had to return from a funeral; otherwise, what I am about to say now I would have said in the debate on Amendment 43A, to which I added my name.
As the Committee will recall, Amendment 43A reflects the recommendation of the Delegated Powers Committee in paragraph 22 of its recently produced report, which came out on 27 January, dealing with the way the Government propose to exercise the delegated powers contained in the Bill, as set out in a document published last December under the intriguing title Further Information on How the Government Intends to Exercise the Bill’s Delegated Powers. Five areas were identified in respect of which the intention is to rely on secondary legislation. For this afternoon’s purposes, we are of course dealing essentially with the planning conditions in Clause 12. However, there are other issues: Clauses 1 to 5 are on neighbourhood planning, Clauses 6 to 11 are on local development documents, Clause 13 is on the planning register and Clauses 14 to 36 are on compulsory purchase. Therefore, although the Delegated Powers Committee drew attention to a series of matters, today we are dealing with the relevant provisions under Clause 12, which I suspect is in any event probably one of the more controversial clauses.
As we have heard, the Bill vests the Secretary of State with powers by regulation to prevent authorities imposing particular types of planning conditions in any circumstances at all or only in particular circumstances, as prescribed by the Government, and to stipulate that no conditions at all are to be imposed on particular types of grants of permission. The Government’s explanation of this was that,
“there is evidence that some local planning authorities”—
number and identity not disclosed—
“are imposing unnecessary and inappropriate planning conditions which do not meet the tests in national policy, resulting in delays to the delivery of new development”.
It is of course interesting that the Government make no mention of the hundreds of thousands of houses for which planning permission has been given but of which not a brick has been laid. They concentrate only on other potential problems.
The Government have admitted that,
“the power to prescribe the circumstances where conditions may or may not be imposed and to set out the descriptions of such conditions is wide”.
They concede that, but conclude that a delegation is appropriate. The committee expressed concern that the power would,
“allow the Secretary of State to prescribe conditions in relation to any type of planning conditions when the key aims of the Bill are to facilitate the building of new homes”,
and expressed surprise that no reason for this was given. Some of us would argue that even in respect of new homes it goes too far, but to make it more general and part of any planning permission seems beyond the scope of what the Bill is supposed to be about.
The committee stated at paragraph 16:
“We consider it inappropriate for the Government to be given a power which could be used to go well beyond the stated aims of the Bill”,
and recommended that it should apply,
“only to planning conditions for housing developments”.
It went on to criticise the proposed replacement of the existing power to provide guidance discouraging the imposition of unreasonable conditions with a power to prohibit such conditions completely, without any opportunity for the relevant planning authority to justify those conditions. Furthermore, the Government have expressed their intention to exercise the Bill’s delegated powers, including draft regulations specifying five types of condition that will be prohibited. The committee points out that there would be,
“nothing to prevent the Secretary of State from using the new power to prohibit many more conditions”,
so we are not necessarily just being confined to five areas. This would give carte blanche to introduce further prohibitions in the future.
Unsurprisingly, and in common with so much legislation, including the Housing and Planning Act, which we spent so much time on last year—the fate of which may be somewhat altered, one hopes, by the housing White Paper that is about to emerge—the committee states that,
“the negative procedure is not an adequate level of Parliamentary scrutiny for the exercise of these new powers, which could substantially restrict the ability of local planning authorities to attach conditions to the grant of any type of planning permission”.
It recommends that the affirmative procedure should apply to proposed new Section 100ZA(1).
The committee goes on to express concerns in relation to proposed new Section 100ZA(5) to (7), which deal with pre-commencement conditions: the controversial provisions which forbid planning permission being subject to such conditions without—extraordinarily —the written consent of the applicant. That is a significant change in the law and a significant move away from the local planning authority to individual developers. But no illustrations of such conditions are included in what passes for the explanatory material provided with the Bill. Although, as I understand it, the committee was provided with some at its request. It is extraordinary that in a matter as controversial as this, the explanatory material completely overlooked the issue. Under the Government’s scheme, in only one case will it be possible to impose such a condition: when the applicant fails to reply within 10 days of receiving notice of a proposed condition. The committee was concerned that there is no duty to consult before making regulations in relation to these provisions and said that,
“the Secretary of State should be required to consult not only developers but also local planning authorities and other interested parties”.
It recommends in paragraph 30 of its report that,
“the Secretary of State should be required to consult before making regulations under subsection (6)”.
If the suggested amendment is made, the Delegated Powers Committee will be content with the negative procedure. If not, it recommends the affirmative procedure.
I do not know what the Minister’s response was—I take it this issue would not have been raised in the opening debate—but I understand he has indicated that there will be a further response to the Delegated Powers Committee. However, I hope he is able to take back the view—which I think will be widely shared by this Committee, across any political divide—that it is simply not good enough to rely again on the use of a negative procedure on important matters of this kind. It has happened far too often and has been the subject of many reports, Bills and committees in your Lordships’ House, and yet the Government seem to ignore all the doubts and objections and continue to use—or propose to use—the negative procedure for dealing with highly controversial matters. The Minister is not able, alas, to change this with the stroke of his pen, but I hope he will convey what I think will be the view of many in this Committee, across the political divide, that this is not a satisfactory way to proceed, particularly as we are dealing with a significant change in the planning regime.
I hope the Minister will take back the strong views that have been expressed and that by the time we get to Report, we will see some Government amendments. Otherwise, I envisage that there will be amendments on Report from across the House seeking to test the House’s opinion on whether the Government should be allowed to get away with what many of us consider—and clearly what the Delegated Powers Committee considers—to be an abuse of process.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, this afternoon we have heard a lot of concerns expressed by those who serve or have served our local authorities about the practical consequences of this clause. I want to draw attention to a press release that was on the Planning Portal website, which was published on behalf of the British Property Federation jointly with the Planning Officers Society about this very issue during the passage of the Bill in the other place. I will not read the whole press release because I am sure the Minister will be able to read it for himself, but it draws out some particularly important points, which have perhaps not been reflected in the debate so far.
The press release says:
“The British Property Federation and the Planning Officers Society have advised that current legislative proposals set out in the Neighbourhood Planning Bill do not allow enough flexibility … They have warned that current legislative proposals set out in the Neighbourhood Planning Bill do not allow enough flexibility to account for local circumstances. There is a risk that the measures will delay the planning process further by pushing contentious decisions into the time-consuming negotiation of section 106 requirements”.
The British Property Federation chief executive said:
“Streamlining the use of planning conditions could herald a welcome acceleration for development, and we support government efforts to ensure that their abuse doesn’t pose an unnecessary barrier to delivering the new homes and real estate that are essential to people’s everyday lives. However, clear and appropriate conditions are an essential part of achieving good place making, and developers and planning officers are in agreement that a more flexible approach, with best practice guidance and a clear appeals route, would better serve this objective. With local authority resources already stretched, now is not the time to risk making a time-consuming process even more onerous”.
That sums up the case that Members across the Committee are making. It is being made on behalf of both the developers and the planners—we have heard from Committee Members who see it from a local authority, practical planning perspective. I hope that the Minister will closely reflect on what is being said.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, I hesitate to intervene. I am not an expert on planning and I have never served on a local planning authority, but I have been involved from the other side, the side of the applicant—not big developments but small developments in villages and so on—so I probably see this slightly differently.
I am on my feet because I cannot quite see why all the conditions and the problems that have been mentioned by noble Lords—drainage, lighting and so on—cannot be dealt with, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, suggested, in the pre-decision planning conditions. In other words, in the normal planning agreement, you work with the planning authority to determine under exactly what conditions the planning permission will be granted, but surely Clause 12 is not about planning conditions; it is about a situation when all the conditions have to be implemented before the building starts. That is where the delay seems to be, and the clause seems to me quite reasonable.
I realise that the problem is probably the financing of planning departments, which do not have the resources to deal with all the issues prior to giving or not giving planning permission. To some extent, pre-commencement conditions are added after the council has decided on an application because there may not have been the resources to deal properly with the application before that point. The local planning authority also may not have the resources to check during the building of the development that all the conditions that had originally been agreed to are being met. In other words, the only way in which this can be done simply is to do it pre-commencement, so that applicants have to apply before they can start building. It is a cheap route out of a particular problem.
I am not an expert on planning, as I said, but it seems to me that there is a difference between ordinary planning conditions and pre-commencement planning conditions. As someone who has applied, I know that sometimes pre-commencement planning conditions delay the scheme and can be, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, described, an ambush—suddenly new conditions are added after the planning conditions and all the terms have been agreed to. However, I am not sure why all noble Lords’ concerns are so targeted against the pre-commencement conditions.
Lord Stunell
My Lords, I would like Clause 12 to be taken out of the Bill. It is unsatisfactory because it is written so broadly. Under subsections (1) and (2), the Secretary of State is in a position to do practically anything as long as it is a prescribed description, but subsection (9) says that,
“‘prescribed’ means prescribed by the Secretary of State”.
So there is no limitation on the Secretary of State’s capacity to change the current planning system, not simply the pre-commencement conditions, although that has been the immediate focus of the debate.
Although the clause is widely drawn, for the Minister it clearly has a much more limited intention. I asked a question to see whether I could establish exactly what that limited intention was. On the face of it, from what the Minister has told us this afternoon, it is intended simply to ensure that the National Planning Policy Framework is the bedrock on which all planning decisions are made; in other words, to make the NPPF in effect a statutory document. If that was his intention, it could have been expressed much more clearly by a clause that would be fundamentally different from Clause 12 and be something we could debate the pros and cons of much more satisfactorily. If, on the other hand, it is intended to inhibit or prevent local authorities imposing conditions that would otherwise be in conformity with the NPPF, he needs to go to greater length to explain why the Government believe the NPPF needs to be trimmed back a bit.
I hope the Minister can see that if the NPPF is the reference, it would be useful if it was referred to in some way in the Bill, particularly in this clause. It is beginning to look as though his letter will be as long as the National Planning Policy Framework, which, incidentally, comes in at 59 pages, two of which are a list of the 44 codes of practice that it supersedes, which themselves were about 1,000 pages long. By the time we have some regulations to say exactly what we mean as a result of Clause 12, we will begin to unravel the NPPF.
There is a fundamental disconnect between what is in the Bill and what the Minister says its intention is. When I saw the Government’s amendments, I thought we were going to see something helpful, but I noticed that five of the amendments in the previous group were to insert the word “relevant” before the phrase “planning conditions”. One wonders a little whether one needed that word added. It is good that it has been, but can we just have the answer to the philosophical intent of the clause relating to planning as a whole and to pre-commencement conditions?
At Second Reading I mentioned that the National Planning Policy Framework—which is now treated as though it had originally been carved in stone at the top of Mount Sinai—had quite a troubled birth, with version one going around the Government for preapproval before it went out to consultation from the Department for Communities and Local Government, in which I was at the time a junior Minister. It came back from the Treasury with red ink all over it. It could not go out until the amendments the Treasury required had been made. Of course, there was uproar when it went public. In particular, the National Trust organised a very vigorous campaign against it. It turned out that the National Trust is the good cause of choice for a large number of Conservative Party members, who proceeded to let their Conservative Members of Parliament know about their dissatisfaction. One way or another, the consultation resulted in a completely different document coming forward, which was very similar to the document that had been drawn up and altered by the Treasury in the first place.
I rather fear that Clause 12 is another NPPF, except that we are at only the middle point, where something quite sensible has been turned into something that is not nearly so sensible and is fundamentally threatening many of the safeguards that the final version of the NPPF established so clearly, in particular the three pillars of sustainability when there is consideration of a planning application. Originally, I thought that the department had had the same experience this time that it had with the NPPF—it had gone off to the Treasury, which had put some red ink on it. But I realise that the current Secretary of State in the Department for Communities and Local Government was in fact the Financial Secretary to the Treasury at the time when the NPPF went on its rounds, so it is possible that the red ink was added at a much earlier stage.
I suggest that the Minister has a quiet word with the Secretary of State to explain to the high proportion of Conservative activists who belong to the National Trust—because he will soon find that out again—how much regard the NPPF has now attracted on all sides as a short, intelligible and easy-to-read planning document, and consider either scrapping Clause 12 completely or introducing a provision stating that local authorities are not permitted to impose conditions which go beyond the National Planning Policy Framework. I would have thought that that would achieve the objective which I think the Minister is seeking. Finally, the Minister should also convey to the Secretary of State the fact that this is a Henry VIII clause that Charles III will be most unhappy about.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I hope that that is many years from now. I thank all noble Lords who have participated in our debate on whether Clause 12 should stand part of the Bill and I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, to his place. I fully understand the circumstances that kept him away earlier. We did deal with Amendment 43A, but I will endeavour to cover a couple of points on it as we proceed.
As noble Lords will be aware, the need for new housing is paramount to deal with some of the issues we are looking at, although of course I accept that there are many other circumstances we also need to consider relating to the Bill. The Government want to ensure that, once planning permission has been granted, we can move on as quickly as possible with housebuilding. At present this does not always happen because too many planning authorities impose unnecessary pre-commencement planning conditions. I accept that they are the exception, but on occasion they require applicants to take action before any works can commence that unreasonably hold up the start of building supply. This is unacceptable to the Government when we want to address the urgent need to increase the supply of homes. I think that noble Lords realise that there is a balance to be struck and a nuance that needs to be dealt with.
I have sought to indicate that this provision does not give the Secretary of State the powers being suggested by some noble Lords. New Section 100ZA(1) set out in Clause 12(1) does give the Secretary of State the power to make regulations, but it has to be read in the light of subsection (2) which provides that:
“Regulations under subsection (1) may make provision only if (and in so far as) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the provision is appropriate for the purposes of ensuring that any condition imposed on a grant of planning permission for the development of land … is—
(a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
(b) relevant to the development and to planning considerations generally;
(c) sufficiently precise to make it capable of being complied with and enforced, and
(d) reasonable in all other respects”.
Subsection (3) goes on to state:
“Before making regulations under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must carry out a public consultation”.
This is not the wholesale provision which some noble Lords have been suggesting would give unfettered power to the Secretary of State. However, I accept that there are material considerations in terms of reaching a balance. I thank in particular the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, who recognised that. I can confirm that, as I indicated in response to the previous group of amendments, all of the issues raised are in the National Planning Policy Framework and so would be appropriate for the agreement of conditions with the developer.
Neither the Government nor any planning authority is in a position to force people to come to an agreement. The idea that we can somehow force either the local authority, as was perhaps suggested by some noble Lords or the developer, who may walk away at the end of the day because he is not happy with what the planning authority is saying, is wrong because we cannot—the National Planning Policy Framework has to be complied with. These are matters of consent and no Government would be able to do that, short of taking wholesale powers away and rewriting the law of contract, which we are not proposing. Indeed, I do not think anyone is suggesting that we should.
I am happy to go away and consider some of the points that have been made, but I come back to the point that we have to deal with inappropriate pre-commencement conditions. That is not to say that they are inappropriate as conditions—they may be quite appropriate as conditions, and many of those cited are—but they are not appropriate as pre-commencement conditions, and that is the point I keep coming back to. This is the intention of the legislation, as demonstrated by the wording of the new section. I do not accept that it is obscure or meaningless. I accept that there are considerations here but, if I may, I refer to the Government’s response to the consultation on improving the use of planning conditions. Admittedly, views were split on this, but it is not the case that all local authorities thought that the idea is a dreadful one. The majority—a bare majority, I accept—thought it was a good idea, with 44% either in complete support or supportive of the principle with reservations about the process. That was a majority in favour of the sort of action we are looking at.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, which has gone on for well over an hour. I place on record my appreciation of the Minister and the open and collaborative way he deals with noble Lords at all times in Committee, in the Chamber and in our deliberations outside. I get on very well with the noble Lord. I have great respect for him and we work very well together. Our job is to raise points and ask questions and I appreciate the way he comes back to us. However, he has not yet really provided evidence of why the clause is necessary or responded to the concerns he has heard from around the Committee. He needs to do that. His response to Amendment 34 in a previous debate highlighted why the clause is not necessary. He listed a whole load of powers that the Government already have at their disposal. I am sure he will go away and look at that.
I agree with the contribution made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, who is a mainstay of the Committee. I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, when he talked about unnecessary conditions. I do not want to see any unnecessary conditions being imposed or holding up development. I want to see joint working. Very few applications come before members of any planning committee. Most are done under delegated powers by officers. I do not want to do anything that would hold up development. The noble Lord, Lord True, highlighted real problems with Clause 12, as did other Members of the Committee. I hope that the Minister will come back before or on Report with some way forward.
My noble friend Lord Beecham highlighted the issue with the Delegated Powers Committee. The Minister has said he will address his concerns before Report. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, was right when she talked about good place-making and the call for developers and local authorities to achieve it. We have all learned the lesson from the past that there is no point in not doing that. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, asked whether it was necessary that these were pre-commencement conditions. Once again, we do not want anything to hold up development. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, may have given the Minister an indication of a way forward in dealing with the clause.
The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, said that there was nothing in the clause to give the Secretary of State any powers that noble Lords have suggested. I respect the noble Lord and the point he is making, but he has to look carefully at the clause and find an alternative way of saying what the Government are trying to achieve. There is genuine concern that it is overbearing and goes too far—that localism is being pushed out of the way and that a lot of people are not going to be listened to. I accept that that is not the intention and I do not doubt for a minute that the Minister will look very carefully at the concerns. My particular concern is that, however well-intentioned, this clause risks local authorities having less influence and less ability to build what they want locally. It risks poorer-quality development and housing and buildings that are not sustainable. I do not think anyone in this Committee wants that. I hope that the Minister will reflect, as he said he would, and come back to us before Report in one of his series of letters. I withdraw my opposition to Clause 12 standing part of the Bill.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
“Local authorities and development management services
(1) A local planning authority may set a charging regime in relation to its development management services.(2) In setting the amount of a charge under subsection (1), a local planning authority must secure that, taking one financial year with another, its income from charges does not exceed the cost to the authority of delivering the development management services for which the charges are imposed.”
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, Amendment 45, which is in my name and that of the noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, seeks to add a new clause to the Bill. The purpose of the new clause is to make provision for local planning authorities to recover the costs they incur in delivering their development services. This is needed by local government, which very much supports the proposal, and the amendment draws all-party support. Local government already subsidises this process by well over £100 million per annum, which is not right at any time, but particularly at this time of reduced budgets and pressure on local services. The fact that the Government are allowing councils to increase their council tax by up to 5%, particularly to deal with the issue of social care, shows how unsustainable the present situation is.
Amendment 57 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Beecham, seeks to ensure that the costs of the new planning duties are calculated and adequately funded. In opening this debate I will leave my remarks there; there are other amendments in this group, which I am sure will be spoken to, and I may also have a few questions for the Minister when I respond. I beg to move.
Lord True
My Lords, before other supporters of the amendment speak, I will briefly signal my view that this matter needs to be addressed. I spoke about it at some length on the previous legislation, and supported the relevant amendments.
As an example, it costs my authority over £1 million a year on a budget of about £150 million, which is a significant amount of money, effectively to subsidise aspirations to development. People want to appropriate an advantage—which is perfectly reasonable in a free society—but impose costs, obligations and sometimes potentially loss on their neighbours. It seems entirely reasonable that this service, which is a good public service and done well, should be paid for by those who by definition can afford it. If you are whacking in a development, whether it is an extension or a major development, you can certainly afford to cover the cost. I ask for no more than the covering of the cost of providing that service. I so much agree with what my noble friend Lord Lansley said earlier. We want good planning officers to enable this thing to happen. Unless we have proper resourcing, it is simply not possible to attract and keep good planning officers.
What is happening here, with all the other pressures on local authorities, is that a sector—those who wish to assert property rights and seek pecuniary or personal advantage by so doing—are being subsidised at the expense of money that is squeezed away from other sectors, whether it is the provision of education, social services, or whatever. I cannot believe that this Government—a Conservative Government—would wish in the longer term to subsidise this small part of the profit-making sector at the expense of broader public social services. Although it is above my pay grade—and although I hope that my noble friend Lord Bourne is immensely influential in the Government, it is probably above his pay grade too—I hope that at some time the cry that this is entirely unreasonable will be heard.
I also have great sympathy with Amendment 57 in this group. Where new burdens are added, please can the costs be considered or covered? Clause 13—to which no amendment is tabled; there would have been one had I been here last week—adds a burden. We had burdens on the housing and planning legislation last year, such as compiling new information and making returns. This means officers being employed—young men and women coming into offices up and down the country, doing time and sending returns to the Government. That is a cost on public funds. I would rather that no additional burdens on local authorities came out of government regulation, but if there are, please can we consider support, particularly in this highly pressed planning sector?
I therefore have sympathy for all the amendments in this group, and I am sure that there will be much give and take about what wording is correct and how it might be done, by whom or when. I beg the Government to allow this service for those who seek to make profit and personal gain and improvement—to which I have no objection in principle at all—to be charged at cost.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
My Lords, although my Amendment 48 is in this group, it takes rather the opposite view—or perhaps comes at it from a different angle—than the rest of the amendments in the group. As I see it, the other three amendments in this group all aim to recoup the costs, but not a penny more. That sounds like an admirable situation, but my amendment is about something quite different. We have heard in the Housing and Planning Bill that there are many developers wanting to do some major work who would be prepared and willing to pay for additional services at an extra speed to progress things. I understand from a number of local authorities that this would be welcomed. They could not afford to suddenly be burdened with huge, extra costs because someone was going to do a big development, but they would be quite willing to provide additional expertise if an additional fee could be charged.
When I spoke to the clerk who grouped these amendments, I asked whether it was appropriate for these amendments, which we are linking together, to be the two sides of the same coin. She said that it was appropriate and that, in fact, it might be an advantage for these two points to be considered together. I do not have strong views on this, but I do know it was aired very definitely in the debate on the Housing and Planning Bill last year, and I thought the case was reasonably well made. It seems to me that if it was possible, it would still be up to the local authority to decide whether or not to use that technique. I certainly think it is worth considering.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 45, to which I have added my name. As it is the first time I have spoken, I would also like to draw the Committee’s attention to my details in the register, particularly as a member of Sheffield City Council.
I have seen the effect of not having adequately funded planning departments and development services. At the moment, most authorities have to subsidise up to 30% and in so doing—particularly in the light of the financial position that local authorities find themselves in—many planning departments are under great stress and many planning officers have far more cases in their case load, which can slow down the planning process and, at times, lead to not the best decisions. That is not because the officers are bad or not looking at detail, but because they are so widely spread that they do not have the time to deal with each particular planning application.
This is not just about local government holding out the begging bowl and asking for these fees. Even the builders and the developers are asking that such money as is suggested in these amendments is allowed to be charged by local authorities. The British Property Federation survey of October 2015 found that two-thirds of private sector respondents would be willing to pay an increased fee which would help keep an effective service. It is not just local authorities but builders and developers who have said that.
As has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, in 2015-16, about £195 million has not been recuperated, which is a huge amount for local authorities and planning services. I hope therefore that the Minister will look at this. I think it will help, not just to speed up the planning service but to lead to better and more timely decisions.
Lord Tope (LD)
My Lords, I want to say a few words in support of Amendment 47 tabled in my name. Our debate is either a little too late or a little premature, because we have reason to believe that there is going to be something on this subject in the long-awaited and I believe now imminent White Paper. It may well be that before long we will know what it is, and we will probably then have a more useful debate on the Government’s intentions or, for that matter, their lack of intentions.
The points have been made and all these amendments seek the same thing by more or less similar means. The noble Lord, Lord True, put it very well when he said that there is no reason why local authorities at any time, least of all in the current straitened circumstances, should be subsidising the development industry in the way they do. None of these amendments suggests that local authorities should make a profit out of planning and development control. What one is aiming for, as far as possible over time, is a break-even position.
I discussed this with my local planning authority, of which I am no longer a member, and found that the planning officers are longing for the return of the planning delivery grant, which if I remember rightly lasted from 2007 to 2010. There was actually a lot to be said for it, because the funding it provided for local authorities was based on performance and incentives. What one should perhaps be looking for here is not simply a grant or funding for local authorities, but for a way that is tied to incentives. All of us want to see the housing target delivered, but we know that unless we do something quite serious to increase the resourcing of planning departments and to stem the flow of planning officers from the public to the private sector, where frankly they are a lot better rewarded, we are not going to deliver on the housing targets or, to go back to our earlier debate, on neighbourhood planning, particularly in urban areas, and I speak with knowledge of London.
Incidentally, I was not too surprised to learn that 20% of all planning applications are dealt with by London boroughs, all of which are severely overstretched because they are underfunded—budget restraints affect everybody—the cost of living is so much higher, and the opportunities for qualified planners are greater in the private sector than they are in the public sector. It is reaching crisis point, and if we are to solve the housing problem, this is part of what needs to be done. That is what all these amendments seek to achieve, and we look forward to hearing from the Minister a preview of what is to be in the long-awaited White Paper.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate, and I appreciate the build-up of the White Paper by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. I will have to be careful about what I say because as he has observed very cogently, this is perhaps premature to the housing White Paper which is expected shortly.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
Yes, it is imminent. Before I respond to the specific amendments in the group, I want first to echo what has been said. The Government recognise the impressive performance of local planning authorities up and down the country. We have certainly asked much of them in terms of getting Britain building, delivering new homes and providing the employment that will drive our economy forward. There is no doubt that we will want still more from local authorities, and that is why this issue is going to be addressed in the White Paper. I think we all agree that this is a matter of great importance and I am pleased that the White Paper will set out how it can best be addressed. I hope that noble Lords will participate in the discussion on it.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for his introduction, and my noble friend Lord True for talking about the current position, which I understand. Let me turn to my noble friend Lady Gardner’s amendment. As she indicated, it is perhaps slightly different from the other amendments in the group. It seeks to enable local authorities to charge fees that exceed cost recovery in respect of their planning functions. It is an interesting proposal but not one I can imagine would be immediately attractive to the applicant. We are certainly clear that the principles on handling public funds mean that when we set fees, such as those for planning applications, they should be set at cost recovery, and that is what we aim to do. Under the Local Government Act 2003, local authorities have the power to charge for discretionary services up to the level of cost recovery at present. I know many local authorities have chosen to use this power to charge, for example, for giving pre-application advice on planning applications. I think that that deals with those situations.
I turn now to the points raised by noble Lords who spoke to other amendments in the group. The points were essentially the same, but let me say something specific about the new burdens issue, which is slightly different and was picked up in Amendment 57 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Beecham. It seeks a requirement to consult local planning authorities on the burdens imposed by new statutory duties before commencing those measures. This raises an important principle and one I am happy to acknowledge. I recognise it is a priority to ensure that planning departments have resources to provide the service that applicants and communities deserve. As noble Lords will probably be aware, we have a long-standing mechanism in place through the new burdens procedure, which has crossed successive Governments, to consider and make provision for funding to local authorities for any additional work arising from new statutory duties. The approach to new burdens provides that when the Government introduce new responsibilities and statutory duties on local authorities, these must be properly assessed and fully funded.
As a matter of routine we discuss new policies with the Local Government Association and value the insight that it brings to the table. All the measures in the Bill have been considered against this doctrine and we do not believe that the burdens in the Bill, if there are any, are expected to have a significant impact on local authority resources. We are committed to working with local authorities to find ways of securing the finance, people and skills they need to maintain strong planning departments. As I said, this has to be seen in the context of the imminent housing White Paper. I hope noble Lords will recognise that these amendments seek to place in the Bill powers and mechanisms that the Government already have and that these matters will, as I said, be reflected in the imminent housing White Paper. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I very much agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord True, that these issues need to be addressed. There is cross-party agreement at local government level that it is important we do that. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, both here and outside the Committee, hears that. If costs are not recoverable and the planning officers cannot do their job, then of course all that we are debating here—the desire to move things on as quickly and efficiently as possible—risks coming to nothing or very little. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, also highlighted the need for these costs to be covered and the issues for local government to be addressed.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, spoke about the need to keep planning officers, and I very much agree with that. There are many noble Lords in Committee today who are members of local authorities, some in and some outside London. It is the same for planning authorities. I bet the Minister could visit any authority and he would hear the same thing, no matter which party controls or does not control it. There is real pressure on the retention of planning officers and around recovering the costs involved. It is a huge problem. I hope the noble Lord hears what we are saying and will reflect on it. I hope that he can come back to us with something, perhaps on Report.
As always, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, has highlighted some issues; she understands these matters very well and picks up on them incisively. I hope we can come on to them at some point, but my first concern is getting these basic costs covered. Perhaps we can have discussions in future about whether people want to pay extra to get things done more speedily, but for now the priority is getting these costs covered and getting planning departments to function properly. Having said that, at this stage I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Parminter
“Planning: duty to have regard to the protection of ancient woodland and veteran and aged trees
In section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (planning permission to include appropriate provision for preservation and planting of trees), after paragraph (b) insert—“(c) to refuse permission for any development which may result in the loss or deterioration of ancient woodland, and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location are wholly exceptional;(d) to refuse permission for a development in respect of which there is insufficient provision made for the preservation of woodland and planting of trees; and(e) to impose any such conditions and make any such orders as are necessary to protect woodland and trees.(2) The local planning authority must—(a) ensure that all planning applications are compatible with the protection and enhancement of the environment; and(b) ensure that the protection and enhancement of the environment is identified as a strategic priority in the authority’s area under section 19 or 35 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.(3) In this section—(a) “ancient woodland” means an area that has been continuously wooded since the year 1600; (b) “veteran and aged trees” means trees which because of their age, size or condition are of exceptional value culturally, in the landscape or to wildlife.””
Baroness Parminter
My Lords, I am moving this amendment because of the unavoidable absence abroad of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. The amendment is in my name and those of the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Judd.
The Bill offers an important opportunity to amend the way the planning system deals with ancient woodland and reduce the controversy created by planning proposals involving ancient woodland, which is often much loved in its locality, thereby reducing the delay that such controversy can cause. Ancient woodlands are important but their importance is still not well understood. They are woods that have remained under continuous woodland cover for at least 400 years, and in some cases for centuries, or even tens of centuries, longer. They are a complex network of species, soil, history and culture and each of them is unique, distinctive and irreplaceable. Once ancient woodland is destroyed or damaged, it cannot simply be planted again; this complex amalgam of ecosystem, culture and history is lost for ever.
However, ancient woodland has a lot less protection under planning policy than ancient buildings. Ancient woodland is increasingly threatened by planning decisions, particularly housing developments, where planners and developers see that the lesser level of protection given to ancient woodland by the National Planning Policy Framework compared with that given to ancient buildings is a reason not to give ancient woodland any protection at all. There are currently 600 ancient woodlands under threat from planning proposals. There is one that I am particularly familiar with in my locality, the proposed development of the Dunsfold Aerodrome, where the proposed access road will lead to the direct loss of ancient woodland. Yet the local plan of my local authority, Waverley, states that,
“the loss of ancient semi-natural woodland will be resisted”.
So clearly the wording in the NPPF gives developers hope that even a pretty strong local plan could be worth ignoring.
We are already at the point where so much ancient woodland has been destroyed that it covers just over 2% of Great Britain’s land surface. The amendment aims to give the same level of protection to this irreplaceable ancient woodland as is currently given to ancient buildings. Ancient woodlands, as my noble friend, Lady Young, said so memorably at Second Reading, are the cathedrals of the natural world.
We know the Secretary of State is not keen to put further protections into the Bill, and we understand that. However, we were very heartened by the words of the Minister at Second Reading that the Government might consider other routes, such as making amendments to the National Planning Policy Framework. Indeed, if the Daily Telegraph is to be believed, then imminently—perhaps even as imminently as tomorrow—we may see a White Paper making such a firm commitment, and we would be delighted to see such a commitment. In the absence of that White Paper today, though, the Bill still provides the potential to give ancient woodlands the protection that they deserve and so desperately need, and which we know local communities want to see. I beg to move.
Lord Judd
My Lords, I rise with great enthusiasm to support the noble Baroness in moving this amendment. I emphasise that I am very involved in the kindred area of national parks, and am vice-president for the Campaign for National Parks.
There is room for hope. As we wait for the White Paper, we hope it will have within it the same kind of undertakings that the Government have given on the national parks regarding their indispensability, their importance to the culture and the values of our society and the recreational and spiritual regeneration of those who are able to take part in what they provide.
I worry often about our highly quantitative society. There is a desperate need to reassert the qualitative dimensions of our society. Woodlands are rich in the heritage and history of our country. There are trees that have witnessed the whole evolution of our democracy and society over centuries. They are a real link with where we are, where we have come from and what we want to be, as our history is indispensable in understanding society and life and its challenges.
Other dimensions make the woodlands so important, particularly the ancient trees. Of course we want to build houses. Of course we want a thriving economy. But for what? Is it just to be able to say that our economy has grown and that people own houses to a greater extent than before? Or is it so that people can enjoy a richer, fuller society? Our young people need to have a sense of imagination and vision. Just think about what imaginative teachers are able to do with young children if they have ancient trees in their midst and can use the experience of the ancient trees in their whole approach to history, understanding and learning.
In my life, I have too often come across evidence of the absence of vision and space for too many of our youngsters in society, who grow up in a restricted material environment that denies them the opportunity to flourish as individuals and to become richer, fuller people. I must not yet again tell the story, which profoundly moved me at one point in my life, about a youngster—a seven or eight year-old—from an inner-city area saying that what was so exciting about being in a youth centre beside Windermere in the Lake District was that she had never seen far before in her life. What do we want our children to be? Automatons or living creatures with imagination? How will we sustain our democracy and our future unless we have people with vision and potential? Trees are crucial to this.
When I saw that my noble friend Lady Young was considering this amendment, with the able support that she has had from our Liberal friends, I felt that I must become involved, because this is an imperative. I hope that the Minister will hear the message and say that the Government will look with good will at the challenge. In a few hours, a whole story with its links and roots in history can be uprooted, thrown away and destroyed—something that has been there for hundreds of years. We must not go down in history as a society that has lost all sense of root, destiny and continuity and is just living in the instant in a material sense. I cannot think of an amendment that is more appropriate to the kind of discussions that we have been having this afternoon.
Lord Cameron of Dillington
My Lords, I would like to add my voice in support of this amendment and to repeat the point made by the noble Baroness about the comparison of ancient woodlands to, say, a grade 1 listed building. I will take an example local to me, which is Wells Cathedral in the county of Somerset. It is irreplaceable. However much money you have, you cannot replace it. If you destroy it, whatever you put in its place could never be the first English Gothic cathedral built on a Saxon minster. That is the real wonder of Wells, apart from its magnificence and splendour as a building. Similarly, we cannot replace an ancient woodland. Whatever is put in its place, it will never be a pre-industrial 500 year-old to 10,000 year-old woodland with all the naturally developed species and habitats that tell the tale of the specific centuries it has lived through. Even if a newly planted woodland were to survive for 500 years in this fast-moving world, it could never be the same as one which may never have been planted at all, but just emerged from the residue of the last Ice Age or the wastelands of a Viking, Saxon or Norman wilderness. Such woodlands are irreplaceable and this amendment needs to be supported.
The Duke of Somerset (CB)
My Lords, I understand that Amendment 46 is not central to the thrust of the Bill but it will definitely improve it, although perhaps as a bit of a side issue. The amendment seeks to do more than just preserve ancient trees, of which we have heard so much about and which are extremely important; in subsection (1)(d) it also provides for new plantings. The need for trees on development sites is extensive in order to improve the otherwise sterile environment that is often found on a new estate.
Trees improve the townscape by breaking up angular building forms. They bring colour in season, they screen unsightly views and enrich biodiversity and habitats. They benefit insects, birds and mammals, and provide a source of nectar for bees which are currently under much pressure from chemicals. They also provide berries for wildlife. Trees conserve energy by providing shelter and shade from the wind and the sun. They absorb pollution and particulates and thus improve air quality, which is an increasing urban problem leading to ill health and sometimes death. Trees can provide educational tools for schools in order to develop environmental awareness and conservation skills. The list of benefits is long and worthy—from the abstract by reducing human stress, to the practical by absorbing and mitigating the risks of flooding and erosion, as we have heard.
However, trees have to be managed and there are health and safety aspects to be addressed. For example, branches can sometimes shed without warning, but these are not too difficult to manage. If we had more trees, children might even rediscover the joys of climbing them and they might learn to respect and not to vandalise their own communities by damaging the young plants. This alone can foster strength in communities and reconnection with neighbours.
If carried, this amendment would add greatly to the Bill in an inexpensive and non-critical way. I commend it to the Committee.
Lord Framlingham (Con)
My Lords, as someone who has lived all his life with trees, I feel that this afternoon’s debate has suddenly taken off. We are talking about buildings and planning, which is interesting but some could think a tad dry from time to time, but trees come into the picture and one wonders why. However, we should be talking about trees and buildings because they should live together. Look at New Palace Yard and the catalpa trees; look at Tate Britain and the plane trees.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated in this very important debate on Amendment 46. I would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who tabled this amendment on this important issue. I know from the considerable work of the noble Baroness, Lady Young—who unfortunately cannot be with us today—as chairman of the Woodland Trust and co-chair of Environmentalists for Europe, that she has a great passion for this subject and I was very pleased to meet with her a few weeks ago to discuss these issues.
I recognise the importance of ancient woodland and veteran and aged trees. We have had some very cogent examples. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, gave a powerful example close to her own home and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who continues to have a distinguished role in national parks, rightly told us of the rich part they play in the heritage and history of our country.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, drew the parallel—or hopeful parallel, from his perspective—of Wells Cathedral, which is my favourite of all the English cathedrals. In my faith and integration role in the department, I have been visiting all the cathedrals of England in turn. I have so far visited 11, but Wells Cathedral is coming up shortly and I very much look forward to that. Many people have evoked that powerful, evocative and moving phrase: it is absolutely right that the ancient woodlands are the cathedrals of the natural world.
I thank the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, for drawing attention to the importance of the ecology of bees and wildlife, and echoing the educational aspect, as did the noble Lord, Lord Judd. There is another string to the bow of my noble friend Lord Framlingham: visiting prisons and saving trees. I thank him for that really engaging story.
There are number of protections already within national planning policy legislation and guidance. I have listened to the arguments today and on previous occasions from the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and I do recognise the importance of making sure these protections are made absolutely clear. As many noble Lords have said, the White Paper will be published shortly; I hope they will appreciate the aspects of it that indicate the way forward. I have listened carefully and can confirm that the Government do take this issue very seriously. We are talking about a massive asset to the country that we do not want to lose. With that reassurance, and in the light of the imminent publication of the White Paper, I respectfully ask the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, to withdraw their amendment.
Baroness Parminter
My Lords, in light of the Minister’s reassurance that the Government take this matter very seriously, on behalf of my colleagues, I am very happy to not press my amendment on this occasion. I thank noble colleagues across the Committee who have shown their strength of feeling on this issue; and it is good that the department is listening. I single out the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, who in many ways represents the best of the House of Lords, in that people come in and speak about what they know. Every time he speaks on an issue, he does so with an expertise and commitment which is valued by all of us. Certainly, on behalf of my Benches—although I am sure on behalf of others as well—I thank all noble Lords who have shown commitment to this issue, but in particular I thank him. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Retrospective planning permission
(1) Where there has been a breach of planning control, as defined under section 171A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (“the 1990 Act”), the person or body who has caused the breach must make a retrospective planning application for planning permission under section 73A of the 1990 Act (planning permission for development already carried out).(2) In respect of a retrospective planning application, the person or body who has caused the breach of planning control is liable for the payment of fees or charges to the local planning authority in respect of the costs incurred in carrying out the functions connected with the retrospective planning application.(3) The person or body who has caused the breach of planning control is liable for the payment of a significant additional charge, connected to the retrospective nature of the planning application, in addition to the fees and charges the person or body is liable for under subsection (2).(4) In carrying out the functions connected with a retrospective planning application, the local planning authority must consult the people residing in the local area to which the retrospective planning application relates.”
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, I feel very strongly about the issue of people constructing buildings without permission. I have twice been affected by this personally and I think there are examples worth quoting.
One example was my home in a country village, a lovely little one in Oxfordshire with stone walls, where I lived opposite Iris Murdoch’s home. When Iris moved and sold the house, the person who bought it sold off the barn. I had a view from my house right down to the centre of the village where some person had bought the field to keep sheep there to retain the village’s history. One day, I looked out and an extra four-foot wall had suddenly gone up on top of the existing wall. Under planning law, you have no right to a view, therefore there was nothing we could do and we were just stuck with it. However, I was so disappointed that the only way you could see that lovely view was to go up to the little attic and look down from there, where it was still visible.
The other experience I had, which is a much worse example, was in London. My home was in central London and backed on to a listed square. They applied to increase their building by one floor by taking what was then a little roof and turning it into a whole floor. All the local residents went to great trouble to make sure that the angle of light was still fine for the rights to light into our house, which was just three stories high. It went up, and it was fine. The next thing that happened, about a year or two later—I lived there for 35 years—was that I suddenly saw another attic being built which was not following the agreed rights to light that all the experts had said were perfect for the situation. The wall was going straight up. I phoned Westminster Council and found that in fact I knew the chairman at the time. I explained to him how awful it was that our rights to light were being taken away. “Oh”, he said. “What a fuss you’re making. Of course it’s being built strictly in accordance with the planning permission”. I thought that was hard to believe. About 18 months later he phoned me: “I owe you an apology. Unfortunately, it was not built in accordance with the planning permission, but the people have moved in and are living in it now, and we don’t feel that it would be fair not to let them stay”.
Over the years I lived there, the whole terrace of these listed houses virtually put on another floor, which always went straight up the wall and took the light away. Just before I moved from that house, about two years ago, the nice man who lived in the last extra floor—the original one, which had the correct rights of light—said, “I’m just going to bring my house into line with everyone else’s”. It would not have made a scrap of difference to where I was living because about three or four of those represented the space that went along my back wall, and he was the only remaining one. However, I found it hard to believe that something could be done and there could be no comeback whatever. When Barbara Castle entered the House of Lords—my history is that I was a candidate against her in Blackburn in 1970—I had an amendment down in whatever Bill it was to this effect, on retrospective permission. She got up and proposed that it should be made a criminal offence. The House was not going to go that far. However, it should be prevented.
I know that there was that case of the man who built a whole house and hid it with a haystack for six years, then thought that it was outside the statute of limitations and that he had got away with it. However, the court ruled that if you had never made it visible to people, this was not right, and I believe he was obliged to take it down. I am not suggesting that we go that far. However, the nitty-gritty point in this amendment— I have been advised so by planning officers who have dealt with many of these cases—is that unless there is a punitive fee for going for retrospective permission, there is no encouragement to go for any permission ever. It will not cost you a penny more, and you will get away with a lot of things.
I understand also from discussions we have had recently that often little changes have to be made when a building is in the process of being constructed. Sometimes a piece does not quite work out because it cannot fit in or for some other reason, and people have to look at that. I am not including that in my idea of what should come under this legislation. However, if you think you can get away with doing something which structurally alters the position for neighbours and other people and which would probably not be approved if it went for planning permission—or it might have, but there was no encouragement to go for it—why would you try to do things in the right way? This is an important issue and I beg to move.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I entirely sympathise with the objectives of the noble Baroness. However, I found the amendments as drafted not workable. Subsection (3) of the new clause proposed by Amendment 49 calls for a liability for a “significant additional charge” but it does not give any method of calculating that or saying how it might be achieved. On Report, an amendment inviting the Government to create such a structure subject to secondary legislation that in this case would probably be acceptable might be a way forward. In terms of subsection (4), I should have thought that if there is a retrospective planning application, it would have to be made public and subject to consultation in the ordinary ways. This subsection may be unnecessary. If subsection (3) were changed to convey a power to regulate for such a retrospective permission, that would be a way forward. Perhaps the Minister already has that in mind. The objective is right but we have yet to find quite the right wording.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, who speaks with great authority on these areas and here with personal experience. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for his contribution. How we deal with unauthorised development is an important issue that concerns many people. The Government are clear that unauthorised development is unacceptable and unfair to the vast majority of people who abide by the rules. However, the retrospective planning application process is there primarily to give those who have made a genuine mistake the opportunity to rectify the situation. There are, of course, such people. It also gives local planning authorities the flexibility to invite a retrospective application where they consider that it is the appropriate course of action.
It is important to note that retrospective planning applications must be determined in exactly the same way as any other application, that is, in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham is therefore right in relation to subsection (4) of the new clause proposed by Amendment 49. That for which it provides would be the case anyway.
There is no guarantee that planning permission will be granted just because the development already exists. The noble Baroness cited the haystack example and there are many more in which houses have been built that occasionally people find quite acceptable, but which because they did not have planning permission and because of what planning policy indicated, have had to be demolished. Therefore, those who undertake unauthorised development put their development, their investment and perhaps their professional reputation at risk. The sale of properties built or adapted without the necessary permissions may also present considerable difficulties.
Local planning authorities can impose planning conditions on the retrospective grant of planning permission to mitigate the impact of the development. Where unauthorised development proves to be unacceptable, local planning authorities have at their disposal a wide range of enforcement powers with strong penalties for non-compliance. I note that where an enforcement notice is served, as does happen on occasion, and the person appeals on the ground that planning permission ought to be granted, they are deemed to have made an application for planning permission and must pay a fee. That fee is twice the fee that would have been payable in respect of a planning application to the relevant authority seeking permission for the matters stated in the enforcement notice as constituting a breach of planning control. I appreciate that that is only where an enforcement notice is served, but in that situation there is already a double charge. This recognises the additional work involved for the planning department in dealing with both an appeal and an application.
The effect of my noble friend’s amendment would be to make retrospective planning applications compulsory for all breaches of planning control under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This would be difficult to enforce and could lead to unnecessary delays where a local planning authority is clear that such an application would be refused and enforcement action taken. Clearly it would be not be helpful to delay effective enforcement action by local planning authorities where it is evident that the unauthorised development is totally unacceptable. That could well be the case in some situations.
My noble friend’s amendment would also introduce a penalty fee in addition to charges in respect of the costs over and above the double charge I have referred to which is incurred by the local planning authority in carrying out its functions connected with a retrospective planning application. This would unfairly penalise those who have made a genuine error and discourage the submission of such an application for proper consideration by the local planning authority. It is a matter which I know previous Governments have considered and to some extent grappled with, but in the interests of fairness have not decided to take forward. I appreciate that this is an important issue and I thank my noble friend for airing it and giving the Government some time to consider it, but for the reasons I have outlined, I would ask her respectfully to withdraw the amendment on this occasion.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
I thank the Minister for his reply which I will read carefully. I may perhaps come back at the next stage with different wording that might resolve some of the points he has raised. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Public land registerRegister of public land
(1) Every local planning authority must keep a register of all public land in its area, for the purpose of identifying land in their area which could be used for development.(2) The register must be kept in such manner as is prescribed by the Secretary of State by regulations made by statutory instrument.”
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 49A would create a register of public land. Quite properly, local authorities are required to compile and keep an up-to-date register of brownfield land within their area. This ensures that the land is reused in an orderly manner for housing development. Most of the land is brought into use without too much difficulty, but occasionally it may be contaminated and require additional and expensive work to bring it up to a suitable state for housing. Given the extreme shortage of suitable land and the enormous pressure for housing in the country, it seems sensible to bring all the spare land in an area into use as quickly as possible. Requiring local authorities to compile and keep up-to-date registers of public land within their boundaries would mean that they would have an accurate picture of where the land is and whether it is being used productively or is just lying fallow. They can then work with the relevant agencies to bring the land into use for housing.
I shall give the example of a Royal Marines base not a million miles away from where I live but in a different local authority area. This base has been in the community for some considerable time, but recently the MoD decided to close it and move the personnel elsewhere. Here is a perfect site for housing. All the infrastructure, including water, sewerage and electricity, is in place, as well as a decent internal road system. There is unlikely to be a gas supply, given its location, but I could be wrong. No doubt some of the infrastructure would need to be updated, but the site would be much more preferable to digging up a greenfield area. That is just one example, but there will be others involving other agencies such as the NHS. Some of this publicly held land will not be as visible as a military base, but it could nevertheless be released for housing. Some of these parcels of land will be small, but could accommodate half a dozen houses, while others will be larger and suitable for 300 to 400 homes. The land supply shortage in some areas is so desperate that it really is time that all possible avenues were explored fully.
Local authorities with housing provision responsibilities are the logical and obvious partners to compile and keep up to date a brownfield register in order to be able to act quickly when redundant land becomes available. I realise that this amendment will not find favour in all quarters, but I look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
Baroness Pinnock
My Lords, the purpose of Amendment 49B in my name is to draw attention to and, if possible, seek a remedy for the significant delays and difficulties in getting some brownfield sites developed.
Brownfield or previously used land is well defined in the National Planning Policy Framework. The definition includes a wide range of previous uses. Some of these sites pose no particular problems or costs for developers. The sites I am concerned with are those that have suffered considerable contamination as a result of an earlier industrial use in a less-regulated age. Remediation of these sites can be very costly and a big disincentive to developers. There are a great number of brownfield sites. The CPRE research in 2016 estimated that these cover an area sufficient for 1.1 million homes. Those figures may be disputed but that is not my point. My point is that there are demonstrably large areas of previously used land available for development, many of them with current planning permissions, but the sites remain undeveloped.
Using brownfield land has a double benefit. It saves greenfield sites from development and uses existing derelict land in urban areas. This derelict land often attracts problems other than the visual depression it can bring to an area. I am probably one of the few people in this Room who actually lives near some derelict land. I can tell you, it is something we have been trying to resolve for years but cannot because it is heavily contaminated. When the Bill was debated in the other place, Andrew Mitchell MP raised this very issue and hoped that it could be addressed before the Bill’s passage was concluded.
The question is: how can brownfield sites be effectively prioritised? The Royal Town Planning Institute report of last year said:
“Previously-developed brownfield land in built-up areas must continue to play a vital role for a range of purposes including housing. But a ‘brownfield first’ policy will fail to deliver its full potential if there is insufficient available funding for the treatment and assembly of land. New proactive remedial programmes are needed to remove constraints on development and to make places where people want to live which are accessible by sustainable modes of transport”.
Unfortunately, the Government are currently providing disincentives for brownfield development. Not only is there a lack of support for remediation but there are incentives for developers to use greenfield sites, such as the five-year housing supply rule, which enables developers to cherry pick greenfield and green belt sites while ignoring brownfield sites.
The further consequence of the costs of land remediation is that when the land is developed, obviously the costs are greater and so developers are able to argue that any planning gain for the local community is not financially viable. Therefore, affordable housing is lost on those sorts of sites—the very sites where, often, affordable housing is needed. I ask the Minister to respond positively to this plea on behalf of areas across the country, including my own, where land values are lower than in the south-east and where, therefore, the costs of remediation can be prohibitive to development.
Baroness Cumberlege
My Lords, I have not put my name to this amendment but I strongly support what the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has said. I ask my noble friend the Minister whether he can think of ways in which we could introduce for developers—which I absolutely understand see that brownfield sites are more expensive for various reasons—some sort of incentive to make sure it is worth their while to develop these sites. I say to my noble friend that this makes such sense given that we have a problem finding sites for development. These are the obvious ones to use, except for the cost. I wonder whether we could build in incentives for developers to come in and use these sites.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, we on this side support the amendment. It is particularly welcome that there is a proper reference to obtaining affirmative approval for any regulations that are required. It is important to address the issue of land that is difficult to develop. My noble friend has just reminded me of the very successful redevelopment at Greenwich, which was a pretty bleak landscape. It required significant investment but it has paid off very well. We certainly need to encourage development there. It does not necessarily have to be private building development for sale. Local authorities and social housing can also be very involved in the process. Indeed, we want to see mixed communities of that kind, but this is not inconsistent with the amendments.
We need to facilitate development here, partly, as has been said, to avoid putting undue pressure on green space—whether it is green belt or not—but also because if they are not developed these sites bring down the quality of life in the surrounding community, of whatever nature that might be. So there is a triple benefit: first, for those moving into the accommodation; secondly, for the surrounding community; and, thirdly, because you are not building on areas that ought to be left as open space for the enjoyment of the community as a whole. We are very supportive of the amendment.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated in this debate on Amendments 49A and 49B, particularly the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Pinnock. The amendments cover two important areas.
On the new clause inserted by Amendment 49A, I agree with the noble Baroness that there should be transparency around land assets held by public bodies. Public bodies must be accountable for the assets they hold, and where land assets are no longer required to support the functions of the body, they should be released so that they can be put to good use, including the provision of much-needed new homes. I can reassure noble Lords that the proposed new clause is not required. A great deal of work is already under way to ensure that this transparency exists, and it may help the Committee if I briefly outline the measures that are either in place or being put in place.
First, information on government land assets is already made available through the Cabinet Office electronic property information mapping service, e-PIMS—that trips off the tongue. This feeds the Government Property Finder website, where anyone can search to obtain a list of government land assets locally, regionally and nationally. Where land is made surplus for development, the e-PIMS system also makes this clear.
Secondly, for land owned by local authorities, the Local Government Transparency Code 2015 requires local authorities subject to that code to publish, on an annual basis, details of all land and building assets, including undeveloped land. In 2016 we consulted on updating the transparency code. We proposed that in addition to the existing data on land and property assets published by local authorities, they should also publish, on e-PIMS, the extent of the land in hectares for each piece of land; whether that land is surplus to requirements; whether there are current or future plans to release the land for housing development; if there are plans to release the land for housing development, what the current planning status is; if there are plans to release the land for housing development, how many homes can be accommodated, and, for properties of 10,000 square feet or larger, the floor area of that property, the number of floors and the number of car parking spaces it has. We are carefully considering the responses we received and will be responding to the consultation in due course.
Thirdly, nearly three-quarters of local authorities in England are now part of the Cabinet Office and Local Government Association’s One Public Estate programme. This is expected to grow to 95% in 2018. The One Public Estate programme brings together public bodies across a local area seeking to unlock the value in land and property assets for better local services, efficiencies and local growth. In doing so, land that is made surplus can then be released. A condition of membership of the One Public Estate programme is that local authorities and their public sector partners must upload their land asset data to the e-PIMS system. Work is already under way to bring central and local land data together in the e-PIMS system. This will make land asset data across the public sector readily available to anyone in a single place, rather than having registers held by individual authorities. I hope that this reassures noble Lords that the Government are committed to ensuring transparency in the use of land assets and appropriate release across the public sector, and that they have a clear plan to make that happen.
Amendment 49B, in relation to brownfield land, is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and was spoken to by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. He cited the example of Greenwich. A development corporation is involved across the river as well—I am sure that the London Borough of Lewisham will have something to say on that, but I will move swiftly on.
I think we all agree that previously developed land, more commonly known as brownfield land, has an important role to play in delivering much-needed new homes. The Government remain committed to ensuring that 90% of suitable brownfield sites have planning permission for housing by 2020. That is our stated policy, but I appreciate that the noble Baroness is looking for more concrete action, and I will be moving on to that.
The Government already have a strong policy framework in place to encourage the reuse of brownfield land. We are also developing further policy measures in regulations, which will help unlock housing being built on suitable brownfield sites and maximise the number of dwellings built on brownfield land. It is an appropriate mechanism, as noble Lords have mentioned, in order not to have to build on the green belt, which of course we do not want to do and is not anticipated. That is why building on brownfield land is so important.
Paragraph 111 of the National Planning Policy Framework asks local authorities to encourage the reuse of brownfield land if it is not of “high environmental value”, and planning guidance reinforces the expectation that local plan policies should reflect the desirability of reusing brownfield land. Furthermore, in December 2015 our consultation on national planning policy sought views on proposals to create a presumption that brownfield land is used unless there are clear reasons why not. This consultation also set out proposals to make more efficient use of land by encouraging higher densities around commuter hubs and to encourage more starter home-led development on brownfield land. We intend to set out our response to these proposals in the imminent housing White Paper.
Our proposed changes to planning policy sit alongside other proposals to bring brownfield land back into use. The list is not exhaustive. We intend to bring regulations into force this spring requiring local planning authorities to publish and maintain brownfield registers, which was part of the Housing and Planning Act 2016. I hasten to say that I do not have personal and direct experience of the legislation, but I believe that that happened through the Act. These regulations will also enable local authorities to grant permission in principle to suitable sites on their registers. We are also committed to widening permitted development to help give new life to thousands of underused buildings, as well as accelerating the disposal of surplus public sector brownfield land for new homes.
I fully recognise that some brownfield sites have more constraints than others, and that will probably be particularly the case where land values are not so high. Greenwich had its challenges but of course the land values were greater there. Some sites may also require additional costs to bring them back into acceptable use. A number of financial measures are in place to bring such sites back into use; for example, £0.4 million has been made available to local authorities during 2016-17 to help with the costs of dealing with urgent remediation cases and, if possible, ongoing remediation projects. We have created a £3 billion home building fund to provide loans for small and medium-sized building firms, custom builders and offsite construction. Some £2 billion of that fund will be long-term funding available to developers to deliver infrastructure to support a strong future pipeline of housing supply and will help unlock between 160,000 and 200,000 homes.
We expect at least half of this £2 billion to be used to support brownfield sites, including land remediation. I am very happy if the noble Baroness wants to engage further with officials on that particular point.
Furthermore, where brownfield sites suffer from contamination, land remediation relief, offered by Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs for remediating contaminated land, provides relief from corporation tax, comprising a deduction of 100%, plus an additional generous deduction of 50%, for qualifying expenditure incurred by companies in cleaning up land acquired from a third party in a contaminated state. That is also significant. However, we must remember that not all brownfield land is suitable for housing development, and not all our housing needs will be met by building on brownfield land alone. As I have indicated, the Government have a clear plan and vision, but I am very happy to make officials available to explain the detail should noble Lords require more information.
To conclude, the Government are already taking action to support development on brownfield land. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and other noble Lords that the Government will continue to seek prioritisation of brownfield land for development. That is central to what the Government are seeking to do in relation to housing. Without giving too much away about the housing White Paper, this aim will be reflected in that. I hope noble Lords will forgive the somewhat lengthy explanations I have given in relation to these two amendments, but they are both important. I hope that, with the assurances I have given, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville
I thank the Minister for his very positive response to both the amendments. I am very pleased to hear that the Cabinet Office has a snappily named website where most public land can be accessed and in which most local authorities are participating. I shall go back and check that my local authority is participating. I can understand that some local authorities will perhaps be reluctant to upload exactly what their land holdings are; if I understood the Minister, that is a requirement of membership. However, I am pleased that there is some transparency around public land and that, wherever possible, it is brought into use for other purposes. I thank the Minister for the very detailed response on the issues around brownfield land. I found that very positive. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“ In section 90(3)(effect of deemed planning permission) after “except” insert “section 100ZA and”.”
Lord Beecham
“Review of sustainable drainage
Before exercising his or her powers under section 41(1), the Secretary of State must carry out a review of the impact on communities’ resilience to flooding of planning legislation, government planning policy and local planning policies concerning sustainable drainage in relation to the development of land in England.”
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 56. Some Members of the Committee may recall my account of the surreal experience I enjoyed some 13 or 14 years ago when I was telephoned at home on a Saturday morning by my noble friend Lord Prescott, at that point Secretary of State for the Environment, as York was being submerged by flood waters. He inquired of me as to where sandbags may be obtained for the purpose of dealing with this—surrounded as he was by the cream of the Civil Service, who apparently did not know. That is an extreme example of the then Government’s lack of foresight—I expect it has not entirely gone away—in dealing with what is a growing problem in the context of climate change, about which we have already heard a little this evening. It is imperative that there is a thorough review, not only of planning new development but, in my submission, of the condition of already developed land. Even now, for example, we are finding front gardens paved over in a way that simply contributes to the problem of excess water and, ultimately, places undue pressure on the drainage system in established areas, as well as making it more difficult to develop new homes in particular.
This is not a particularly radical amendment—far from it. It asks only for a proper review by the Secretary of State. I imagine that the Government might not be unsympathetic to that. It is not a matter, I suspect, that we will necessarily want to place in legislation. Of course, it may be one of the little revelations to emerge from the forthcoming White Paper—perhaps the Minister cannot tell me but we will find out in a day or two. If it is not, it should be. If it is not, there is even more purpose in raising the matter this evening. I suspect that the Minister will be sympathetic to this because it is a growing problem in many parts of the country. Alas, even now, insufficient money is being devoted to dealing with flood prevention generally, as well as the more detailed local applications of dealing with the issue in existing properties and developments. In the light of that and looking forward to a warm response to the Minister, I beg to move.
Baroness Parminter
I thank the noble Lord for raising this issue and support him in his call. I am sure the Minister will make reference to the flood review that is currently being undertaken by the DCLG and Defra. Of course, the noble Lord’s amendment not only looks at surface water flooding, which is what the current review is looking at, but puts it, rightly, in the context of the broader issues of retrofitting and other forms of flooding as well. I too hope the Government will be supportive.
Perhaps I might say a few words about the review that the Government are undertaking. Noble Lords will remember that in the Housing and Planning Bill the Government conceded that there would be this review of surface water flooding. I think it is a disappointment to Members that it is only a desk-based exercise, that there has not been a public call for evidence and that therefore engaged organisations have not had the opportunity to input their views. Indeed, no surveys have been undertaken of local planning authorities; it is purely private meetings with particular stakeholders, including the developers.
However, so as not to appear churlish, I reiterate my thanks to the Minister for agreeing to meet me and other representatives later this week to hear the findings of what we believe is the largest survey undertaken in the UK of SUDS. Of the more than 500 responses—including from lead flood authorities, local authorities and even representatives of central government—70% thought that the current planning policies were not sufficient to deliver sustainable drainage solutions. I hope the Government will consider those recommendations before they finalise their review.
Perhaps the Minister might not only comment on the noble Lord’s wish for a full review of the flooding situation but commit to agree to the findings, when we receive them later this spring, of the review of flooding by the Adaptation Sub-Committee of the Committee on Climate Change. I believe it intends to propose a number of recommendations around changes to planning policy, and I hope that the Government might be prepared to accept those. I am interested to hear the Minister’s views on how seriously they will be taking the committee’s recommendations.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for moving Amendment 56, and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for her contribution. I am afraid I will probably have to let the noble Lord down on this occasion. I am not convinced of the need for this.
First, as has been noted, Section 171 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 includes a requirement for the Secretary of State to,
“carry out a review of planning legislation, government planning policy and local planning policies concerning sustainable drainage in relation to the development of land in England”.
My department had already commenced work on the review prior to this section of the Housing and Planning Act coming into force by order on 1 October last year. The objective of that review is to examine the extent to which planning policy has been successful in encouraging the take-up of such drainage systems in new developments. My officials are working closely with colleagues at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency to gather evidence to inform the review. The first stage of the review—to survey local plan policies related to sustainable drainage systems—has been completed. We are now working towards the next stage of the review—to collect evidence on how sustainable drainage systems are deployed in practice.
Stakeholder involvement is a critical element throughout the review. We have been engaging with a broad range of stakeholders through two dedicated groups set up specifically to support the review. The first is a high-level project steering group comprising members of the DCLG, Defra and the Environment Agency, the Climate Change Committee, the Adaptation Sub-Committee’s secretariat, the Association of Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning and Transport, and the Local Authority SuDS Officer Organisation. A second-tier engagement group, comprising key SUDS-related stakeholders, will function largely as a sounding board of expert advice to be drawn on as the review progresses. This comprises members from organisations including the Institution of Civil Engineers; Water UK; the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust and the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management. Membership comprises representatives from local planning authorities, professional and statutory bodies, environmental non-governmental organisations, house- builders and other agencies.
We remain committed to working constructively with the Adaptation Sub-Committee of the Committee on Climate Change—an independent, statutory body established under the Climate Change Act 2008—so that the review informs their progress update on the national adaptation plan, due in the summer of 2017. Whenever I hear the mention of sandbags I always think of the organisation which the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, led so well. She did considerable work on climate change through that particular organisation.
In addition to this review, the National Flood Resilience Review, published in September last year, assessed the resilience of key local infrastructure, such as energy, water, transport and communications, and identified ways to protect it better. The flood resilience review includes an action plan that the water, telecoms and electricity utilities will develop and implement, with long-term plans—where not in place already—for improving permanently the resilience of service provision to significant local communities from the flooding defined by the Environment Agency’s extreme flood outlines. Both of these reviews, when considered together, address the role of planning relating to sustainable drainage and the resilience of local infrastructure in response to a flood incident.
It is in that context that a requirement for a third review is unlikely to add anything new. I am happy to discuss this further with the noble Lord, but I do think it is unnecessary and I respectfully ask him to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Beecham
I will withdraw the amendment, but I would like to ask for a little clarification. Is the review concerned with new or existing development? Drainage issues are something many of us can see in our neighbourhoods. Front gardens are concreted over for car parking purposes and other things, with adverse consequences for drainage. Is that sort of issue part of the review which the Government are conducting?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I think the noble Lord is asking about the first of the reviews—either the one on the Housing and Planning Act 2016 or the National Flood Resilience Review. In any event, I think the former of those—in connection with sustainable drainage—will certainly encompass that. I will double check that and be in touch with the noble Lord on that point. The second of the reviews is already complete. It was published in September last year, but I will ensure that he gets a link on that particular review if it is helpful.
Baroness Parminter
“Carbon compliance standard for new homes
(1) The Secretary of State must, within one year of the passing of this Act, make regulations which require a local planning authority to refuse planning permission for the building of any new home which would not achieve the carbon compliance standard.(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), “carbon compliance standard” means an improvement on the target carbon dioxide emission rate, as set out in the Building Regulations 2006, of—(a) 60% in the case of detached houses;(b) 46% in the case of attached houses; and(c) 44% in the case of flats.”
Baroness Parminter
My Lords, we clearly need new homes but we need to future-proof them. With homes accounting for nearly a quarter of our total greenhouse emissions in the UK, we need new homes to contribute cost-effectively to meeting our greenhouse gas targets, but also to lower fuel bills for home owners and avoid the costs of retrofitting. That would also enhance quality of life. All the evidence is that the frail and elderly, and indeed young children, face significant hardships and challenges from insufficiently heated homes. The Minister knows the strength of feeling on this matter from across the Chamber during the passage of the Housing and Planning Act. This is therefore a probing amendment to ask what the Government are doing on this extremely important matter in advance of the review that was alluded to at the time of the Housing and Planning Act. Given the time, I am not going to revisit the arguments that we went through on the Housing and Planning Act. However, since then there have been a number of places—Oxford, Cambridge, Wales and Scotland—where homes have been built and large developments put up showing where zero-carbon homes can be delivered at scale.
I have three questions for the Minister. First, following the Housing and Planning Act, what are the Government’s plans to meet our carbon emission reduction targets if they do not introduce zero-carbon homes? We have seen no indication in the industrial strategy or in any other government plans of how the Government intend to meet their carbon emission reduction targets if we do not deliver the savings on new buildings, which, as the Minister knows, the climate change committee says are absolutely fundamental.
Secondly, can the Minister confirm that the Government will not prevent local councils requiring higher building standards? There is some lack of clarity about whether local authorities can carry on insisting in their local plans on higher standards. Prior to the withdrawal of the zero-carbon homes standards, places such as Brighton required in their local plans higher building standards. Will the Government confirm that they will not prevent local authorities including a requirement for higher building standards?
Thirdly, and again another standing cycle, the cost optimality review of building regulations is imminent—I believe it will be completed some time in the summer. Will the Minister say a few words about that? When will it be forthcoming? In particular, will there be public engagement and a public call for evidence so that all interested parties can play their full part in making sure that we move forward?
Higher regulatory standards in this area should not be considered as burdensome red tape but as an essential requirement to reduce both energy poverty and the threat of catastrophic climate change. There should be no exemptions. The big volume housebuilders have the scale and resources to take it forward and the smaller housebuilders are fleet of foot and able to cope. Unless we do something soon on housebuilding requirements, this Government are not going to be able to live up to the commitments that they so proudly and rightly trumpeted following their achievements at Paris last year. I beg to move.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, we support the amendment of the noble Baroness. It is regrettable that having started off by beginning to tackle this issue, the coalition Government, it must be said, reduced the carbon standard requirements instead of building on what was a sensible approach. I hope that the Government—
Baroness Parminter
Just to confirm, it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, who, after we had moved out of coalition with our partners, withdrew the zero-carbon home standards.
Lord Beecham
I am happy to accept that plea from the noble Baroness and put the entire blame on the Government. In all fairness, it is usually the case. Of course, George Osborne is now history and perhaps some of his policy decisions can be reviewed—I certainly hope so in this particular context. It is outrageous that we lag so far behind most European countries on environmental provision and space standards for properties. I hope that the White Paper—tomorrow or whenever it comes—is going to address those issues. If it does not then they will certainly be raised when we eventually come to discuss the White Paper. I am happy to support the amendment.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for moving this amendment in group 24, and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for speaking to it.
First, I will set the context, which is partly the Paris climate change agreement. To take credit for it, it was of course concluded at a time when there was a Conservative rather than a coalition Government—although, to be fair, it was supported by all parties. It was a step forward, and we worked closely with many countries, not least in Europe. From the outset, I remind noble Lords that the standards for new homes were strengthened by 30% in the last Parliament, when there was a coalition Government, saving £200 on energy bills compared to standards before 2010, when there was a Labour Government. To meet those standards, homes will have A-rated condensing boilers, double-glazed windows with low-energy glass, and high levels of insulation and air tightness in their construction—they are very energy-efficient homes.
A very similar amendment was debated at length during the passage of last year’s Housing and Planning Act. That Act placed a duty on the Secretary of State to undertake a review—to which reference has been made—of energy performance standards for new homes under Section 2C of the Building Act 1984. We have commenced costings analysis to underpin this review, and our aim is to publish the final review in the summer. It aims to identify what improvements are cost-effective and feasible for new homes. We plan to extend it to cover non-domestic buildings and work to existing buildings, seeking further potential reductions in carbon emissions and fuel bills. The noble Baroness asked about progress in meeting our climate change targets. Obviously, domestic compliance and measures are important, but it is not limited to them; hence we have extended it to other buildings, for example. Transport also makes a significant difference to emissions, so the Inter-Ministerial Group on Transport and looking at what we can do with regard to electric cars is significant. There have been massive changes in California in particular, which the Government have taken note of and are progressing, because that will make a significant difference.
Over recent years, we have seen reduced costs of technologies and energy efficiency measures, such as solar panels, which were discussed in detail in last year’s debates. I emphasise that it is important that we consider only the very latest information and data on costs—that is crucial. The carbon compliance standards proposed in this clause are, so far as I can see, not based on the latest data—I think some of them are some six years old—although I appreciate that that can be looked at. Obviously, we are looking at all these issues in the round. To prescribe standards without up-to-date information would be difficult. I can confirm that changes to the building regulations flowing from the upcoming review will be subject to a full consultation. That will include draft technical guidance on how to meet the changes, which will cover all homes from detached houses to high-rise flats. The noble Baroness asked specifically whether local authorities are able to set higher standards than the national ones, and I can confirm that they are able to do just that.
The new clause also proposes putting in place new powers in the planning regime to set the carbon compliance standards. This is unnecessary, as there are already powers to set such standards through the building regulations. I appreciate and understand that the noble Baroness said that this is a probing amendment, but the powers are already there. Also, the technical expertise to ascertain whether a building meets a particular energy performance or carbon compliance standard already exists in building control bodies. However, this technical knowledge is unlikely to be available within a planning department. Our position is that minimum energy performance standards should be set through the building regulations, with compliance being demonstrated through building control bodies. That is what we are looking at.
I hope I have reassured noble Lords that the proposed clause is unnecessary, although I appreciate that this was a probing amendment in the understanding that the review is moving. The review will use the latest costs and evidence, and any cost-effective changes proposed will be workable for all home types, across the range. I am happy to share information on the review with noble Lords at appropriate points as we take it forward, if that is helpful. On that basis, I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Parminter
I thank the Minister for his responses and the clear answers to two of my questions. The public call for evidence for the review is very welcome, as is the commitment for local authorities if they wish to set higher standards. It is helpful that those answers have been set on the record in that way. On my third point, I appreciate that housing makes up only one component of the UK’s greenhouse gases, but it is still one-quarter. When we had a Department of Energy and Climate Change, it was looking at producing an updated road map that showed how much would be delivered by savings in transport and housing. That has clearly been booted into the long grass, but at some point the Government will have to come clean on the issue. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Andrews
“Compulsory acquisition: payments from charitable trusts involved in conservation
In a case where—(a) a local planning authority has the power to compulsorily acquire a listed building or a building in a conservation area; and (b) a charitable trust whose objectives include the conservation of such property has given an obligation by deed to the local authority to pay to the local planning authority the costs of such acquisition;the planning authority must exercise its powers to compulsorily acquire the relevant building.”
Baroness Andrews
My Lords, I declare an interest as deputy chair of the National Heritage Lottery Fund and chair of the Heritage Lottery Committee for Wales. We live in a time when every national and local asset needs to work for its living. Across the United Kingdom there are abandoned, and often derelict, properties, many of high heritage value and well loved by the community, that could be providing much-needed homes and spaces for businesses and enterprise and injecting new economic activity into communities. In other words, the amendment is a step towards enhancing the means by which these liabilities can be turned into assets. I am grateful for the help I have received from the Heritage of London Trust Operations, Diana Beattie and Colin John, and Ian Morrison of the Architectural Heritage Fund. They have much fine work to their credit.
What opportunity is this amendment seeking to create? Many of the buildings I am talking about are already on the Historic England buildings “at risk” register. They range from rare surviving industrial buildings such as mills or colliery buildings to historic theatres, cinemas, schools, piers, magnificent town halls, hospitals and domestic buildings such as a concrete house in Lordship Lane. Buildings such as these have been at the heart of communities. They occupy a very important, familiar and well-loved place. When they are abandoned, the cost of saving them and putting them to use rises exponentially and they deteriorate fast. Owners cannot be traced and local authorities find it impossible to acquire them. Year after year they look worse and become more dangerous, and the community feels their loss even more acutely.
This problem has been in the “too difficult” box for too long. It is no exaggeration to say that when these buildings come back into life, they galvanise the entire area: they can act as a catalyst and a confidence builder. I think particularly of Middleport Pottery in Stoke, the last surviving example of a pottery using the transfer method. After a long struggle by the Prince’s Regeneration Trust and English Heritage to keep it alive, it is now bringing in apprentices and its order books are full.
The amendment, which to my knowledge is the first of its kind to be proposed in primary legislation, is designed to tackle this problem. It confronts the fact that both the country’s heritage and its economic performance are, as the Architectural Heritage Fund puts it,
“suffering from an embedded culture of impunity for private property owners who are not upholding their responsibilities”.
At the moment, the system colludes with both negligent property owners and risk-averse local authorities. Owners are sitting on their property waiting for land values to increase and for the degree of deterioration which, in many cases, justifies demolition. Some of these owners cannot afford to put the building right; some refuse to do anything and they disappear. There are many ways in which a recalcitrant owner can resist a CPO. Some owners fail to respond and disappear. They are particularly threatened by any attempt by a community organisation to engage with them. That is frustrating, since to win a CPO case the public body has to be able to show that it has tried and failed to resolve the future of the property by negotiation with the owner. But the owner may be in a tax haven overseas and the property in the hands of a nominee. Alternatively, the owner may launch a series of frivolous appeals or put forward new and ludicrous planning proposals. He can try to block a CPO by claiming that he is about to start work—but the work is never begun, or sometimes it is started and then the owner just walks away.
The 2015 locality investigations under the Community Assets in Difficult Ownership project illustrate how easy it is for ownership to become a block on action. Local authorities have powers to act, of course, including compulsory purchase powers, but many feel that the process is simply too complex, too expensive and too slow. The costs are high because in addition to the compensation to be paid, the CPO may also have to be fought through the courts or at a lengthy public inquiry. There is every incentive for the owner to prolong the case. The risks arise from the possibility of the case being lost, the delays and the unpredictable costs; and sometimes by the time the CPO is confirmed, the other policy objectives which drove the process may have changed.
Another issue is that community organisations lack specialist knowledge and advice, which is a particular problem when what is needed is investment to establish the viability of a project in the first place, so it is all the more to the credit of organisations like the Heritage of London Trust, because when such bodies undertake a project like saving St. George’s Garrison Church, it is very hard work and a triumph when it is achieved. We have other outstanding local authorities like Great Yarmouth, which has made tremendous progress in bringing its buildings back to life.
The new clause is very simple and I commend it to the Minister. In effect, it means that where a charitable body that could be a buildings preservation trust or any form of charitable body, such as a community interest trust with conservation objectives, has given a deed of obligation to the local planning authority to pay the costs of acquisition, which are set by the district valuer, the local authority must exercise a CPO. The deed would be in effect a form of contract, even though I understand that it can be a unilateral undertaking such as those attached to planning applications. The costs of acquisition will involve all the transaction costs, thus removing any risks associated with taking over the building itself. In some cases of extreme negligence, the costs have been assessed as nil. Clearly, no sensible charity would enter into such an obligation without having the capacity to cover the costs, and a local authority will do its due diligence as well. Once the deed of obligation is in place, the local authority is then required to exercise the compulsory purchase order that will enable the conservation charity to acquire the building, which will then be restored and brought to life. Ultimately, the decision will rest with the Secretary of State, who will decide on the basis of the risks removed and the possibilities raised.
The amendment would achieve two things. It would first break the logjam of no one wanting to undertake any initiative because of the costs of acquisition. Secondly, it would provide a greater degree of certainty for community groups to enable them to undertake creative projects for the benefit of all. The amendment is carefully crafted and has been the subject of a great deal of legal advice and consultation with conservation and heritage bodies. It is also central to the principles of this Bill, and to localism as a political construct. It would free up resources for housing and enterprise and for vital community development at the heart of communities. It would serve our heritage in the best possible way by making it part of the future, and it comes with the moral backing of all the national heritage bodies.
The housing White Paper is imminent, and I will be amazed if there is no reference in it to this issue. We know the scale of the challenges facing the country, including those of Brexit, so this is a very timely and plausible proposition. I very much hope that the Minister agrees with me, and I beg to move.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, although I have taken no part in the previous stages of the Bill, with the leave of Members of the Committee I feel that I should now intervene in support of this amendment which has been so sensibly and compellingly moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews. Councils in their development plans published so far are still some way away from delivering the Government’s target of 1 million new homes by the end of this Parliament. That is why the green belt is now about to be sacrificed as never before to make way for new housebuilding on a large scale, even if many of the new settlements are euphemistically called “garden villages”. I greatly regret that this is happening while there remains a very significant amount of land designated as brownfield sites, wasteland and former industrial sites.
The amendment draws attention to another excellent source of buildings which can be restored and converted to provide new homes. Up and down the country, there are a great number of listed buildings and buildings within their curtilage which have fallen into a serious state of disrepair. Councils have the power to place compulsory purchase orders on such properties, but most councils never use their powers because they lack the legal expertise to act, they have better claims on their funds, and there are risks that initiating a purchase will drag on for a considerable time, diverting their human resources as well as their available funds.
The example of 549 Lordship Lane, acquired by Southwark Council and restored by Heritage of London Trust to provide five attractive and affordable homes, is typical of the many opportunities which this amendment is designed to unlock. Councils will be compelled to use their compulsory purchase powers where the costs have already been guaranteed by a committed charitable trust. They would quickly develop the necessary legal and other professional skills and be emboldened actively to approach charities seeking to commit funds to restore derelict buildings, thus removing eyesores which blight the landscape and alleviating pressure on the green belt. To place a duty on councils to exercise their powers under the circumstances covered by the amendment, it follows that there would be an increased need to assist councils by the creation of a central advisory body to help them obtain access to the relevant expertise. Perhaps the Minister might tell the Committee whether he thinks the Government could assist with this. It is to be welcomed that heritage organisations are already working together to provide an evidence base which will justify and promote interventions of the kind the amendment is designed to enable. I hope that the Minister will recognise the benefits that the amendment would provide, and I look forward to hearing his response.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the North of England Civic Trust and of the Historic Chapels Trust. Both organisations restore historic buildings and put them to use in very much the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, described. I welcome her amendment, because it draws attention to a particular problem: the reluctance of local authorities to use their compulsory purchase powers when listed buildings are in advancing disrepair, which in the end will lead them to a state where it is claimed that they can no longer be put right.
I have experienced that in Northumberland, with a notable building called Surrey House, which was a 17th-century building rebuilt in the 18th century, in which the Earl of Surrey was alleged to have stayed on the eve of the Battle of Flodden. I have not yet seen the evidence for that claim, but it is widely made. I imagine he got a good night’s sleep, because he had a pretty good day the following day—from his point of view. There was an application to demolish the building in 1970, and the whole thing dragged on for year after year. The local authority then was a local authority of 26,000 people, and was very ill-resourced to tackle something like this. I thought the problem might be resolved when we moved to a unitary system, where we had a much larger local authority, but it still felt the same constraint. It might go to the extent of urgent works notices, it would be reluctant to go to the extent of a full repairs notice, and it would be extremely unwilling to go to the extent of compulsory purchase.
The lack of legal expertise and the fear of uncertain court costs that may result act as a very severe deterrent to local authorities to use their powers. The result is that you have a meaningless sanction, where owners know that local authorities are reluctant to take the ultimate sanction against them; they can just play the system. It is appalling that this should happen in the type of case particularly covered by the amendment, where there is a charitable organisation in position, ready even, to guarantee the costs of restoring the property. We should not allow that situation to continue.
More generally, even if the Minister is reluctant to accept the amendment in the terms in which it appears, I hope he will recognise that there is a problem here. We have left the system for dealing with neglected historic buildings without a realistic sanction. The sanction has effectively been destroyed by the reluctance of many authorities to take these difficult steps. I wish they had not been so weak in this respect, although I understand some of the reasons, particularly with very small authorities. Unless we do something about it, we will continue to waste wonderful buildings which should be retained and can be of great service to the community.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Andrews. She ably outlined why the Government should give a sympathetic response to it. I was pleased to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, talk about 549 Lordship Lane. I know the property, referred to as the Concrete House. The council has won an award for its work there: it bought it, did a good restoration and now uses it for shared ownership. I support the amendment. I am conscious of the time and I hope that the Minister will also want to respond quickly.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, at this stage of our flight, the co-pilot takes over. After a very smooth passage with my noble friend at the controls, there may well be some turbulence. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for moving this amendment. She chaired English Heritage for four years, so she has a proud record in the conservation world. I applaud the way she is carrying forward that commitment by tabling the amendment to insert a new clause. She is well qualified and well informed on this issue. As she said, listed buildings are an important part of our environment: they create a sense of identity in a locality and support local economies by attracting visitors. As my noble friend Lord Trenchard said, this offers the opportunity to provide housing in some restoration projects. I also commend the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and the work done by him in his particular field.
We all support the objectives of the amendment, but there may be alternative routes to the common destination. The noble Baroness has been a CLG Minister herself, so she may feel some empathy for someone who, having listened to a popular and powerful case for a well-argued amendment, picks up the departmental brief which has at the top, “Resist”. I have two points of my own to make. Listening to the debate, I wondered if there had ever been a case where a charitable trust had done exactly what the noble Baroness had suggested—raised all the funds and then presented the local authority with an indemnity—and the local authority had refused to go ahead with a CPO. If there was such an example it would be relevant to the case that is being made.
My other thought was that, having sat patiently through the debate on this Bill, I have noticed a recurrent criticism that we are fettering the discretion of local authorities. We are accused of not trusting them, of passing primary legislation which makes them do things. The amendment does have the words “a planning authority must”. What is the view of the LGA, which is very well represented in the Committee? Does it welcome the discretion of its members being fettered in the way that the amendment seeks to do? Having said that, the noble Baroness was quite right to remind us that local authorities have the ability to compulsorily purchase listed buildings that are in need of repair. It is an important weapon in their armoury to protect our built heritage.
If one looks at the guidance provided by the Government, paragraph 16 of the compulsory purchase guidance notes states that it specifically provides for local authorities to consider requests from community groups—which could include heritage trusts—to use their compulsory purchase powers to acquire community assets that are in danger and, under the guidance, local authorities are required to consider such requests and to provide a formal and reasoned response.
In a sense, the onus is already on the local authorities to explain why—were they presented with the sort of offer that we have just heard—they feel they cannot accept it. It is also the case, as the noble Baroness said, that heritage trusts have access to grant funds and other sources of income to enable them to carry out the preservation of listed buildings and bring them back into use. What this amendment seeks to do is, in effect, to lock in a statutory embrace the heritage trusts on the one hand with the resources and the local authorities with the CPO powers on the other. I am slightly worried that this might undermine the collaborative approach which I think works quite well at the moment. As has already been said, the CPO power exists, but I am not convinced that the relationship between the local authority and the trust would be assisted if the local authority knew that the trust had this sanction behind it to compel it to do something.
On the point made by my noble friend Lord Trenchard, Historic England is working with local authorities and giving them advice and financial and technical support in many cases where listed buildings are falling into disrepair, enabling a satisfactory solution to be arrived at. That collaborative approach is the way forward. A good example, which if it were not 7.56 pm I would share with the Committee, is Hastings Pier which was restored in exactly the way that has been outlined.
The noble Baroness has commented that absentee owners are difficult to deal with or if the owners or reputed owners do not engage with the compulsory purchase process it can proceed without them, and the acquiring authority only has to make a reasonable attempt to find them. That attempt includes information in CPO notices simply displayed on site, as well as being sent to the last known address of the owners—then they can proceed.
So far as the trust is concerned, the cost of compulsory purchase is not always easy to assess. There could be court challenges and it could end up in the High Court. The defence of a legal challenge would fall to the trust and any failure of a trust to meet its responsibility to indemnify the local authority would put the trust’s future in jeopardy and the local authority would be liable for those costs.
In a nutshell, the Government are not convinced that the noble Baroness’s amendment to compel a local authority to proceed with a compulsory purchase would have a significant effect on the use of the CPO legislation. The current process provides a balanced approach, allowing local authorities and heritage trusts to enter into mutually acceptable arrangements. It encourages collaboration between local authorities and heritage trusts, and as I have said, that approach could be jeopardised if an element of compulsion were to be introduced.
I am happy to reflect on the dilemma which the noble Lord, Lord Beith, outlined about local authorities’ reluctance to take things forward. In the meantime, with the greatest respect, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Andrews
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister. I detect a sympathy beneath his detailed rebuttal. I am also very grateful to Members who supported the amendment. The points the Minister made are worth reading properly and I will go on to do some research in connection with the heritage bodies about the response of local authorities and the effectiveness of the guidance. There is an argument which says that advice and guidance are fine as far as they go, but what we are looking at here is case after case across the country of deep frustration, of failure of capacity and of fairly old resources. I take the point about an element of compulsion, but there comes a point in all forms of policy where something more draconian needs to be considered as part of a conversation about what the alternatives are, otherwise we will never move away from the sort of stasis that we have had over sometimes magnificent buildings but which are a blight and an eyesore when they could be so productive in the community. We will rise to the challenge and see whether we can come back. We may be back before Report with evidence, but in the event, I certainly withdraw the amendment.
Neighbourhood Planning Bill
Wednesday 8th February 2017
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeNeighbourhood Planning Act 2017 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 86-IV Fourth marshalled list for Grand Committee (PDF, 105KB) - (6 Feb 2017)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Dear) (CB)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung, and resume after 10 minutes.
Amendment 60
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
“Change of use of drinking establishments
(1) In regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, after paragraph (6)(o) insert—“(p) as a drinking establishment”.(2) Before exercising his or her powers under section 41(1) of this Act, the Secretary of State must exercise the powers conferred by sections 59, 60, 61, 74 and 333(7) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to remove permitted development rights relating to the change of use or demolition of “drinking establishments”.”
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, as this is the first time I have spoken today, I refer the Committee to my entry in the register of interests. I am an elected councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and one of many vice-presidents of the Local Government Association. I should probably also mention that I am a member of CAMRA and a supporter of pubs and the important role they have at the heart of local communities, be they in cities, towns, villages or more rural areas.
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley for putting their names to my amendment, which seeks to amend the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to provide further protection for pubs. I am looking for something from the Minister in response to the amendment, and I am very hopeful. We have to take further action to protect our pubs, and there are a number of problems that have to be addressed.
I pay tribute to CAMRA which has, since its formation in 1971, stood up for the enjoyment of beer, responsible drinking, the pint, and pubs at the heart of our community. It is without doubt one of the most successful consumer organisations ever in this country.
Permitted development rights, as noble Lords will be aware, remove the requirements for a building owner to seek planning permission before making changes to a property. That includes change of use and even, in some cases, demolition. The permitted development rights we are talking about here allow pubs to be changed to retail or temporary office use without securing planning permission. The effect is that local people are prevented from having a say over the future of their local pub. We should be clear that these are small businesses, not failing businesses, but decisions are often taken elsewhere and the community loses its pub without any say whatever. That cannot be right.
Pubs are a much-loved part of British life, and if noble Lords have not worked it out already, I like pubs. They bring people together to meet, socialise, watch the football or other sports, listen to live music, enjoy a conversation with family and friends. After our council meetings in Lewisham, we often end up in the Catford Conservative Club. Actually, it is no longer a Conservative club—it went bust, was taken over by another developer and is now called the Catford Constitutional Club. It is used by many people from the town hall after council meetings, although it was not used much before.
Pubs are also much loved by tourists. Both my brothers and my father are or have been London black taxi drivers, and they can tell you of the number of tourists who, arriving in London, want to get in a black cab and visit a traditional pub, as well as seeing some of our amazing sights. It is not uncommon for a Prime Minister to take a visiting head of state to the Plough at Cadsden for a pint and indeed, after the former Prime Minister took the President of China there, the Chinese bought the pub.
Permitted development rights, as they are presently in force, are estimated to contribute to the closure of up to 21 pubs a week. Of course there is the assets of community value scheme, which was introduced by the coalition Government. It has been a success, and we are pleased about that, but although it is a popular initiative, it has led to other unintended consequences. When a pub applies to be covered by this scheme, that can be a costly and time-consuming burden on local authorities, community groups and pub landlords and owners. For whatever reason, one or two local authorities do not like pubs and will not register them as a community value. They will seek to frustrate the process, giving all sorts of reasons why they cannot do it, often citing the fear of costly appeals. That cannot be right.
There is also the problem, which, again, is definitely an unintended consequence, that when a pub is listed as an asset of community value and its landlord seeks to raise capital he will have problems because the listing will be a charge against the pub and the financiers will have a problem with it. That cannot be right and, although it is unintended, we must deal with it.
The amendment would probably lead to fewer pubs needing to be registered under this scheme. It would put them on a level footing with other businesses so that a developer looking to convert a pub, for whatever reason, would need to go through the proper planning application process. It is, of course, possible that at the end of that process they will get planning permission, but the amendment would allow communities and local people to have a proper say in what happens to their local asset before it is lost. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
I must advise your Lordships that if Amendment 60 is agreed I cannot call Amendment 61 by reason of pre-emption.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, I come at this from a rural angle. In most cases a village or market town pub is an essential part of its community. We do not have many social venues or centres for leisure activities in the countryside; there are very few cinemas or discos, and in most places even restaurants and the like are quite rare. So, all too often the pub is the only hub where all those over 18—and even those who are younger, if they come with their families—can mix and socialise, and generally create the social cohesion that is the vital glue for any community. It is often in the pub that friendships and relationships are formed between young and old, rich and poor, that have such beneficial effects outside of it. People get together after a discussion in the pub to improve their community by, for example, painting the village hall or mowing the village green. And when old Mr Jones is sick or needs a lift to town, he can call on friends of all ages, who he has probably only met in the pub, to help him. As I say, the pub is all too often the only hub.
As I am sure your Lordships know, Pub is the Hub was a movement started at around the turn of the century to encourage publicans and their pubs to branch out and become more than just an outlet for beer, alcohol and food. As a result of this initiative, many entrepreneurial pub landlords started to provide other services to their communities, including morning coffees, internet cafes, office services such as photocopying, et cetera, and their pubs even became part-time village shops and post offices. These added services helped many pubs to survive where otherwise they might not have done so. The point is that when a pub is becoming run down and underused, it is often not because it is inherently a dying asset. All too often, it just needs a new, vibrant, energetic, imaginative, entrepreneurial and, probably, charming landlord, under whom it would suddenly flourish Sometimes planners, and others, cannot see that but it really can happen in the most unlikely venues. Pubs can flourish in the most unprepossessing buildings in the remotest of spots just because they provide a unique service that attracts customers from a variety of backgrounds and distances. I could probably take noble Lords to a few—provided they buy the first round, of course.
I know that the Minister will say that villagers can always apply to have their pub registered as an asset of community value. But—apart from all the expense and complications that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, highlighted—what average rural villager thinks in advance like that? For them, the pub is there; it has always been there, and, of course, it always will be. But then suddenly, a brewery or an ageing landlord decides to cash in on the high price of houses—as opposed to their currently non-profitable pub—and, often, it is too late for villagers to do anything: a vital asset is gone, and almost certainly for ever. This is because, in the same way that nowadays you can never get permission to open a village blacksmith, it is quite unlikely that you could overcome the unnecessary fears of neighbours if you proposed to have a new pub in your village. Only the existing ones will be able to offer this vital service.
It seems strange to me that a pub does not need planning permission to convert to a house when other less important changes in use clearly do require it. It seems that the most vital asset of all for a community—the pub—can be thrown on to the scrap heap without so much as a murmur from the planning department. This will not do.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment and every word uttered by the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Cameron. I am not exactly a drinker, let alone of real ale, even when it is warm, but living where I do I have sadly seen the onward march of more and more soulless developments. Much-needed housing—of course, there is a housing crisis—is often built contrary to the wishes of the locality and the people living there. With the march of housing, the hubs that have made living in certain parts of the country so agreeable have been lost. It is all the more important to keep the local pub, whether in a suburb or village, as more housing is added. Those pubs add to integration and help to cement a community.
I find it particularly upsetting, having participated in neighbourhood planning, that the wishes of the residents of a locality are so often ignored. It is very important, before any pub is removed or changed, that the local residents be consulted and that we all do our best to promote more integration and mixing as more housing is built, as it will continue to be in the years to come. I hope the Government will accept the amendment.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 60 but speak to Amendment 61 in my name, which broadly reflects the amendment moved by Greg Mulholland MP in the other place a few weeks ago.
I too am grateful for the advice given by CAMRA. It has summed up the case in three lines:
“The removal of Permitted Development Rights relating to the demolition and change of use of pubs will substantially reduce the need for Asset of Community Value nominations and reduce the associated burdens on communities and business”.
There are other considerations about the rights of neighbourhoods and communities and so on, which I fully support.
The previous Government introduced the asset of community value register. It is particularly impressive that it has been reported that 2,000 pubs are now registered as assets of community value. It raises two questions: first, it could be argued that because 2,000 have been registered, the system therefore works. The other way of looking at it, which I prefer, is to say that if 2,000 pubs have been felt by their communities and neighbourhoods to need registration, that is a problem because the volume is so great. A simpler method of dealing with the problem is required.
I understand that the London Borough of Wandsworth has applied Article 4 direction in the borough. I am particularly interested in that as a solution. As I well know from having to introduce Article 4 directions in my own council in Newcastle years ago, it is a very complex procedure. Anyway, it is quite difficult to introduce Article 4 in a rural area; it suits an urban area better.
I hope the Minister will take this seriously, because we will be back to this on Report. There is a simple remedy. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and my amendment provide that simple remedy, which is to remove permitted development rights. If the Government did that, someone wishing to change the purpose of a pub to something else would have to apply for planning permission, which seems to me entirely reasonable. I hope that when we get to Report, the Minister will see the justification for this case.
Lord Tope (LD)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Shipley’s amendment, which I think has the same purpose as that of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. I declare my registered interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I am not sure whether a liking for real ale is a declarable interest, but I am happy to declare it.
I support the amendment because of a particular local interest. When I looked at the website for a Member of Parliament in a neighbouring constituency, I found his campaign to save one of his local pubs. It included the statement:
“I would be interested to hear your views. I do have real concerns about the loss of pubs, which are an important focal point for local communities”.
The constituency is Croydon Central; the Member of Parliament is one Gavin Barwell. To be fair, it was a year or two ago, but the quote is still there on the internet—it is there for ever. I wonder how much he still has that concern, because the situation for pubs has certainly not improved in the year or two since he put that statement on his website.
I am particularly motivated to speak because of an issue causing considerable community interest in the ward that I represented until three years ago. A pub in that ward for most of the time I was a councillor was known as The Cricketers but more recently it became known as The Prince Regent, because allegedly the Prince Regent used to pass it on his way to Brighton and there was a vogue for changing pub names. We are talking about an outer London suburb and a time before the railways had brought the population to outer London. This pub had its origin in cottages built in the 1790s. That may not be very old in many parts of rural England, but in suburban London, the 1790s is quite old—it is one of the oldest buildings in London. In the 1850s, the Sutton Cricket Club was formed as the suburb started to grow. It used to play on the green opposite the pub, hence the pub becoming known as The Cricketers for more than a hundred years. So it has considerable historic interest. Whether it has architectural or historical merit is for others to determine, but it certainly has considerable historic relevance for the people who live there.
There is now a proposal to demolish the pub and build instead a nine-storey block of flats, considerably larger than the 18th or 19th-century building. The local community is campaigning hard to prevent the demolition of this historic monument, one of the very few in the area. It has applied to register it as an asset of community value, which has been exempt from permitted development rights only since 2015, so not too long ago. That process is under way and will, I hope, be successful, because the pub is considerably valued by the local community not so much as a drinking establishment but more because it represents something historic in a London suburb before the railways came, and is therefore of considerable historic significance. I hope that it will achieve registration as an asset community value, but I understand that even the status of assets of community value have their drawbacks.
I have spoken to our planners about this issue. They are very much in favour of this amendment and point out that if permitted development rights were withdrawn for all pubs, it certainly would not mean that they would all be preserved for ever regardless of the circumstances. Of course that would not happen; it would be absurd. If a public house is not viable and has no other beneficial use, it does not deserve to be preserved. However, simply to knock down a pub because it might make more money if it was turned into nine-storey flats is not in itself a justification for doing so. The removal of permitted development rights would mean that any proposal for demolition or development would be subject to the normal planning regime and to consideration by the planning authority. A decision would be made on whether the pub was viable and should be retained as a pub, with marketing conditions and a planning policy if necessary, or whether it was not viable but the building should be retained as part of a street scene, which may well be appropriate in the circumstances I am describing, or whether a complete redevelopment of the site should take place.
Another drawback to assets of community value, which I think was one of the most valuable measures introduced by the coalition Government under the Localism Act, is that the registration is valid for only five years. After five years you can apply to have the asset registered again, provided somebody remembers to do that, but there is no guarantee that it will be registered again. Therefore, while the provision is extremely valuable, it is not necessarily long term and is not without risk. Given the value that is attributed to pubs in particular circumstances, we are losing them speedily. I am told that 16 of the 69 pubs that existed 10 years ago in my London borough have gone. That is two a year disappearing from a London suburb with a growing population. Therefore, I strongly support both these amendments. I hope that our Minister will share the views expressed by the Housing Minister before he was the Housing Minister. I hope he will recognise that this is an important issue, that there is a way properly to resolve the situation, and that these amendments provide that solution.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, if my noble friend has ever studied the history of the most successful political party in Britain, as I am sure he has—I refer, of course, to the Conservative Party—he will know very well that for many periods in its long history it was supported financially by the brewers. The brewing industry played a very large part in supporting the Conservative Party in times gone by. They obtained some recompense for that support. My noble friend will recall that there was a period in history when the peerage was known as the “Beerage” because of the amount of compensation received by individuals who had supported the Conservative Party. Those people would turn in their grave if they thought that the Conservative Party of modern times was in any way against public houses which, as has been said eloquently by many noble Lords and noble Baronesses, perform an important role in not only our urban but our rural life.
I am familiar with a pub in the West End of London off the Edgware Road which dedicated itself to members of the Royal Air Force during the war and had pictures of all the great names from The Few, and so forth. The chap who ran the pub had a handlebar moustache; the pub was an object of great interest to tourists and others and was a great business. However, that pub has gone because the value of the property as a residential building was much greater than it was as a pub. Frankly, that is a tragedy for the tourist industry and for London. The closure of pubs affects the personality of our country not only in London but also in rural areas. I plead with my noble friend as a Conservative Peer to look at this issue most sympathetically. I hope that he will do so when it comes back on Report.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I have not participated in proceedings on the Bill before, so I apologise to the Committee for coming late in the day. In the light of what I am going to say, I also owe an apology to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and other noble Lords who have put their names to the amendments in this group as I am going to urge my noble friend to resist them. They are perfectly well meaning, but they are the statutory equivalent of trying to make water flow uphill. They can only inhibit, or slow, pub closures. The brutal truth is that there are too many pubs for modern Britain, too often they are in the wrong place and the whole sector is insufficiently profitable. In cases on the margin, where they could, perhaps, be profitable under other ownership, the opportunity to list as an ACV exists, as several noble Lords have said. Pubs are perfectly adequately protected.
This is an issue which arouses strong emotions. Until February 2014—more than three years ago, and therefore outside the time during which I have to declare a past interest—I was a non-executive director of a major integrated brewery and pub operator. It had five breweries from Cockermouth in Cumbria down to Ringwood in Hampshire and operated more than 2,000 pubs. Some were managed—there was an employee running the pub—and some had tenants and were tied, as was the case in those days. It is often overlooked, but that is a very easy way for people to set up their own business because you have a business offered to you, which you can operate, and you can begin straightaway without having to put up much, if any, capital. While under the old system, you had to buy your beer and soft drinks from the owner, food was down to you. I declare that interest because it is important as this is an issue which arouses strong emotions. The last time we got into this discussion, which was last summer, I managed to obtain a starring role in Private Eye as a result of CAMRA’s intervention. My speech was described as “the high point in an otherwise undistinguished political career”, which I thought was fair dues. So are you listening, Private Eye, as I want to get that on the record?
Why does this issue arouse such strong emotions? The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, touched on it. It is because of how people view a community. A community has three aspects that people think are important. They think there should be a shop or post office, some place of worship—a church—and a pub. They do not necessarily want to use them a lot. They will go to the shop or the post office when they have forgotten to buy bread and milk at Tesco. They will not go to church very often. They will go at Christmas and Easter, if they are Christians. They may want to get married there, they may want to have their children christened there and to be buried there—hatches, matches and dispatches—but they will not go much apart from that. They will go to the pub occasionally, but not regularly. The reality is that if you do not use it, you lose it. Most of the pubs that are under pressure are not attracting sufficient custom to be a profitable operation, but because of what is in people’s view of a community, if any of those three pillars is going to close down, people will get exceptionally excited about it and believe that somehow, something must be done—hence the emergence of the ACV procedures.
The second reason people feel so strongly about it is the belief which CAMRA has assiduously fostered—I pay tribute to its campaigning capability because it has been the most enormously successful pressure group—that somewhere in this operation there is a pot of money, that someone is making a lot of money somewhere, and if only it got down to the pub and the pub owner all would be right and the pubs would be happy and we would be in the sunlit uplands once again. The reality is that the sector is under enormous economic and societal pressures. There is not a lot of money in the sector and the idea that somehow pub owners or brewers are making huge profits at the expense of landlords does not tie in with reality. The reality is very different. It is a sector under stupendous strain—and I shall give the Committee three or four quick reasons for that. First, there is exceptionally cheap supermarket alcohol. If noble Lords go to a supermarket on the weekend before a bank holiday weekend, when things are on offer, they can probably buy lager for 60p or 70p a pint. If they go to a pub, they will pay £3 for it. So a lot of people are increasingly buying alcohol in the supermarket and drinking it at home.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my local government interests and should also, having regard to what the noble Lord has just said, express an interest in Leicester City, which is my second team after Newcastle United, although it is not doing too well at the moment.
Noble Lords might be surprised to learn that I cannot pretend to be a great frequenter of pubs, but the noble Lord, in his remarks, overlooked one important aspect, which is that increasingly public houses are not just places to drink. For example, I suspect a lot of people in Leicester, Derby and elsewhere tonight will be watching the football match to which he referred on the television in the pub, in company. More particularly, pubs are now very much part of the hospitality industry. Gastropubs are common, and I can cite many examples in the north-east of where all the pubs, both in rural villages and in towns, provide very good eating. It is a relatively new thing, but very much part of the social life of the area and of the appeal to visitors in so many places, and I do not think the noble Lord has really taken that into account. I certainly support the amendment moved by my noble friend.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I also support the amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and my noble friend Lord Shipley. I declare my interest in the register as a member of Sheffield City Council.
I listened particularly to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. I think he needs to understand that nobody is talking about trying to make it more difficult or easier for pubs to stay open. This is about a sense of fairness in the planning process. A pub, like any other commercial organisation, before it decides to change use for whatever reason, whether it is failing, or as my noble friend Lord Tope said, to make a profit from land, has to go through the planning process and the community has a say. The decision will be made on planning criteria about whether it is right to convert and change the use of a pub.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
Is the noble Lord therefore intending to apply this to every restaurant, every Starbucks and every community activity, or is he picking out pubs and making them the one group to which he wishes to apply these restrictions?
Lord Scriven
As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said at the start, most businesses do not have this automatic permitted right. There is something particular about a pub, especially with regard to its community value. As a leader of a council, I can tell noble Lords that communities do not usually come out to fight if there is a change in a supermarket or garage. There are two commercial organisations that people fight to protect because of their uniqueness in binding the community together: one is the post office and the other is the pub. Because of a pub’s social asset—not just its commercial asset, to which the noble Lord referred—and the way in which it binds people together and has a significance beyond the commercial element, it is really important that this is looked at by the planning process. It is fair for the community and the planning process to decide whether it is right to change the use of a particular pub.
In my city of Sheffield—noble Lords are welcome to come and have a tipple because the New York Times recently defined it as the “beer capital of Britain”—we have lost 68 pubs since 2011. There is one, the Plough in Crookes, which I think typifies why we need to have a change and why these amendments are important. The pub is at the heart of the community. Sheffield is not just an urban mass; it is made up of communities within an urban setting. That is what most cities and towns are like. The pub in Crookes is the glue that binds and yet, without any reference to the community or any understanding of whether it was viable or not, the pub chain decided to change its use and turn it into a supermarket. The community had no voice; it had no say and had to go through the asset of community value process.
It is interesting that the asset of community value was accepted by the council and now the pub is going through the planning process. However, the issue is that the community should not have to fight to be able to have a say about whether a pub changes; it should be automatically within the planning process. That is all the amendments seek to achieve. They ask for a sense of fairness and for the community to have a voice. Then the normal and natural planning process will take place and a decision will be made on planning grounds about whether it is right or wrong to change the use of that pub.
These amendments are about fairness and communities having a voice, and making sure that good decisions are made on planning grounds. Planning is not just about the commercial use; it is about what binds and makes good communities. Commercial organisations should not have an automatic right to change a community asset when they consider it viable and profitable because changing it into flats or a supermarket would make them more money.
Lord Swinfen (Con)
My Lords, briefly, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. A local village pub gives the opportunity for people to go out for a drink, and possibly a meal, and to walk home rather than having to drive. If you go out for a meal and cannot or should not drink because you have to drive home, it can wreck the evening for at least one member of the party. If you walk home then even if someone has had a little too much, they can be helped quite easily. The local pub is a very useful institution. In the 40 years that I have been in my village, three pubs have closed down and we are now left with two. One provides some form of entertainment at least once if not twice a week throughout the year and the other, as well as being a pub, has a very good restaurant and rooms for people to stay in—so they serve different communities. The village had five pubs in the past because it is on the main route for pilgrims coming from the continent to Canterbury Cathedral. Nowadays, they come in on coaches from Dover and do not use their legs, which perhaps might atrophy in due course. For these reasons, I support this amendment.
Lord Framlingham (Con)
My Lords, I had not intended to speak in this debate but I do so in support of the amendment, mainly because I am very fond of pubs. I am a great pub user and always have been—paying great tribute to Adnams bitter in Suffolk is, I think, in order.
Perhaps it is necessary for us to appreciate just how important the pub is in village life. The local post office is too, but we are talking about pubs. In modern terms, you either get that or you do not, but it is absolutely crucial. In my village of Mellis in Suffolk, we have a pub called the Railway Tavern. Many years ago it broke away from the brewery. That was a problem because it had to buy all its alcohol from it, which affected its profitability. That did not work and it was boarded up for a while. It was then bought, but that landlord did not make it work and it was boarded up again. Then the village got together and, with the present landlord, ran it for two to four weeks to get it going—such was the village feeling about the pub. It is now going well and Frank, the present landlord, does an extremely good job. The pub does everything: it has wi-fi, fish and chips regularly on a Friday night and quizzes. It really is the heart of the village.
Noble Lords have referred to the number of village pubs there used to be. We could all talk about our towns and villages that used to have 20 pubs and now have only one. We have reached the stage where this is very serious. Those who feel strongly about the role of the pub in towns and villages—about how crucial they are to village life—must stand up for them. If this amendment will do anything to make it a little more difficult to transform a pub quickly and commercially into something else, I am all for it. I therefore very much support the amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated in the debate on Amendments 60 and 61. I also thank those noble Lords who attended the briefing session this morning on the White Paper and I urge others to pick up a copy from the Printed Paper Office. We will put on further sessions on it but as I had undertaken to hold a session before Report, I thought it was important that we did so. I am very grateful to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, Gavin Barwell, both of whom were there. As I said, we will have more sessions; in the meantime the consultation on those items we are consulting on is open until 2 May.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Shipley, for speaking so eloquently on Amendments 60 and 61. I will concentrate first on what we have done and are doing, then look at the substance of the debate and pick up the points made by noble Lords. I do not think we have had this much interest on anything in the Bill, and certainly not since we debated ancient woodlands. These things are clearly central to our well-being and life in our country.
Noble Lords have raised a number of concerns about the loss of valued community pubs. I would therefore first reassure the Committee that we recognise the role that pubs can, and do, play in local communities. They provide valuable local hubs that strengthen community relationships and encourage wider social interaction, as well as contributing to our wider economy. The nature of the pub has changed massively in our lifetime; they are very different now from 20 or 30 years ago, when I think many were still primarily drinking establishments. Those are very much the exception now. It is now not at all unusual for people to go to a pub for a meal, and come out not having had an alcoholic drink. For a party of four or five, one person will perhaps be nominated as driver and others may just have a glass of wine with a meal. We can all see that it is very different from the way it used to be.
The importance of the pub is recognised in paragraph 70 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which requires local planning authorities:
“To deliver the social, recreational and cultural facilities and services the community needs”.
In doing so, it says that those authorities should,
“plan positively for the provision and use of … community facilities (such as … meeting places, sports venues”,
and “public houses”. Before turning to the detail of the amendments, I take this opportunity to set out the important steps we have already taken to support valued community pubs.
First, alongside Power to Change, an independent charitable trust that supports community businesses across England, we are co-funding the “More than a pub” community pub business support programme. This will provide £3.62 million of grants and loans to enable up to 80 communities to buy their pubs between 2016 and 2018. We also recently announced funding of £50,000 to support the organisation Pub is the Hub’s work on community-focused pub-based services. This will help more pubs diversify to provide essential community services, which would otherwise have been lost. As an example, the Codrington Arms in Gloucestershire recently reinstated the local post office and village shop by utilising an outhouse on the premises of the pub, which is to be applauded.
Communities can also use the powers given to them through the community right to bid to list their local pub as an asset of community value. To date—I think the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has already given this figure—local communities all over England have listed nearly 4,000 assets, of which 2,000 are pubs, so I would say that this has been successful. Views have differed; I think the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, indicated that he was not as impressed by that as others have been. We will continue to listen to evidence on the operation of this legislation and examples of good practice. It would be helpful if those noble Lords who said that the process is complicated or costly, which I do not accept although I do not have evidence to counter it, were able to come up with some evidence that it is costly or difficult—or even that communities are unaware of it. I would be interested in that. Separately, we scrapped the beer and alcohol duty escalators and froze beer duty in Budget 2016, having reduced it in each of the three preceding Budgets.
I would like to respond in more detail to the noble Lords’ amendments. Both Amendment 60 and Amendment 61 seek to remove the permitted development rights allowing a pub to change to a restaurant, financial or professional service or shop, or to be demolished. This would be for all pubs and mean that a planning application would be needed in all cases. Noble Lords will, I am sure, be familiar with the important changes that we made on 6 April 2015. These were precisely to remove permitted development rights from pubs which are valued community assets, so that a decision in those cases would be made at local level. From this date, permitted development rights allowing the change of use or demolition of pubs are removed in respect of pubs and other drinking establishments which the community has demonstrated it values by nominating them as an asset of community value.
Permitted development rights therefore do not apply for as long as the pub is nominated or listed as an asset of community value. This means that a planning application is then required, allowing for local consideration and providing an opportunity for the local community to put forward its views to the planning authority. To guide decisions in these cases, it is important that local planning authorities have relevant policies in place in line with the National Planning Policy Framework.
I therefore urge local communities to come forward and nominate their valued community pubs. The community in Charing did this fairly recently and successfully prevented a change of use of its pub. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, referred to an example in his community, too. I say in passing that there is separate protection for historic buildings. If a pub qualifies on that basis, that is in addition to the normal planning requirements. That would apply to quite a lot of village pubs, although I accept that not all pubs would qualify in that way.
If there are local concerns about the prospect of a pub that is not nominated or listed changing use under permitted development rights, the local planning authority can make an Article 4 direction—the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, mentioned the Wandsworth example. A direction can be made in respect of an individual pub or pubs in an area. We consider that this approach provides valuable protection while avoiding blanket regulation, which would add bureaucracy and costs to all pubs.
Although it is not a declarable interest, I should say that in another life, when I was in the National Assembly for Wales, I was the co-chair of the Cross-Party Group on Beer and the Pub. Before someone trails my biography, finds that and says, “You didn’t mention that”, I mention it now. So I speak with a bit of experience of visiting pubs—mostly in Wales, but not exclusively. There are many thriving pubs that are worthy of protection. When you have to queue at the bar to get a drink or order a meal, that cannot be because they are doing badly. There are, on the other hand, pubs—I can think of many, although of course I will not name them—where you walk in and you know straightaway that it is in trouble. The person behind the bar looks indifferent. The pub does not do food; it may do a bag of crisps, but that is about it. I cannot see why we should seek to protect such pubs. They are often in dreary buildings—it is just the feel of the place.
That said, there are many pubs of which you think, “This is an important, integral part of the community”. I have been in community pubs that do a range of things; there may be a citizens advice bureau, a visiting library or the village shop. When you speak to the people who go there in the evening, you find that some did not go until it started to do all these things. Some people past the retirement age who would not have set foot in a pub when they were younger go there and help with the meals, for example. They just generally like the life that is there. That applies to young people, too. I have seen this. The nature of the pub is changing. Some pubs are, as I said, an integral part of the village. I associate myself with what was said about the closure of a village shop, post office or pub. That often excites interest from the community, because these things are community assets. I understand the point that is being made.
Let me turn to some of the comments that have been made. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, talked about the vital glue that holds a community together— entrepreneurial flair is needed and engendered in some communities, while there are other communities where that is just not happening. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, talked about the cement for communities; again, I understand the point that is being made. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, correctly said that the protection as a community asset is only for five years. I find it hard to believe that successful community pubs will not know that they have to reapply. They will be aware of that. After you have made the initial application, it will not be difficult to make the reapplication five years on, if that is still appropriate. My noble friend Lord Horam talked about the historic connection of the Conservative Party with the brewing industry. My noble friend Lord Young has asked me to make it absolutely clear, as I do, that he has no connection with the brewing industry—nor do I, in a financial sense. We now have that on the record.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, we have discussed this group of amendments for over an hour, so I feel that we are getting close to “closing time” on it. However, I wish to make a few brief comments. I join the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, in paying tribute to Pub is the Hub. It is a great organisation for the very reason it has kept village pubs going and offering all sorts of other services. That is an excellent initiative. I first saw a pub being used as a corner shop, post office and other things in the Republic of Ireland. Many pubs in Ireland—or bars, as they are called there—do that very successfully.
CAMRA is a great organisation. I am sorry that it appears to have irritated the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, perhaps in a previous life. CAMRA’s website used to boast that its membership was bigger than that of any political party in Britain. It now says that its membership is bigger than all but one, that being the Labour Party. That has involved us in all sorts of other issues that I shall not enter into today. However, I noted that interesting change on CAMRA’s website.
I very much agreed with most of the comments made by many noble Lords on this issue. However, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, may have misunderstood our amendment. Nothing in it seeks to keep open a failing pub, and noble Lords seemed to support that. A failing pub will close. I accept the point he made about how things have changed. I grew up in south London and when I was a young boy there was a pub on every corner of almost every street in my area. Most have gone. One or two are now hotels and some have been converted into houses or shops. The noble Lord is absolutely right that life has changed in that regard. He was also right about supermarkets. Certainly, on a bank holiday weekend, you cannot get past the beer mountain as you walk in the door. Equally, people have other leisure activities, so certainly pubs have changed. However, I still think that a successful community pub, whether in a city, town or village, which works well deserves our support. There is nothing in the amendment about pubs that are not successful.
A Leicester City v Derby match has been mentioned. I am interested in the result of that match as the winner will get the pleasure of playing Millwall at The Den in the next round of the FA Cup. I know that people will watch that match with interest tonight in pubs all over Lewisham. They will perhaps do so in a traditional pub such as The Rising Sun. However, further down the road from that pub is The Talbot which serves excellent food, so different pubs cater for different uses. It is important to come back to this issue.
As regards the ACV issue, I am sure that when the Minister talks to representatives of CAMRA they will be able to give him examples of councils which, for whatever reason, do not want to use this power or have frustrated local publicity campaigns. I can give him the relevant names. I hope that the Government will consider how they can deal with that as it is an issue.
The other point is about being able to raise finance. If a pub is listed as an asset of community value, and the landlord or the owner wants to raise some finance but finds problems as a result of being listed, that is an unintended consequence. I hope that CAMRA can give examples of that and we can look at how to change it. It cannot be right that listing your local pub could cause the business problems. We need to deal with that as well.
I thank other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, for his response. I look forward to meeting CAMRA and hopefully I can talk to the noble Lord between now and Report. As I said at Second Reading, I fully intend to bring this or a similar amendment back on Report and will be very likely to push it to a vote unless we get some movement from the Government. We have raised some important issues, and as the noble Lord will have seen in today’s Grand Committee, we have support all around the House on this. Given that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
If the noble Lord has information independently of CAMRA ahead of the meeting, that would be useful, to avoid delaying things, as CAMRA might not come with that information. I should also have noted a rare moment of accord—actually not that rare—with the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. Leicester City is my first team, and has been since childhood. I look forward to the occasion, after we beat Derby, when we come to Millwall. Perhaps we might share the experience over a pint of beer on that occasion.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
“Connection between national infrastructure and neighbourhood planning
(1) The National Infrastructure Commission, where appropriate, shall provide advice on national infrastructure projects to local planning authorities, including advice about—(a) how national projects will link with local projects, and(b) how national projects may affect specific neighbourhoods during their construction phase and operation.(2) Local planning authorities must provide any necessary advice on national and local infrastructure projects as requested by neighbourhood plan makers.”
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I hope that we will be a bit quicker on the next few groups. Amendment 64A, which is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Beecham, seeks to put into the Bill a clause that sets out clearly a role for the National Infrastructure Commission in providing advice to local planning authorities in respect of how national projects will link with local projects and how the national projects may affect specific neighbourhoods through their construction phase and operation. The National Infrastructure Commission did not of course make this Bill in the end, for whatever reasons, but it is important that we get this clause into the Bill.
The Bill, as we know, gives significant powers to the Secretary of State in respect of planning, and some of us think one or two of these clauses go too far. There can often be a conflict between the local and the national in terms of construction infrastructure. I want to make it clear at this stage that I am not a nimby—I certainly support the construction of projects that are needed to drive the economy forward and are in the national interest—but where national considerations come into play, we need to look at local concerns, local plans and local policies. We need dialogue, advice and support, and my amendment seeks to allow for all those factors.
The amendment also seeks to provide local authorities with a similar obligation to deal with the neighbourhood plan makers. This is a probing amendment which seeks to draw a response from the noble Lord. I beg to move.
Lord Scriven
My Lords, I have a little concern with the amendment—not with the thrust of where it is trying to go, but the way it is worded and the implications of proposed new subsection (2), which says:
“Local planning authorities must provide any necessary advice on national and local infrastructure projects as requested by neighbourhood plan makers”.
That seems to me to be a little top-down. If they have information, it should be automatically given to those making the neighbourhood plan. To paraphrase the words of a former American Defense Minister, sometimes there are the known knowns, and sometimes unknown knowns. I am sure this is not the intention of the amendment, but it needs to be a bit stronger in terms of automatically giving the right to the neighbourhood plan makers rather than them having to ask for it. I hope that those who tabled the amendment will reflect on that.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for raising this matter, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for his intervention on Amendment 64A. Noble Lords have raised a valid issue. Large-scale national infrastructure projects are, of course, crucial to the economic health of the nation. We must always recognise that national infrastructure will have impacts, positive and sometimes negative, on local areas. Our existing legislation provides planning policy and guidance together with any endorsed recommendations made by the National Infrastructure Commission and provides the means for ensuring that local planning authorities and neighbourhood planning groups are aware of national infrastructure projects in their area.
The importance of national infrastructure is already recognised at the local level. The National Planning Policy Framework in paragraph 21 and planning guidance provide that the local planning authorities should identify the need for strategic infrastructure in the policies in their local plans. Once adopted, local plans form part of the statutory development plan for the area, which is the starting point for planning decisions. Further to this, paragraph 162 of the framework makes it clear that local planning authorities consider and take account of the need for strategic infrastructure, including nationally significant infrastructure within their areas.
On 24 January, the Government published the National Infrastructure Commission framework document that sets out how the commission will operate, making it clear that the commission has operational independence to make recommendations as it sees fit, and on the basis of robust evidence will advise government on all sectors of economic infrastructure, operating independently and at arm’s length from government. This includes discretion to engage with stakeholders as it sees fit, and to address commission recommendations to the most appropriate bodies, including local planning authorities.
I value, as do the Government, the support of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, as chairman of the National Infrastructure Commission, and of my noble friend Lord Heseltine as a commissioner in helping to set out national infrastructure policies. Many of the infrastructure projects that may be proposed by the National Infrastructure Commission will in due course need to seek development consent as nationally significant infrastructure projects under the Planning Act 2008. This planning regime already requires significant local engagement and consultation; applicants are required to engage and consult local communities and local authorities from the outset, with local authorities having a role in assessing the adequacy of that consultation. Once an application for consent has been accepted, it will proceed to an examination. Anyone can make representations to the examining authority on any aspect of the project; local authorities are also able to submit local impact reports that set out the impact of the proposed infrastructure in their local area.
I hope that this reassures noble Lords that sufficient mechanisms are in place so that local authorities and local communities will be able to engage with national infrastructure projects, both when they are being considered by the National Infrastructure Commission and when they come forward through the planning process. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and my noble friend Lord Heseltine are very happy with how things are operating. As I say, they are at arm’s length; they are not an arm of the Government.
I turn to the specific part of the amendment on advice to those preparing a neighbourhood plan. As I explained during our debates last week, local planning authorities have an existing duty to advise or assist neighbourhood planning groups. Clause 5 will ensure that authorities must set out the support that they can provide in a more transparent way. When a national infrastructure project is relevant to a neighbourhood planning group, we would expect the local planning authority to advise the group accordingly.
I appreciate that this is a probing amendment, but I say to noble Lords who have participated in the debate and more widely that we do not think that this is the way forward, and I urge the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for his contribution to the debate. I fully accept the points that he makes; he said what I want to do here but more succinctly and clearly. I also thank the Minister for his response to the amendment. I shall reflect on what he says and may or may not bring the amendment back on Report. I see the point that he makes. We are raising the issue of how the National Infrastructure Commission deals with local areas and planning authorities. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Shipley
“(1) Subsection (2) applies where a person (an “acquiring authority”) could be authorised to acquire land compulsorily under another enactment or under subordinate legislation.”
Lord Shipley
I shall speak also to Amendments 68, 72 and 73. This group is the first of several about the procedures to be followed by an authority taking temporary possession of land. Current legislation permits only permanent compulsory purchase. As an example of what I think the Government are intending, we could take the building of a bridge. There may be a permanent compulsory purchase order for the bridge itself with a temporary compulsory purchase order for the building compound to store equipment and materials for the period of the building works.
This group of amendments relates to Clause 14. Other groups will follow which address further issues around temporary possession. For the avoidance of doubt, I state that all the amendments in my name are probing amendments to help to improve and clarify the meaning of the Bill. I thank the Compulsory Purchase Association for its advice on what I shall say on this group and on later groups.
Clause 14 sets out the power for acquiring authorities to take temporary possession of land if they could otherwise be authorised to acquire interest in that land permanently, but it could also be an opportunity to codify various statutory instruments authorising temporary possession, and it may prove beneficial for powers of temporary possession—for example, for post-construction inspection and correction of minor defects—to be incorporated. Can the Minister confirm whether codification that would provide a single process for temporary possession might be introduced? Amendment 65 substitutes a new subsection which makes it clear that a single code is envisaged.
There are several government amendments in this group, but at present I think that the wording of the four amendments in my name in this group is more suited to the ambition of the proposed change. Amendment 68 contains words which may not be needed, and I would appreciate the Minister’s guidance on that. Amendment 72 clarifies and emphasises that temporary possession of land need not be taken compulsorily but can be by agreement. Perhaps that needs to be emphasised. Amendment 73 explains the rights and responsibilities of an acquiring authority and proposed paragraph (c) protects the rights of tenants, particularly where a tenant maintains an intention to resume occupation when the acquiring authority ceases temporary possession. I am very happy to listen to the Minister’s response and to look at this again when the government amendments have been incorporated in the Bill, and so I am happy to wait for Report before speaking further on this group. I beg to move.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 69 and 75. They are pretty much self-explanatory. The former simply requires that guidance should be provided when there are temporary rights that can be granted at the same time over the same piece of land. Amendment 75 is rather more important because it provides that the section should not come into force until guidance has been published in relation to it. I assume that is the Government’s intention, and I hope they will accept that amendment.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, the co-pilot is back in charge. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Beecham, for tabling their amendments to Clause 14. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, made it clear that his amendment was probing. Before I move on to discuss these and the government amendments to this clause, it may be helpful if I begin with a brief description of Clauses 14 to 26, which introduce the new temporary possession power.
All acquiring authorities may need to enter and use land for a temporary period. For example, they may require land to store materials for a scheme or to provide access to a construction site, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, explained. The problem is that, currently, only certain acquiring authorities have temporary possession powers—for example, under special Acts which are needed for very large schemes such as the Crossrail Act 2008. Crucially, compulsory purchase orders cannot authorise temporary possession. There is no good reason for this difference, and it is unfair to those who do not have the powers. Clauses 14 to 26 seek to create a level playing field by giving all acquiring authorities the same power to take temporary possession of land. It may also be in the interests of those on the receiving end of a CPO to have the possibility of being deprived of their land temporarily rather than permanently.
In giving acquiring authorities this power, we shall ensure that those whose land is taken are fairly compensated and that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect their interests. That is set out in Clause 19. For example, temporary possession will have to be authorised in the same way as compulsory acquisition. Also, in certain circumstances, owners and occupiers will be able to require the acquiring authority to acquire the land permanently instead of occupying it on a temporary basis, if that is what they want.
Government Amendments 66, 67, 70, 71, 74 with Amendments 105 and 106 and amendments to other clauses, which I shall deal with later, remove the requirement for the temporary possession to be linked directly to a scheme for the acquisition of other land either by compulsion or agreement. Decoupling is the word that the professionals have been using. The reason for this change is that there may be situations where an acquiring authority needs to take only temporary possession of land. For example, an acquiring authority may need temporary possession of land for a contractor’s compound when they have been able to buy all the land needed for their scheme by agreement, or they may need access to land temporarily to maintain a highway. That is the impact of some of our amendments.
Government Amendments 105 and 106 are consequential on Amendment 66; they simply remove definitions of terms that are no longer required. Non-government Amendments 65, 68 and 72, which were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, also seek to remove the requirement for the temporary possession to be directly linked to a compulsory acquisition scheme. I hope, therefore, that he will agree they are unnecessary in the light of the Government’s amendments.
On Amendment 69, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Kennedy, I agree with the noble Lord that we need to ensure that the interests of leaseholders are adequately protected in introducing this new power. However, I believe that that amendment is not needed, because we have already built in a safeguard which would deliver the same outcome that is requested, but in a more flexible way.
Amendment 69 would restrict the temporary possession power so that it could never be used when a leasehold interest would have less than a year to run after the land was handed back, even if that was the preference of the leaseholder, the freeholder and the acquiring authority. It sounds counterintuitive to prohibit that. The effect of this amendment would be that, if the land was essential to the delivery of the scheme, the acquiring authority would instead be driven to exercising the more draconian power of compulsory acquisition of the land permanently. However, as I have said, we have already built in a safeguard for leaseholders, which I believe will achieve the outcome that noble Lords are seeking. The safeguard is in Clause 17(3), which allows leaseholders to serve a counternotice preventing the acquiring authority taking temporary possession of the land. On receipt of the counternotice, if the land is essential to the delivery of the scheme, the acquiring authority can proceed as if the land were subject to compulsory acquisition and take the land permanently. In these circumstances, the leaseholder would, of course, be compensated for both the value of his lease and losses caused by reason of being disturbed from possession of the land taken. I believe this is a neater solution, which gives leaseholders the flexibility to decide what is right for them.
Amendment 73, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, seeks to clarify what will happen when a tenant’s land is subject to compulsory purchase. As government Amendment 103 seeks to do the same thing—although our approach is different—I will speak to both amendments together. Government Amendment 103 provides that the terms and obligations under the tenancy, with the exception of the payment of rent and the length of the tenancy, will be disapplied to the extent that the temporary possession prevents reasonable compliance with them. Any expenditure which a leaseholder incurs as a result of the temporary possession would be claimed back from the acquiring authority. The noble Lord’s amendment, in contrast, provides that all the terms and obligations are unenforceable for the period of temporary possession.
The reason we have disapplied the terms and obligations only to the extent that the temporary possession prevents reasonable compliance with them is that there may be circumstances in which only a small part of land subject to a lease is also subject to temporary possession. In these situations, there may be no easy way in which to separate out the terms that relate to the land subject to temporary possession from terms that relate to the remainder of the land.
The second point of difference is the exclusion of the payment of rent and the length of the tenancy. We have done this because, again, where only a small part of a tenant’s land is required, making these terms unenforceable could result in a tenant having to pay an uncertain portion of the rent for the land not subject to temporary possession. The loss that would be compensated is not the rent payable for the existing lease, but any rent payable for alternative premises, as that is the loss that has been caused. Under the Government’s amendment, responsibility for paying the rent for the land under temporary possession remains with the tenant. However, the tenant will be entitled to claim compensation from the acquiring authority in relation to any expenditure which a leaseholder reasonably incurs as a result of the temporary possession.
The other point of difference with the noble Lord’s amendment is to do with proposed subsections (4) to (6), which make provision with regards to those who have protected tenancies under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. Occupiers with such a protected tenancy have a right to apply for the grant of a new tenancy, provided they remain in occupation. However, if their land is subject to temporary possession they will no longer be in occupation and will lose this right. Government Amendment 103 and non-government Amendment 73 both seek to preserve this right to renew the tenancy. However, in doing so, the government amendment imposes a requirement for the tenant to confirm in writing to both the landlord and the acquiring authority that they intend to resume occupation after temporary possession. I think it is clear that both amendments are after the same thing: greater clarity for tenants and landlords as to what happens during the temporary possession period, including the treatment of rent.
Finally, in this group, I will respond to Amendment 75, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. The noble Lord made a very valid point, which I entirely agree with, that where the Government intend to provide guidance on the use of a new power, that guidance should be available by the time the provisions come into force. That is, of course, the Government’s intention. The particular element of the temporary possession provisions that the noble Lord has identified is in Clause 15(3)(a), which will allow both temporary possession and compulsory acquisition powers to be obtained concurrently for the same piece of land.
Although this so-called doubling-up of temporary and permanent powers can be authorised, it will not give acquiring authorities carte blanche to double up in all cases. It would not be fair to claimants if there was not a very good reason for an acquiring authority to make an order which included this doubling-up. It would not be wise to anticipate precisely what might be in the guidance at this point, but as I have just said, there would be a high bar to justify doubling-up. The most likely circumstances would be linear transport projects where the final design is not complete by the time compulsory powers are obtained. We know of a handful of orders in the last dozen years where this has been authorised, such as the Docklands Light Railway and the Nottingham tramway.
As for compulsory acquisitions, each case would be considered on its individual merits at a public inquiry before an inspector, and considered by the relevant Secretary of State, before a decision was made whether doubling-up was justified in the public interest.
I hope that I have been able to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, with a firm undertaking that the Government will be seeking views on the draft guidance and will publish it before these provisions come into force. I apologise to the Committee for a somewhat lengthy oration on these amendments, but there are quite a few of them. When the time comes, I will move government Amendments 66, 67, 70, 71, 74, 103, 105 and 106. In the meantime, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 65 and for noble Lords not to press Amendments 68, 69, 72, 73 and 75.
Lord Shipley
I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I draw his attention to two facts. First, the Government have brought 34 amendments for consideration this afternoon, this Bill having passed in the other place. Secondly, some of them were tabled quite late, and after I tabled my amendment. I understand the need for all this to be brought together for Report, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Young of Cookham
(a) has a power conferred by an Act to acquire land compulsorily (with or without authorisation from another person), or(b) is or has been, at any time, otherwise authorised to acquire land compulsorily.”
(a) by agreement, or(b) compulsorily, if authorised to do so in accordance with section 15 .”
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
I must advise the Grand Committee that if Amendment 67 is agreed to, I will not be able to call Amendment 68 due to pre-emption.
Lord Young of Cookham
Lord Young of Cookham
Lord Beecham
“( ) This section may not come into force until the Secretary of State has consulted on and published guidance in relation to section 15(3)(a).”
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s assurance. In those circumstances, I will not move the amendment.
Lord Young of Cookham
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, we now move to the second group of amendments on temporary possession. Clause 15 deals with the procedure for authorising temporary possession of land, requiring it to be authorised by the type of authorising instrument that would be required for the permanent acquisition of land—for example, a compulsory purchase order.
Government Amendments 76 to 79 remove redundant wording in Clause 15(2) as a consequence of government Amendment 66 to Clause 14(1). Government Amendments 80 to 82 amend Clause 15(3) to clarify that the same land may be subject to both temporary possession and compulsory acquisition powers concurrently. We debated the need for guidance relating to the clause a moment ago on Amendment 75, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, so I shall not repeat what I said about that. Government Amendments 83 to 85 and 87—the last also, happily, endorsed by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley—all remove redundant provisions in the context of the previous amendments. For example, Amendment 87 refers to “relevant land”: this is no longer needed because the concept of relevant land is removed by Amendment 66. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, Amendment 86 is in my name, and I want to ask the Minister a question. Clause 15 sets out the procedures for authorising temporary possession. It is not clear from the clause whether it is intended that there be a time limit for the life of a temporary power—for instance, three years for service of a notice post the confirmation of a compulsory purchase order. Do the three-year and five-year standards for compulsory purchase orders in statutory instruments apply, and does the power apply to post-construction maintenance during a defect period?
The Government’s amendments to remove superfluous words are helpful. I am not sure whether Amendment 87, which deletes subsection (7), is right—I am having second thoughts about it. I think it is right, but as the relevant land is the land required for the scheme, it seems appropriate to make it clear that temporary possession can be taken after action to secure the land required permanently. I would be grateful for the Minister’s comment.
Lord Young of Cookham
I may need to write to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about the specific issue he has raised on Amendment 87 and subsection (7) relating to relevant land. As I said, this is no longer needed, because the concept of relevant land has been removed by Amendment 66, with which we have just dealt. However, I will make some inquiries following his representations.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has proposed in Amendment 86 that Clause 15(6) should be omitted. This is intended to be helpful clarification. It confirms that the authorising instrument—for example, a CPO—does not need to include the dates for any particular period of temporary possession. It would be difficult for an acquiring authority to do that, because it would not know the date of the confirmation at that stage. The cross-reference to Clause 16 points users to the provisions which specify the dates of temporary possession. The Government believe that there is no need for users of this legislation to be deprived of this clarification. He also asked a question about whether CPO powers would expire after a certain period. Again, I will write to him about this when I have made some inquiries. In the meantime, I hope that he will not move his Amendment 86.
Lord Young of Cookham
“( ) if it authorises the compulsory acquisition of land, may authorise temporary possession of the same or other land,”
Lord Young of Cookham
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I am aware that I have tabled a number of amendments to this section of the Bill. I am also aware that some detailed discussion has taken place outside the Chamber. I am generally content that we are moving in the right direction and do not intend to delay the Committee for long.
We welcome the statutory framework for dealing with temporary possession. Amendment 88 seeks to make it clear that an acquiring authority may serve one or more notices under the clause. I was concerned that that was not very clear from where we stand at the moment. I would like to hear a response from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, in respect of this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 89, 91, 92, 93 and 94 in my name. These five amendments relate to Clause 17, which makes provision for a person affected by temporary possession to serve a counternotice to limit the total period which the temporary possession can last to 12 months in the case of a dwelling and six years in any other case. Leaseholders can also serve a counternotice providing that the acquiring authority may not take temporary possession. Having received the counternotice the acquiring authority must decide whether to accept it, withdraw the notice or proceed to take the land permanently.
As drafted, Clause 17 seems unnecessarily complex. The hope is that the Government might be able to simplify it without losing any of its statutory force. Regarding Amendment 89, Clause 17 applies wherever an acquiring authority gives notice of intended entry on to land for a temporary period to a person who is either the freeholder of the land affected or a leasehold owner. The clauses that follow seem to have a different counternotice procedure, depending on whether it is a freeholder or a leaseholder. So in connection with Amendment 89, is there a need to distinguish between leaseholders and freeholders? This amendment and the consequential amendments seek to avoid that and therefore to simplify the clause.
Amendment 91 refers to Clause 17(3), which allows a leaseholder to give the acquiring authority a counternotice to prevent it taking temporary possession of the land. It appears that this right is not available to freeholders, who can serve only a counternotice limiting the period of temporary possession. Surely, this right should be available to freeholders. This amendment therefore seeks to clarify the matter by stating:
“The owner may give the acquiring authority a counter-notice which provides that the authority may not take temporary possession of the owner’s interest”.
We then have consequential Amendments 92, 93 and 94. Clause 17(10) states that nothing in that clause,
“prevents an acquiring authority acquiring land compulsorily after accepting a counter-notice or withdrawing a notice of intended entry”.
My question is: should a permanent acquisition be available for temporary land unless a counternotice has been served requiring a permanent rather than temporary acquisition? Clause 17(8) is relevant in this respect. Amendment 94 would therefore leave out lines 38 to 40 on page 15. The concern is that landowners could potentially face a period of six years of temporary possession with the acquiring authority then deciding to acquire the land permanently. In the interests of fairness, the land should surely have been acquired permanently in the beginning. Scheme promoters should know how they wish to use the land and whether it needs to be permanently acquired from the outset.
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for tabling his Amendment 88. I appreciate that his aim in doing so was to make things clearer, an ambition which I fully support. However, on this occasion I do not think that an amendment is necessary because subsection (7) provides that Clause 16 must be complied with,
“in relation to each subsequent period of temporary possession”.
That makes it clear that acquiring authorities can serve more than one notice. Having said that, this is the sort of thing that could usefully be covered in guidance. We will update our compulsory purchase guidance in light of the reforms in the Bill, and in the light of what the noble Lord has said, I will ask for this matter to be looked at again.
Amendments 89 and 91 to 93 deal with the counternotice provisions in Clause 17. These provisions are an improvement on the current temporary possession regimes, which have no counternotice procedure in them. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for tabling his amendments. No one would be keener than I to simplify all this, if it were possible so to do. I doubt whether it would be realistic wholly to redraft this clause between now and Report but I endorse his sense of direction. He is quite right to say that there is a difference between the treatment of leaseholders and that of freeholders. This is because the Government believe that there could be a greater impact on leaseholders than freeholders when their land is subject to temporary possession, as the leaseholder may be left with a useless lease at the end of the temporary possession period—for example, when there is only a short period left to run on the lease. We considered this in debate on Amendment 69.
Clause 17(3) affords leaseholders additional protections in these circumstances by giving them the option to serve a counternotice, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said, providing that an acquiring authority cannot take temporary possession of their land at all. However, no such issues arise for freeholders. The justification for the temporary possession of the land will have been carefully considered on its individual merits at a public local inquiry before an independent inspector and confirmed only where it is in the public interest.
Lord Beecham
I would not say that I was unduly disturbed, but I would be grateful if the Minister would comment on it.
Lord Young of Cookham
I am sorry for doing a disservice to the noble Lord.
Amendment 90, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Kennedy, seeks to limit the period of temporary possession of land not occupied by dwellings to three years rather than the six years proposed in Clause 17(2). It is a matter of judgment whether one draws the line at three, six or nine years. The limit of six years is designed to give those affected greater certainty on the total period that non-dwelling land can be subject to temporary possession. Restricting the period to three years, as suggested, would limit the usefulness of this new power, as the lower the upper limit, the more likely it is that an acquiring authority would, on a cautionary basis, decide to take the more draconian and unnecessary route of compulsory, permanent land acquisition instead.
As I said, there needs to be a balance between giving acquiring authorities the power they need to deliver their schemes and ensuring that the interests of those whose land is taken are protected. We consider that an upper limit of six years strikes the right balance. It is an upper limit and, of course, in many cases temporary possession will be for far less time and the issue will not arise. Where possession will need to be for infinitely longer, acquiring authorities might go for compulsory acquisition in the first instance. I assure noble Lords that we can and will keep this under review as the new power begins to take effect. The regulation-making power in Clause 24 will allow the Government to make changes if required. With those assurances and explanations—and with apologies for trying to take a short cut—I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his response in respect of Amendment 88. He is entirely correct that the intent of our amendment is just to get clarity as we debate the legislation. With compulsory purchase, I am conscious that there is the risk of lawyers getting involved at a later date and arguing about what something does or does not mean—although I know my noble friend is of course a lawyer, and I would not wish to deprive him of any work. I may be reading it incorrectly but Clause 16(7) appears to refer just to the one, single case. All my amendment sought was to add that you can have more than one. I may well be wrong about this, and the Bill may be perfectly correct, but I would not mind if the noble Lord and his officials looked at it once more before we get to Report. It may well be that guidance is all we need, but we are trying to get absolute clarity so that we do not get any problems in the future on this. Other than that, we are in complete agreement on this clause as it stands.
Lord Shipley
Lord Shipley
My Lords, in moving Amendment 95, I will also speak to Amendments 96, 97 and 102. Clause 19 makes provision in respect of the payment of compensation to those who suffer loss or injury as a result of the exercise of powers of temporary possession, but there are concerns about a number of subsections in the clause. Amendment 95 addresses Clause 19(2), which provides a person—the “claimant”—with an entitlement to compensation in respect of,
“any loss or injury the claimant sustains as a result”.
I have two points here. First, would it not be better to replace “injury” with “damage”? Is there a legal reason why the word injury is used? Damage is of course more wide-ranging. Secondly, should the subsection be redrafted to make it clear that the loss or damage—or perhaps injury—must have been sustained as a result of the temporary possession of the land? The amendment would bring the drafting into line with the usual form adopted in clauses relating to compensation for the temporary possession of land, which typically state that the loss, injury or damage must have resulted from the exercise of the powers—I refer in particular to the Crossrail Act 2008. In addition, are those subsections still needed, given that other amendments are being proposed?
Amendment 97 refers to Clause 19(7), which is intended to clarify that, for the purposes of the statutory limitation period, time will not begin to run until the expiry of the last day of the temporary possession period. I understand that the Bill originally sought to achieve this objective by stating that a “claim for compensation” would “accrue on the last day of the temporary possession period”. The Compulsory Purchase Association’s view is that the original drafting would have caused problems, but that the revised drafting is not complete. The original drafting would have left claimants exposed to a potential argument that, because the claim was stated not to accrue until that time for the purposes of Section 9 of the Limitation Act 1980, they also had no cause of action enabling them to claim for compensation or refer the matter to a tribunal at any earlier time. Thus, in cases where temporary possession is to last a number of years, it could result in claimants having to bear losses without compensation for a number of years, which seems unfair.
The government amendment is intended to address that problem, but it may still permit an argument that, if the cause of action is to be treated as accruing on the last day of the temporary possession period for the purposes of the Limitation Act, notwithstanding that it would otherwise be regarded as accruing before or during the temporary possession period, the cause of action should also be regarded as accruing at that later time for other purposes, including the making of a claim or reference.
The advice that I have received is that an addition should be made to the subsection to confirm that the deemed accrual applies for the purpose of the Limitation Act alone. As such, I am advised that my drafting for Clause 19(7) helps to avoid doubt. The amendment states:
“for all other purposes a claim will accrue as the possible damages suffered as a claimant is not precluded from making a claim pursuant to subsection (2) prior to the last day of that period”.
I understand the complexity of this, and that the Minister may want to respond in writing; the 34 government amendments this afternoon reveal that this is a complex matter. I am not necessarily looking to the Minister to reply to this now. I just hope that before we get to Report, the matter can be clarified so that we have a Bill that is clear in its meaning and will not end up being challenged in the courts. I beg to move.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, speaking as a lawyer, although happily not practising, I see no need to amend the term “injury” to “damage”. Legally, injury embraces damage of all kinds. I would not go to extremes to defend the Government on this or any other occasion, but if the Minister felt disinclined to accept the amendment, I would not dissent from his judgment.
Lord Young of Cookham
I am grateful for this growing cross-party alliance on how to deal with one of the amendments. I shall deal with as much as I can in writing, but some government amendments are tucked into this group which I need to address.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for tabling his amendments, which, as he said, deal with compensation for temporary possession. Clause 19 provides that claimants will be entitled to compensation for any loss or injury which they sustain as a result of the temporary possession. Where the claimant is operating a trade or business on the land, they will be entitled to compensation for disturbance of that trade or business.
I turn to Amendment 95, for which the noble Lord has explained his reasons. I think this comes down to a difference in approach to drafting. The Government have used the term “loss or injury” instead of “loss or damage”, as the noble Lord has suggested. Both terms have been used previously. In this instance, the Government have opted to follow the precedent of Section 20 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965.
The important point is that both formulations have the same meaning. I am reinforced in my view by the recent intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham.
On the second part of this amendment, adding,
“as a result of the temporary possession of the land”,
is unnecessary because subsection (1) makes the same point.
Lord Shipley
I am grateful for the Minister’s clarification of that and look forward to further discussion and any correspondence that may help us reach Report with absolute clarity about what we are dealing with. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Young of Cookham
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
I must advise the Grand Committee that if Amendment 101 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 102 due to pre-emption.
Amendment 101
Lord Young of Cookham
Lord Young of Cookham
“Impact of temporary possession on tenancies etc
(1) Subsection (2) applies where an acquiring authority takes temporary possession under section 14(2) of land subject to a tenancy.(2) A person is not to be treated as being in breach of—(a) any term of the tenancy, or(b) any other obligation associated with the tenancy or the land subject to temporary possession,to the extent that the person cannot reasonably comply with the term or other obligation as a result of the temporary possession.(3) Subsection (2) does not affect terms or obligations about—(a) the length of the tenancy, or(b) the payment of rent.(4) Subsection (5) applies where—(a) an acquiring authority takes temporary possession of land subject to a tenancy to which Part 2 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (security of tenure for business tenants) applies immediately before the period of temporary possession,(b) the tenancy expires during the period of temporary possession, and(c) prior to the period of temporary possession the tenant notifies in writing both the acquiring authority and the landlord that the tenant intends to resume occupation of the land after the period of temporary possession.(5) For the purposes of Part 2 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 the tenant is to be deemed to continue to occupy the land in accordance with the tenancy mentioned in subsection (4)(b), and any tenancy which succeeds that tenancy, despite the period of temporary possession.(6) But if the tenant notifies in writing both the acquiring authority and the landlord that the tenant no longer intends to resume occupation of the land after the period of temporary possession subsection (5) ceases to apply.(7) In this section, “tenancy” includes a sub-tenancy.”
Baroness Parminter (LD)
“(2A) No regulations may be made under subsection (1) which have the effect of modifying any procedures that apply specifically to the acquisition of land belonging to the National Trust and held by the Trust inalienably.(2B) In subsection (2A), “held inalienably”, in relation to land belonging to the National Trust, means that the land is inalienable under section 21 of the National Trust Act 1907 or section 8 of the National Trust Act 1939.”
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 104 stands in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, who is no longer able to be in her place. It aims to preserve Parliament’s current role as the ultimate decision-maker on whether it is appropriate for National Trust inalienable land to be compulsorily purchased for a temporary period against the judgment of the trust.
As currently drafted, Clause 24 is sufficiently broad to allow, in the case of temporary compulsory possession, for the modification of current procedures regarding National Trust inalienable land.
The Government have shown already that they recognise the need for special provisions to retain protection for National Trust land. Following the Bill’s publication, the Government’s policy paper issued in December proposed that such land could be temporarily possessed under the new power only if the confirming authority considered that there would not be serious detriment to the inalienable land in question. However, the Government’s proposals would not provide an equivalent level of protection for National Trust inalienable land as is currently the case and subsequent regulations may further reduce the protection of inalienable land held for the benefit of the nation.
Because National Trust land has been declared inalienable, it is very likely to have heritage interest or natural beauty in its own right. As noble Lords might be interested to note given earlier discussion, it might also be ancient woodland or a significant habitat. The land might contribute to or enhance neighbouring land of historic interest or natural beauty—for example, preserving the setting of a historic property and its parkland.
The trust does not obstruct development by unreasonably opposing appropriate acquisition, but clearly seems to be looking to work proactively in partnership with scheme promoters to find solutions which enable schemes to go ahead as sympathetically as possible. I am well aware of that because I live very close to the Hindhead tunnel scheme, where just that process of consultation and working constructively with developers worked incredibly well. Indeed, there has only been one occasion when the National Trust has referred compulsory purchase matters to special parliamentary procedures in the past.
Undoubtedly, there should be continuing recognition of the special nature of National Trust inalienable land held for the benefit of the nation in the Bill. I accept that there is a clear case for improving procedures for the temporary compulsory possession of land, but I believe that the National Trust is not the problem that the Government are trying to address with this legislation, but has been swept up in the wider issue. At least, I hope that may be the case and look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and speak to Amendment 104A which requires the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to make provision for the reinstatement of land at the end of a period of temporary possession. This is not drafted particularly for the benefit of the residents of Aberystwyth or places in the vicinity; it stems from the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee which draws attention to a number of issues, only some of which are embodied in this amendment.
In dealing with the issue mentioned in Amendment 104A, the committee regarded it as inappropriate to leave the discussion of whether or not to include provisions about reinstatement in the regulations to the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers. Hence, it recommended that the clause should be amended to impose the duty referred to in the amendment. However, that was not the end of the committee’s concerns. In particular, it also took issue with Clause 24(2)(a), which it regarded as,
“inappropriately wide and should be redrafted to reflect the narrow policy intention referred to in the DCLG document which explained the power to modify provisions”.
In particular, the committee felt that the power goes much further than the declared objective in the policy document and,
“it would enable the regulations to make substantial changes to Clauses 14 to 26 in a wide range of cases, for example, by excluding the provisions about compensation”.
I confess that the document, only having reached us at the end of January, shortly before the amendments were drafted, ought to have been subject to an amendment specifically dealing with that issue. I do not expect the Minister to respond immediately, but I hope that, before Report, he will indicate whether the Government would be minded to accept the redrafting recommendation referred to by the Delegated Powers Committee. If not, I give notice that we will remedy the omission this evening and table an appropriate amendment.
The committee was clear about the issue that I have raised, but it also makes a more general point about the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers exercising this novel power, which could potentially have far-reaching consequences without first being required to consult interested parties. It therefore considered a consultation duty even more important, in view of the provision dispensing with the House’s hybrid instruments procedure. That raises issues about secondary legislation that have so often been raised. As I say, I would not expect the Minister to respond to something of which he did not have notice by way of an amendment tonight. I hope that the matter can be resolved en route to Report, but reserve the right to table amendments if it cannot be.
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, I shall deal first with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has just made. Of course, I have read the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and there are three relevant recommendations relating to this Bill, two of which he mentioned. We take this very seriously; we are considering all three recommendations very carefully, and intend to respond before Report, so I hope that the nuclear option mentioned by the noble Lord may not be necessary.
I turn to Amendments 104, 104A and 129B. Clauses 14 to 26 of the Bill set out the broad framework for how the temporary possession power will work, establishing protections and providing for the payment of compensation. Further technical provisions will be necessary for the implementation of the temporary possession power. Clause 24 gives the Secretary of State the power by regulations to make further provision in relation to the authorisation and exercise of temporary possession powers where necessary. We will respond on that—and in the meantime we set out in the policy document what we propose to do. There is something there about reinstatement.
On Amendment 104, certain special kinds of land, including land held inalienably by the National Trust, are afforded additional protection under the compulsory acquisition process. This additional protection provides that a compulsory purchase order may be subject to special parliamentary procedure when an objection is sustained to the relevant order by, for example, the National Trust, or when exchange land for that to be acquired cannot be given, perhaps because no suitable land is available. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, that National Trust land should benefit from additional protection under the temporary possession regime; this is also true of those other special kinds of land. The Government have set out their intention to do precisely that in a policy document; we propose to do that through regulations made under Clause 24. Paragraphs 48 to 51 of that document set out more details.
The Government’s proposed approach under temporary possession differs from that under compulsory acquisition. Where the temporary possession of special kinds of land is happening without any associated compulsory acquisition, the special parliamentary procedure would not apply. Instead, the temporary possession will be allowed only when the confirming authority is satisfied that it would not cause serious detriment to the owners and users. Such serious detriment could include, for example, irreparable damage to the land concerned, or blocking access to other land or assets. When both temporary possession and compulsory acquisition of a special kind of land is included in the same order, and the compulsory acquisition is subject to special parliamentary procedure, the temporary possession land would also be subject to the special parliamentary procedure. However, I have listened with great interest to the case made by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, who raises an important issue, and the Government will, therefore, give further careful consideration to it before confirming our approach, to which I have just referred.
Baroness Parminter
I thank the Minister very much for his consideration of my comments and his commitment to engage in careful consideration of those points between now and Report. I think that was the phrase he used. I hope that that will result in the Government tabling an amendment on Report as I strongly believe that Parliament should remain the final arbiter on issues around temporary compulsory purchase orders concerning the National Trust’s inalienable land. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Young of Cookham
Lord Shipley
Lord Shipley
Clause 27 relates to the no-scheme principle. In moving Amendment 107, I wish to speak also to Amendments 109 and 111.
Clause 27 seeks to put the no-scheme principle in the compensation code on to a statutory footing. The Bill defines the no-scheme principle as,
“any increase in the value of land caused by the scheme for which the authority acquires the land is to be disregarded”.
Amendment 107 seeks to take this further to make the Bill state that,
“any increase in the value of land caused by the scheme or the prospect of the scheme”,
should also be disregarded. The Government have tabled a very similar amendment. I welcome that amendment and do not plan to say any more about it.
I turn to Amendment 109. New Section 6A(3) on page 21 of the Bill states:
“In applying the no-scheme principle the following rules in particular … are to be observed”.
This amendment seeks to delete the words “in particular” given that new Section 6A contains five rules which are clearly defined. I will come on to Rule 4 in a moment. If one has rules defining what the position is, why do we need the words “in particular”? That implies that there are other rules that might be considered and there is no indication as to what those might be. The current position is that only the statutory disregards can be taken into account in disregarding the scheme. This provides clarity over the valuation exercise to be undertaken. I hope the Minister will agree that “in particular” on page 21, line 28 should be taken out.
Finally, Amendment 111 relates to Rule 4. The purpose of scheme cancellation being on the valuation date is to avoid the need to speculate on what may have happened between the date of cancelation and valuation because they are the same. It is not clear what the purpose of Rule 4 is. It seems to be unnecessary and likely to create confusion, particularly in the context of the other four rules. I hope the Minister will be able to explain why it forms part of the Bill and why the words “in particular” need to appear in new Section 6A in Clause 27. I beg to move.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I will be brief. In this group, I have Amendments 116, 117, 118 and 119. The first three seek to leave out “highway” on page 24, lines 14, 16 and 17, and insert “transport project”. We thought that would make the issue clearer. New Sections 6D(3), 6D(4)(a) and 6D(4)(b) in Clause 27 use “transport project” and I therefore did not understand why later in the same clause it was referred to as a highway scheme. Can the Minister explain why that is the case and if my amendments are not necessary? If they are, I hope he will accept them as it is odd to move from the wider and encompassing definition of transport project to the narrower definition of “highway”.
Amendment 119 seeks to provide further clarity by removing “announced”. In these sorts of schemes you get into arguments about when things were announced so we thought it would be much clearer to put,
“first proposed in consultation with the public”.
There will be an actual date on which a consultation is started and when papers and a clear plan are sent out. We thought this would be much better as we do not want disputes later because everyone is arguing about when the scheme was formally announced. That is the purpose behind the amendment and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, we have moved on to the no-scheme principle. The problem with this principle is that since it was first established it has been interpreted in a number of complex and often contradictory ways. Clause 27 is intended to clarify the position. It creates a statutory no-scheme principle and sets out a series of clear rules to establish the methodology of valuation in the no-scheme world. It also extends the definition of the scheme to include a relevant transport project in circumstances where land acquired in the vicinity for a regeneration or redevelopment scheme is facilitated or made possible by that project. We are extending the scheme because we want to ensure that an acquiring authority should not pay more for the land it is acquiring by reason of its own or someone else’s public investment.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for explaining the need for Amendment 107. The Committee will have observed that it is similar to government Amendment 108, so I am pleased to say that I am in complete agreement with the noble Lord. It is entirely correct that increases, as well as decreases, in the value of the land caused by the prospect of the scheme should be disregarded.
Amendment 109 was also proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. He argues that the words “in particular” should be omitted from the introduction to the rules defining the no-scheme world as they imply that some other rules might also be in play. He argues that the rules set out in new Section 6A should be an exclusive list. The Government’s expectation is that in the vast majority of cases the application of the rules as set out will be sufficient to establish the no-scheme world. There may, however, be rare cases in unforeseen circumstances where the Upper Tribunal considers that the application of the rules alone would not give a fair result. Retaining the phrase “in particular” gives the tribunal sufficient flexibility in these rare cases to fall back on the underlying no-scheme principle set out in new Section 6A(2) and its own common sense to arrive at a fair outcome. While I appreciate the noble Lord’s point about the need for clarity, the Government’s view is that the Upper Tribunal should retain this flexibility in order to reach a fair outcome in such unforeseen circumstances.
With Amendment 111, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and government Amendment 112 we now move to consideration of the rules themselves. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, argues that Rule 4 is unnecessary and should be omitted. The Government’s view is that it remains necessary in order to complement Rule 3. Rule 3 assumes that there is no prospect of the same scheme or any other project to meet the same or substantially the same need as the scheme underlying the compulsory purchase. Rule 4 assumes that there is no prospect of any other scheme taking place on the land concerned. As currently drafted, this is too wide, so Amendment 112 restricts Rule 4 to disregarding only those schemes that could be undertaken only by the exercise of statutory functions or compulsory purchase powers. This means that the prospect of schemes brought forward by the private sector would still be considered as part of the no-scheme world. This is a fine point of valuation practice. In the light of what the noble Lord said, I think that the Government should further consider this issue very carefully with the expert practitioners who may conceivably have been briefing the noble Lord to find a solution.
Amendments 116, 117 and 118 were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. New Section 6D(6) specifies that when the scheme to be disregarded under Rule 3 is a highway scheme, the reference to “any other project” includes another highway scheme to meet the same need as the actual scheme. This provision reflects the planning assumption in Section 14(5)(d) of the Land Compensation Act 1961. It is important that the assumptions for the no-scheme world and the planning assumptions that should be applied in that no-scheme world should be consistent. The current Section 14 was substituted by the Localism Act 2011. A similar provision was added to the original version of Section 14 by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. The noble Lord put forward a powerful case that this clarification could apply equally to other transport projects. If it did, Section 14 would also need to be amended to keep the two sets of assumptions in step. I think that this is another issue which the Government should reflect on with expert practitioners.
Turning to the definition of the scheme that must be disregarded before compensation may be assessed, government Amendments 113, 114 and 115 make some small adjustments in the context of the extension of the scheme to relevant transport projects. These have arisen from discussions between the Government and the Greater London Authority and Transport for London, which have only recently been concluded. I am very happy to give details if noble Lords would like them, but as they are relatively small adjustments, I propose to skip that part of the text.
I now return to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. Amendment 119 seeks to clarify new Section 6E(3) which disapplies Section 6E for land bought after a relevant transport project was announced but before this Bill was published. If such land were to be included in a redevelopment or regeneration project in the vicinity of that relevant transport project, it would be valued as if the relevant transport project was not part of the scheme to be disregarded.
The noble Lord’s amendment is much more specific than the Bill as currently drafted. The Government’s view is that such precision may not be necessary. The provision refers to an event that has already happened, and it is quite possible that a project may have been announced in some other way than that specified by the announcement. If so, it would be unfair to restrict this provision because the announcement did not fit within the somewhat narrow definition proposed.
However, having said that, it might be possible to clarify, perhaps in guidance, exactly what is meant by an announcement. That is certainly something that I would like to reflect on. I invite the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, to withdraw Amendment 107.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 107. I look forward to reading carefully in Hansard what the Minister has said, with a view to potentially coming back to this on Report.
Lord Young of Cookham
Lord Young of Cookham
Lord Young of Cookham
“(a) section 333ZA of this Act, and(b) paragraph 19(1) of Schedule 11 to this Act or Part 12 of the Highways Act 1980,”
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, we now move on to Clause 31, which deals with the joint acquisition of land by the Greater London Authority and Transport for London, and whose purpose I will briefly explain.
At the moment, for the GLA to bring forward a comprehensive redevelopment scheme in London involving both transport and other development, two compulsory purchase orders are needed: one promoted by the Greater London Authority for the regeneration or housing elements of the scheme, and the other promoted by Transport for London for the transport or highways elements of the scheme. This division makes no sense. It adds complexity and delay to the process and causes confusion among those most affected. Clause 31 removes this unnecessary division and allows the Greater London Authority to promote joint compulsory purchase orders with Transport for London and vice versa. It inserts new Section 403A into the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which enables either the Greater London Authority or Transport for London, or both, to acquire all the land needed for a joint transport and regeneration or housing scheme on behalf of the other.
The government amendments make two changes to the provisions as currently drafted. Amendments 120, 121 and 123 enable the Greater London Authority to promote a joint compulsory purchase order with Transport for London using Transport for London’s compulsory purchase powers as a highway authority under the Highways Act 1980 in addition to its general compulsory purchase powers under the Greater London Authority Act 1999.
Government Amendment 124 delivers the second change. New Section 403B of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 will enable a mayoral development corporation to promote a joint compulsory purchase order with Transport for London for a joint transport, including a highway, and regeneration project as an alternative to the Greater London Authority itself. Having set up a mayoral development corporation to regenerate an area, such as at Old Oak Common, the GLA would not normally seek to use its own powers in that area. I hope the Committee will agree with me that these are sensible provisions. With that explanation, I beg to move government Amendment 120.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I have Amendments 122, 125 and 126 in this group. I will speak to them very briefly and look forward to the noble Lord’s response to the points I raise. Amendments 122 and 125 seek to make the situation clearer and to avoid the suggestion that a beneficial interest may exist, by removing the words,
“on behalf of the other”.
We do not think those words are necessary, and I propose to remove them in Amendments 122 and 125.
Amendment 126 would insert a new subsection into Clause 32, which would ensure that the GLA, TfL or a mayoral development corporation has the power to acquire land compulsorily for purposes under the Housing and Planning Act if it was previously able to do that under Sections 403A and 403B of the Greater London Authority Act 1999. I hope that we again get a positive response from the Minister accepting that I have highlighted an important issue to which, if nothing else, the Government will respond on Report.
Lord True (Con)
I see the wisdom of what is proposed in these amendments, reinforced by government Amendment 124, where an MDC is involved. I take it that it means only one compulsory order so that TfL is able to acquire land to advance housing projects, et cetera.
This may be my ignorance or otiose, but it appears that the way that this is drafted, based on the Greater London Act, TfL could exercise this new authority only in concert with the GLA or an MDC. However, there are other development authorities and planning authorities in Greater London: the London boroughs. I can envisage circumstances where there is neglected land alongside on a red route where TfL is the highways authority and a borough has an interest, but it may be too small to attract the interest of the Mayor of London. I simply raise the question to seek elucidation. It may not be necessary. Will it be possible when this is liberalised for TfL to use this power in concert with a borough without needing to go via the GLA or to set up a mayoral development corporation?
TfL gets cross when I say this in your Lordships’ House, but it is not always the most nimble authority when it comes to development. Some boroughs might be able to encourage it a little. I do not expect an answer now, but perhaps my noble friend will consider the need for such flexibility if TfL is to be given this new partnership power to acquire.
Lord Young of Cookham
My noble friend Lord True invites me to go way beyond my negotiating remit by extending to London boroughs the powers under the clause, which is intended to remove an existing duplication. However, I will of course consider his suggestion.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
The noble Lord, Lord True, makes an interesting point. I am a member, although not the leader, of another London borough council. I think he makes a valid point which the Government could look at.
Lord Young of Cookham
It is indeed a valid point, but it goes wider than the narrow issue before us. As a former member of a London borough, albeit in 1968, I have an interest in enabling the boroughs to fulfil their full potential. I shall make some inquiries and write to my noble friend.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for tabling Amendments 122, 125 and 126. They deal with two different clauses—Clauses 31 and 32—but as Amendment 126 is consequential on Amendments 122 and 125, I shall deal with them together.
I shall briefly explain what Clause 31 does. The Housing and Planning Act 2016, which will be fresh in the memory of many Members of the Committee, extended the statutory power to override easements and restrictive covenants when undertaking development to all bodies having compulsory purchase powers. Clause 32 amends this power to ensure that it operates as intended for the GLA and Transport for London and brings land acquired by their landholding subsidiary companies within the scope of the powers so that development on that land is not hindered.
I turn to the noble Lord’s Amendments 122 and 125. The Government’s intention in bringing forward the measure in Clause 31 is to allow the Greater London Authority or a mayoral development corporation and Transport for London to use their powers more effectively by allowing them to promote joint orders, as I explained. The amendments the noble Lord is proposing go beyond that and are not quite as innocuous as the noble Lord implied. They would effectively allow both organisations to acquire land for purposes for which they have no statutory power. For example, they would allow Transport for London to acquire land compulsorily for housing or regeneration purposes. This raises broader issues about competence. For those reasons, the Government do not think they are appropriate. It is a key principle of a compulsory purchase system that acquiring authorities should be allowed to acquire land by compulsion only for purposes associated with their statutory functions. Housing is not a statutory function of Transport for London.
The noble Lord’s Amendment 126 relates to the power to override easements in the Housing and Planning Act 2016 and appears to be consequential on Amendments 122 and 125 being acceptable, which, for the reason I have outlined, I am afraid they are not. I know it will come as a disappointment, but I invite the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, not to press Amendments 122, 125 and 126, for the reasons that I have given.
Lord Young of Cookham
Lord Young of Cookham
Lord Young of Cookham
“403B Acquisition of land by MDC and TfL for shared purposes(1) This section applies where a Mayoral development corporation and Transport for London agree that the purposes for which they may acquire land compulsorily under—(a) section 207 of the Localism Act 2011, and(b) paragraph 19(1) of Schedule 11 to this Act or Part 12 of the Highways Act 1980,would be advanced by one or both of them acquiring land for a joint project.(2) The purposes for which the Mayoral development corporation may acquire land compulsorily under section 207 of the Localism Act 2011 are to be read as if they included the purposes for which Transport for London may acquire land compulsorily.(3) The purposes for which Transport for London may acquire land compulsorily under paragraph 19(1) of Schedule 11 to this Act or Part 12 of the Highways Act 1980 are to be read as if they included the purposes for which the Mayoral development corporation may acquire land compulsorily. (4) The Mayoral development corporation and Transport for London may agree that one of them is to acquire land on behalf of the other.(5) Where subsection (4) applies, a compulsory acquisition is to proceed under—(a) section 207 of the Localism Act 2011 if it is agreed that the Mayoral development corporation will acquire the land, or(b) paragraph 19(1) of Schedule 11 to this Act or Part 12 of the Highways Act 1980 if it is agreed that Transport for London will acquire the land.(6) Subsection (7) applies where—(a) the Mayoral development corporation and Transport for London both propose to acquire land compulsorily for a joint project, and(b) the proposed compulsory acquisitions require authorisation by different confirming authorities.(7) The proposed compulsory acquisitions are to be treated as requiring the joint authorisation of the confirming authorities.(8) The Mayoral development corporation or Transport for London may acquire land by agreement for the same purposes as those for which that body may acquire land compulsorily by virtue of subsection (2) or (3).(9) The joint project mentioned in subsection (1) is to be treated as the scheme for the purposes of the no-scheme principle in section 6A of the Land Compensation Act 1961 (impact of scheme to be disregarded when assessing value of land for compulsory purchase).””
“Review of compulsory purchase process
The Secretary of State must, by the end of 2018, have completed a review of the entire compulsory purchase process and brought forward proposals to ensure compulsory purchase legislation is both fit for purpose and included within a single Act of Parliament.”
Lord Cameron of Dillington
My Lords, compulsory purchase powers are a necessary tool for any market-based but property-respecting society that wishes to progress. Progress cannot be achieved without change and very often that change involves compulsorily acquiring rights in land. I believe that in our post-Brexit world we need to focus hard on how we change and develop, and also improve our living spaces, in a way that is fair and equitable and that can be achieved without unnecessary delays and expense. Speed will more and more be of the essence.
The principle underlying compulsory purchase is that the scheme should be for the benefit of society and that the powers used are only a last resort. In the old days, the powers were almost always only used by Government or local authorities. Rather like paying one’s taxes, that was hard to challenge and it seemed fair and reasonable. But of course nowadays it is frequently one privatised company—water, gas, electric, rail or even now telecommunications—imposing a scheme on other private businesses or owners for the benefit of their profit and loss account or balance sheet. Sometimes other private companies, such as supermarkets, are able to harness local authority compulsory purchase powers to achieve their ends for such things as car parks.
One might question whether a supermarket car park is a necessary public benefit. Indeed what a necessary public benefit is could form the basis of one question for the proposed review. In this context, as an interesting aside, in my researches I came across a case in the USA where an old lady defeated and stopped the unstoppable one, Donald Trump, because she proved that a car park for one of his proposed casinos was definitely not of public benefit—not a case relevant to us, but I thought it might amuse your Lordships.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My noble friend Lord Beecham and I fully support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord and look forward to a positive response from the Government on it.
The noble Lord mentioned Millwall Football Club. A couple of weeks ago, when the noble Lord, Lord Young, was speaking to an order on overview and scrutiny committees in combined authorities, I put it on record that I did not think the council got it quite right, to say the least. Thankfully the CPO has now been withdrawn and the council has made it clear that whatever goes ahead in future will do so only with the involvement and agreement of the club, local businesses and the local community. I was very pleased with that, and pay tribute to my overview and scrutiny colleagues for their work to prise information out of the council to enable them to convince the mayor and the cabinet that that was the way to proceed. I also pay tribute to the campaigners, fans, supporters and the club. We certainly had a lot of unhelpful publicity in recent weeks, but overview and scrutiny, in particular, did a very good job.
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, argued eloquently for a comprehensive review of the compulsory purchase system, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. I listened to the very pertinent questions that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said needed to be addressed, including international comparisons, looking at marriage values of freehold and leasehold and all the other issues, and I read the first line of his amendment, which states that by the end of next year we have to complete a review and bring forward proposals. It seems to me a mammoth task to embrace all the questions that he has raised—of course there may be others—within a very challenging timescale.
The advice that I have is that, were we to undertake this review, it would take three years and we would end up with 250-plus clauses. I do not know about other members of the Committee, but 24 CPO clauses seems to me quite a lot. Then there would be a number of schedules. There is no realistic prospect of doing that within the timescale that the noble Lord suggests. However, I recognise that there is a strong desire among many for the compulsory purchase system to be simplified. We have heard speeches to that effect during our proceedings. As my honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Planning said in the other place, he has some sympathy with that, but, as I said a moment ago, a comprehensive review would be a huge undertaking. While the Government do not rule it out completely, we would need very careful consideration before we took it forward, and there would need to be clear consensus on its terms of reference and objectives.
I appreciate that this does not go nearly as far as the noble Lord has suggested, but the Government have been tackling specific issues within the CPO regime which practitioners have identified as causing problems, and we have tried to do this in the Bill by introducing the temporary CPO processes and rationalising the Greater London Authority and TfL powers, as well as by clarifying the no-schemes valuation process. We hope that that will make a real, practical difference on the ground and allow the compulsory purchase system to operate more effectively.
It is relevant to mention briefly the White Paper published yesterday, Fixing Our Broken Housing Market, because it flags up two further areas, which I am sure that the noble Lord would want to add to his list. First, there is the role that the CPO could play in helping to kickstart development on stalled housing sites. The White Paper sets out our intention to consult on new guidance encouraging local authorities to use their existing compulsory purchase powers to support the build-out of stalled sites. Secondly, the White Paper sets out the Government’s intention to investigate whether auctions, following the taking of possession of the land, are sufficient to establish an unambiguous value for the purposes of assessing compensation payable to the claimant when the local authority has used its compulsory purchase powers to acquire the land. Furthermore, the White Paper also makes it clear that we will continue to keep compulsory purchase under review and notes the Government’s willingness to consider representations on how the process might be reformed further to support development.
As I said, we have an open mind on the need for further reform—but I hope that, in the meantime, noble Lords will agree that we should not delay progress on delivering the reforms that we already have in hand, including those in the Bill. So although I have enormous sympathy with the noble Lord’s amendment, it would be unrealistic to expect the Government to support it.
Lord Cameron of Dillington
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Beecham, for their support. The Minister seemed to hint that he is willing to accept the principle of the amendment; that is how he started off. I accept that it might take longer than we had anticipated. To be honest, until I came to write my few words, I did not know how many questions I was going to find in the maelstrom of information that there is out there. I believe that it really would be worth doing, if only to consolidate the legislation list that I read out. As the Minister rightly said, there are probably even more questions than those that I discovered. I look forward to further conversations on this point and hope that, sooner rather than later, the Government will address this area with seriousness. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
“Amendment to TfL powers
In Schedule 11 to the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (miscellaneous powers of Transport for London) after paragraph 12 insert—“12A(1) Transport for London or any subsidiary of Transport for London may sell, exchange or lease its land for the purpose of providing housing of any description at such price, or for such consideration, or for such rent, as having regard to all the circumstances of the case is the best that can reasonably be obtained, notwithstanding that a higher price, consideration or rent might have been obtained if the land were sold, exchanged or leased for the purpose of providing housing of another description or for a purpose other than the provision of housing.(2) Transport for London or any subsidiary of Transport for London shall not be required to act as if it were a company engaged in a commercial enterprise for the purposes of paragraph 29 below if undertaking any activities at paragraphs 15(2) or (3) below with a view to selling, exchanging or leasing its land under this paragraph.””
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, Amendment 128 is grouped with 129, both of which stand in my name.
Amendment 128 seeks to clarify the application of Section 31 of the Housing Act 1985 to TfL or its subsidiaries to dispose of their surplus land for housing development where that is considered appropriate as long as the price obtained is,
“having regard to all the circumstances of the case … the best that can reasonably be obtained”.
The amendment uses the wording of Section 31 of the Housing Act 1985 and contains a restriction in paragraph 29 to Schedule 11 of the GLA Act 1999 to ensure that the powers to sell and develop land for housing are consistent in this context. Amendment 129 is similarly worded and seeks to ensure that there is consistency between the TfL and the GLA in this regard. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, this will be my last contribution to this exchange. I am happy to end on a more consensual note than was the case on some of the earlier contributions.
Amendments 128 and 129 in the name of the noble Lord seek to make new provision in the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which would amend the powers of Transport for London and the GLA to dispose of land.
Amendment 128 seeks to give Transport for London the flexibility to dispose of land for housing, even if a higher value use was available, provided the best consideration reasonably obtainable for housing use had been achieved. To support this aim, Amendment 128 would also remove the requirement for TfL to,
“act as if it were a company engaged in a commercial enterprise”,
when disposing of land for housing.
Amendment 129 would make related provision in respect of the GLA. It would enable the GLA to dispose of land for housing without obtaining the Secretary of State’s consent, even if a higher value use was available, provided that the best consideration reasonably obtainable for housing use had been achieved.
I am very sympathetic to the intention of these amendments of providing flexibility to ensure that we can prioritise land for housing development. However, the legal issues involved are not entirely straightforward, and I think the public interest would be best served if a meeting was held between the Government, the GLA and TfL before Report to consider this further. With the reassurance that I will facilitate such a meeting, I hope that the noble Lord might be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I thank the noble Lord very much for that positive response to these two amendments. On that basis, I am very happy to withdraw the amendment and look forward to a very fruitful meeting between the various parties.
Lord Beecham
“( ) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult the Welsh Ministers.”
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 129A which stands in my name, I wish to speak also to the proposition that Clause 38 should stand part of the Bill. Both these provisions stem again from the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. My amendment refers specifically to a requirement for the Secretary of State to consult Welsh Assembly Ministers—the noble Lord might be included for this purpose—before making regulations under Clause 38, or Section 38 as it will be when the Bill is enacted. The committee refers to the wording of Clause 38, which confers power on the Secretary of State to make such provision as he,
“considers appropriate in consequence of any provision”,
in the Bill. That is a very wide-ranging power. It includes, as the committee points out, Acts of Parliament of course, but also measures or Acts of the National Assembly of Wales. A justification of a kind is provided in the accompanying memorandum, which the committee quotes as concluding that,
“it is considered prudent for the Bill to contain a power to deal with these in secondary legislation”.
But as the committee points out,
“the Bill makes no provision for any procedure in the Assembly when the power is used to amend primary or secondary legislation enacted by the Assembly or Welsh Ministers … there is not even a duty to consult Welsh Ministers when amending Welsh legislation”.
That is an extraordinary position to have got into. The committee goes on to point out:
“Clause 2 of the Wales Bill provides that the UK Parliament will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Assembly”.
However, that appears to be feasible under this Bill as it presently stands. As the committee notes:
“The Constitution Committee have raised similar concerns”,
and it therefore considers that the power should be amended to impose,
“an obligation to consult Welsh Ministers”.
That is what my Amendment 129A does.
There is a proposal to remove the whole of Clause 38—
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, that is in a different group.
Lord Beecham
I beg your pardon—it is grouped with this on the paper I have here. I will not make that point now but will deal with it when we get to that group. I beg to move Amendment 129A.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I speak in support of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, on Amendment 129A. I also speak, as a member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, to express our surprise that there was no provision even for consultation, with the Welsh Assembly, when proposed changes to an Act or secondary legislation are made. As I understand it, if it is an Act, there would normally be a legislative consent Motion; if it is secondary legislation, a consent Motion. That was the original provision, and I assume it is still the same. The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, fortunately, is an expert in this field.
I can only assume that this is an accidental omission, as I cannot see any policy in it. It seems to me ludicrous that a Secretary of State could, with a stroke of the pen, without any consent in Wales and without any consultation, simply amend the Act. I shall speak further on the clause stand part debate in a moment.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for moving this amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for speaking in relation to this issue as well. To deal with the situation in its entirety, I will need to look back to the provisions in the Wales Act 2017. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, may recall that we had a similar issue there—I think he was in his place when we discussed it. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, will certainly recall it
To put this in context, first, I make the point that any amendments here—this anticipates what we will be discussing in the next debate—have to be consequential, which limits it to matters that arise in the legislation and are consequential. Secondly, in these cases there are always minor issues. I think this has universally been the case—I have yet to be shown an example otherwise, and I have checked quite a few. In the context of the Wales legislation, it was anticipated that occasionally the wrong terminology would be used. For example, parish councils exist in England, but they are community councils in Wales, and this is about things of that nature, which one would not wish to have to bring back for primary legislation. That is not the sort of issue that should be in primary legislation.
In the context of the Welsh position, it is also worth noting that not only is there power in the Wales Act to amend legislation in the National Assembly for Wales, but it also operates in the other direction, giving the National Assembly—effectively, Labour Welsh Ministers —the opportunity to amend our legislation. I appreciate that not all noble Lords were steeped in the process of the Wales Bill. In practice, as is confirmed by an exchange of letters between the Secretary of State for Wales and the First Minister, Carwyn Jones, on which I hope to expand in a letter to noble Lords summing up what has happened in today’s Committee, where we identify an issue that needs a minor amendment, we notify both the First Minister and the Presiding Officer, the Speaker in the National Assembly, who, if she wishes —it is a she at present—can draw it to the Assembly’s attention. Of course, under devolved arrangements, it is a matter for her and the National Assembly as to what they do. So it is a reciprocal arrangement.
I anticipate that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, will say that, from a legal purist’s point of view, that is not ideal, but from a pragmatic point of view of dealing with minor amendments—if noble Lords can find anything major that is dealt with in legislation of this nature, I should be very interested to see it, because that would be an outrage. It is a tidying-up exercise. I hope that we can translate this to the Bill. I am happy to look at this point and deal with it in correspondence, but it is a common-sense approach to what is a relatively minor issue. With that, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. I am happy to discuss it with him and other noble Lords afterwards, but I put the substance of how this operates in the context of Wales, because I think there is a read across, and we would do something identical, mutatis mutandis, under the Bill.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, if that is the case and it is the practice to write to the First Minister and Presiding Officer of the Assembly, why not have that in the Bill so that there can be no slipup, if that will inevitably happen and is required to happen? It seems common sense that it should be in the Bill. An exchange of letters outlining a practice is in no way a safeguard against the arbitrary use of the power by the Secretary of State, widely drawn as it is.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the noble Lord knows as well as I do the difference between convention and provision in statute. If everything that had been discussed in Committee on the Bill will put in statute, it would be a much longer and more complex piece of legislation. This is about finding the appropriate place to deal with it. As I said, I am happy to share the correspondence and discuss it further, but I do not think it should appear in the Bill.
Lord Beecham
I obviously cannot proceed to a vote on the amendment, but the Minister seems to ignore the explicit statement of the Delegated Powers Committee that,
“the power conferred by clause 38 of this Bill is inappropriate to the extent that it allows the Secretary of State to amend Assembly legislation without at least an obligation to consult Welsh Ministers”.
If that is the practice, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, that it should be codified and expressed in the Bill. What is the problem?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, with respect, it is asking not for that but for an obligation to consult, and I have said that that is a reasonable request. It is effectively what is happening under the Wales legislation. I have said that we anticipate doing exactly the same, mutatis mutandis, under the Bill, so that, via the Presiding Officer, we are consulting.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
Can the Minister tell us whether there is any provision in a Welsh Bill intended to amend English legislation, or legislation at Westminster, where no consultation is required, in the same way—mutatis mutandis?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I am sorry, I have made the position clear. I am not sure what point the noble Lord is seeking to make. I am happy to discuss this further. I invite the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, to withdraw the amendment on that basis, but I do not think I can go further than that at the moment.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
My Lords, as this is the first time I have spoken in this session of the Committee, I declare an interest in that I have a legal case pending concerning a planning application. I have taken advice from the Clerk of the Parliaments and have been told that the sub judice rule does not apply here. I also have some interests in the register which I declare.
I will talk to the short version of the amendment, bearing in mind that we are coming to the end of this Committee stage. I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, said about the report of the Delegated Powers Committee. I have also read it and understand what it says. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is on that committee and will know the detail. I have also looked at the House of Lords Constitution Committee, which makes it very clear that Henry VIII clauses are a departure from constitutional principle and should be contemplated only when a full and clear explanation and justification is provided.
Throughout this Committee, there has been quite a divergence of views on the purpose of the Bill. The Government see it as a way of building the maximum number of houses in the minimum of time. Local people see it as an opportunity to make the best decisions for their towns and villages, and that should be sovereign—I use that word advisedly.
The Henry VIII clause is not justified in the Bill. The Bill is an attempt to overtake the Localism Act by giving more power to the Secretary of State. I have found this tendency threaded throughout the Bill. On another clause, when I voiced my concerns, the Minister told me that the Secretary of State would use his powers sparingly. In a previous debate, my noble friend talked about consequential and minor amendments and the rest of it. That might be true of this Secretary of State, but I do not derive any comfort from that because, as we all know, attitudes change and the situation could be very different with a future Secretary of State.
I urge my noble friend to reflect on what the Bill is all about. I think he will agree that it is part of a raft of planning Acts. It is not dealing with the security of the state in a time of war, or to tie the hands of the Government in foreign negotiations. It is about ordinary people having some say in their communities and in planning the future of their neighbourhoods. Yet the Secretary of State wants to introduce an autocratic power to rule over good people in case they do not conform to his aspirations. I find that outrageous. I seek to defend the aspirations of good people who have their communities at heart. I strongly resist the incorporation of the clause, as I feel it has no part in the Bill.
Sadly, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, cannot be here this evening. He has a family engagement that he tells me is a three-line Whip and he sends his apologies to the Committee. However, I am truly delighted that I have the support of the noble and learned, Lord, Lord Judge. He is a wise and wonderful person who is internationally admired for his in-depth knowledge of the British constitution, which is what we are talking about. I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, who has proved to be a doughty fighter throughout the Bill. I think of him not as a Rottweiler, but more as a terrier.
Lord Judge (CB)
It is the lion that represents Millwall, is it not? I shall be brief, but not as brief as perhaps I should be because, with respect, this clause is totally flawed. I shall not go over the debate I had with the Minister over what is now the Wales Act, but we still have to face the fact that under the clause as it now stands following the debate on Amendment 129, the Secretary of State in London will be empowered to overrule the legislation of the elected Assembly. There is no arguing; that is what it says, and that is what it means. I understand that the Minister would have no intention of telling us anything other than how he envisages this power being used, and of course I accept it from him, but the power is being given to wipe out the enactments of the National Assembly for Wales without so much as a reference to it.
In my respectful submission, it is subsection (2) of this clause that is so unacceptable: the Henry VIII clause, the legislation that will set aside the legislation. It will give power to the Secretary of State to say, “I don’t like this legislation any more” or “I don’t like this part of this legislation any more, I’m going to get rid of it”. That is what we are empowering if we allow this to go through.
With Henry VIII clauses, you have to ask whether they are justified. Here, you ask the question: how is it justified? The answer to that question is that it is not justified. I looked through the Explanatory Notes. They state:
“Part 3 Final Provisions … Clauses 37-40”—
that covers Clause 38—
“and 42 are self-explanatory”.
That is it. No doubt the clause is self-explanatory, but, with great respect, so what? Self-explanatory is no sort of justification. It is not even an attempt to justify.
Assiduously, I hunted further and found what the department’s memorandum tells us the clause is for:
“There are a number of consequential changes being made by the Bill, particularly those flowing from the addition of a new procedure for modifying neighbourhood plans, restricting the imposition of planning conditions, and amendments to compulsory purchase legislation”.
That is a very neat summary of a very complex piece of legislation, but this is the justification that the department advances:
“It is possible that not all such consequential changes have been identified in the Bill. As such it is considered prudent for the Bill to contain a power to deal with these in secondary legislation”.
Is that any sort of justification?
Going back to the wording, if,
“the Secretary of State considers appropriate”,
is an entirely subjective discretion, entirely uncontrolled in any way by the legislation. Is that really what the department wants? Well, the department may want it, but we are being invited to give powers to a Secretary of State years down the line to repeal an Act of Parliament, the whole Act, the Act that noble Lords have spent four days working on in this Committee. By this provision, if it comes into force, it can all be wiped out. That is what Henry VIII means.
I repeat that I totally accept the good faith of the Minister, I accept it completely and utterly, but he will not be the Minister 10 or 20 years from now, and the list of legislation that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, gave us reminds us of how long this legislation could last. So because the department thinks there is a vague, undefined possibility that may arise in the future, I respectfully suggest that we are being landed with a hugely dangerous piece of legislation because it is totally unjustified. Of course the future is unsure. We all know that; Shakespeare told us that. It is the most important line he wrote. We know that the future is unsure, but it is not a justification for giving literally sweeping—sweeping away—powers to the Executive. That is not how we should operate.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
I wholly support everything that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, just said, and what the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, said in introducing this debate. The matter that concerns the Delegated and Regulatory Reform Committee is on page 9 of its report, at paragraph 54. Not only is the power “very wide” in scope, but it,
“is to make whatever provisions—including ones amending and repealing Acts of Parliament … We note that it has become standard practice for provisions of this type to be included near the end of a Bill”.
This is appearing all the time. It is really an insurance policy: “We might make a mistake, and if we make a mistake we do not want to have the trouble of admitting it; we will just get some secondary instrument through Parliament, and that will be all that we have to do”. That is not a sufficient justification for such a wide power.
The committee suggested that at the very least, the power could be restricted by some type of objective test of necessity: to where it is necessary—to “where we have made a mistake” if you like—or to where something important has been omitted. We need something that gives substantive limitation to such a widely expressed power.
Lord True
My Lords, I will speak briefly, although I feel rather rash in doing so after the compelling interventions we have heard. As I understand it, this power applies to any enactment, not just, as the noble and learned Lord said—I am sure misspeaking—to what is in this enactment. My position is as a lay person, but also someone who was for a long time in the usual channels, interested in the drafting of legislation and how that was done by a Government whom I opposed for 13 years. I have to say that we would have looked a little askance at this sort of thing in those years in opposition. I understand the innocent intent and perfect integrity of the present Ministers involved, but the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, rather anticipated my thought: if clear drafting instructions are given on what is required to be enacted and a Bill is properly drafted by expert draftsmen, there should be no need for the sweeping brush to be around afterwards. That is really how legislation should be presented to Parliament.
This is the second piece of planning legislation we have had in a year. I submit that there has been time to think through these things, but it is the wider point that concerns me. This is not an ad hominem, or a criticism of Ministers here, but this will become a practice—I was struck by that paragraph in the Delegated Powers Committee report. It will become part of the constitution if Parliament continues to accept, in Act after Act, that Ministers of the day can be given power to change any other enactment as a result of something that arises out of their further ruminations or representations on it. I hope that my noble friend will consider this carefully.
The other thing I would say, in the broader context of planning and the challenge of getting more housing and more things done, is that there is immense distrust out there—anyone who lives with the planning system knows the distrust and fear that people have that the system is loaded against them. The system is actually fair, and bends over backwards to try to be fair, but if government arms itself with powers to change the rules if something does not quite work out as might have been intended in the first place—instead of building that consent for new planning and new development that I want, and which I know the Government want—it may add to the sense, so eloquently expressed by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, that the system is loaded. That must be something to avoid. Although my main objection is on the wider constitutional principle, as a practitioner—a local authority leader who has to stand between the forces of government and popular feeling—and as a layman, I argue that we should be particularly cautious in the context of this legislation.
Lord Stunell (LD)
I want to add my amateur voice to that of the professionals who have commented so far. At our previous sitting, we had an extended discussion about the sweeping provisions of Clause 12, making it a Henry VIII clause. The Minister went out of his way to reassure us about the very limited intent of Ministers in relation to that clause. One of the issues, which was perhaps not made very explicit in that debate, is exactly the point that the noble Lord, Lord True, made about the lack of public trust in the system, which the Neighbourhood Planning Bill and the Localism Act were specifically introduced to reverse. The Act seems to be doing so in places where it is taking root, which is absolutely excellent, and anything which would tend to undermine that trust and lead to uncertainty about the effectiveness of the new system is certainly to be avoided if possible.
I look at this from a pragmatic point of view, though I absolutely accept and endorse the constitutional point of view that has been put forward. With Clause 12 and Clause 38 we basically have a Henry VIII clause followed by a William I Clause. William I galloped through England laying waste to everything he saw, and that does not leave a very favourable impression of the direction of travel of the Bill. I hope that on top of any constitutional considerations, issues of news management, at least, might penetrate and make a difference to the Government’s approach.
My noble friend Lord Thomas said that there is surely some wording that could be used to make this a clause about owning up to mistakes. A phrase limiting its application only to cases where there was manifest error or omission would at least put on record and in the Bill its intended limitations.
Lord Shipley
I tried to add my name to this clause stand part Motion but unfortunately the queue was too long and I was not able to. I understand that mistakes can be made and need to be rectified. I again draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that we have, on day one of Committee, had 34 government amendments to a Bill which has passed to us from the other place. That shows that Bills have to be drafted better so that we do not end up with people wanting to change them because the right level of thought was not put in to them in the first place. In her emphasis on neighbourhood planning, the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, had it absolutely right—a clause of this kind in a Bill to do with neighbourhood planning, which can, in effect, put a coach and horses through any aspect of it, is unacceptable. I hope that the Minister understands that, and I very much hope that this clause will not survive beyond Committee.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, there is a certain irony in a Henry VIII clause applying to Wales, given that the Tudor monarchy was based on Welsh lineage. I am also reminded of the lines of TS Eliot in The Hollow Men:
“This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper”.
The Bill is ending in the reverse order. We have had a generally mild and constructive discussion for the past four days in Committee, but we end with something of a bang, because if the Government stick to their position, what is being perpetrated in the clause will lead to significant disagreement.
It is particularly important that the Government should listen to advice from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. Others of us have our own views—we perhaps have a political approach, even those of us who are lawyers of a senior vintage, if I may put it that way. To hear the noble and learned Lord’s critique must surely give the Government pause for thought. It is simply unacceptable to insist on a procedure that leaves so much power in the hands of the Government effectively to ignore the obligations which ought to apply in relation to the Welsh Assembly, in this case, but in general to the operation of secondary legislation. In the few years that I have been here, that has time and again been shown to be defective as a mechanism for sustaining proper parliamentary consideration at the appropriate time of important measures with significant implications for various aspects of public policy.
I hope that the Minister will take this back and respond constructively, or secure permission to do so, to the views of this Committee and those of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and, it appears—for I had not noticed its report—to take the views of the Constitution Committee into account. Obviously, he cannot give us any firm commitments tonight but I hope that, after consulting his colleagues, he will be able to satisfy the House by indicating that. Otherwise, it will undoubtedly have to go to Report and, if necessary, a vote at Report. I hope that we can avoid that because, on the whole, the Bill has proceeded in a fairly consensual way. Most of us have endeavoured to work with the grain of the Government’s policy. It would be a shame if that were in contrast with a rigid decision to stick with very unsatisfactory drafting right at the end of the Bill.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, very much for his constructive approach and say that it is certainly not my intention not to engage on this between Committee and Report. I think that I indicated that on the previous amendment, which he so eloquently moved. I am very happy to engage with noble Lords.
I would like to say one or two things in response to the debate, and I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who has been totally consistent on this issue and obviously speaks from great experience. Contrary to what my noble friend Lord True thought there is a history to this, not just from going back as far as Henry VIII. Successive Governments have indulged in this. I appreciate that that does not make it right, but I have done a little research with my team. The Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 and the Greater London Authority Act 1999, just in this area, have powers wider than those in the Bill. My noble friend Lady Cumberlege referred to how important the Localism Act is; I quite agree but there are wider powers in that Act, which was passed under the coalition Government. I appreciate that that does not make it right, but I want to establish the point that a certain degree of consistency would be welcome on these issues.
That said, I am very happy to engage positively in looking at how we move forward on this matter. I very much echo what the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, said about the way that the Committee has proceeded in a consensual way for the most part. We have not always agreed on issues but we have certainly disagreed agreeably as we have gone through the Bill. I am certainly happy to engage with noble Lords between now and Report in looking at this matter.
We have to keep this in perspective. However, if noble Lords can provide examples of where this provision has been misused in relation to any of that legislation, which, as I say, goes back a considerable way, or examples of where any Government have used it improperly, that would strengthen the case for looking at it further. This measure also does not give the Secretary of State the power that has been suggested; it is subject to an affirmative resolution, which means that it has to be presented to both Houses with a full explanation and carried by both Houses. That said, I understand the points that have been made during the debate. I thank those who have participated: the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, my noble friend Lord True and the noble Lords, Lord Stunell and Lord Shipley, as well as my noble friend Lady Cumberlege and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who put their names to this measure. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. Given the assurance I have just provided, I ask noble Lords not to press this measure.
Baroness Cumberlege
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his response and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for his comments. We are trying to get a consensus. During our first debate in Committee, I was described as the hard cop. I really am hard as regards this issue. We have to think very carefully about including a clause such as this. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said that it was simply not justified, that there had been no attempt to justify it and that there was no control over it. He suggested that this clause could enable a future Secretary of State to repeal a whole Act of Parliament in the future. However, I totally endorse what the noble Lord, Lord True, and other noble Lords have said about the integrity of my noble friend the Minister in the Lords.
My noble friend has said that we ought to look at past experience. I am not interested in past experience. I am interested in the future. I am interested in this Bill and what could be done by a Secretary of State who does not have much integrity. Such a Secretary of State could wipe out the whole of this Bill. That is not respectful to Parliament. We are parliamentarians. We shape, discuss and put forward amendments. We agree and we disagree. In the end, we hope that we produce legislation that is good for this country. My noble friend and I had a very brief conversation outside the Grand Committee in which he talked about successive Governments. I say gently that just because a person has a bad habit does not mean that that habit should be condoned. It should be checked and better behaviour should be encouraged. I encourage the Government to mend their errant ways and follow the path of the righteous. To be righteous is to respect Parliament and not introduce these sorts of dangerous clauses. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, used the words “dangerous” and “unjustified”. Nobody has spoken in favour of this clause. When I read in Hansard the words used by judges and learned people who know the whole system and have worked in Parliament with the Constitution Committee and so on, it sends shivers down my back.
“( ) section (Notification of applications to neighbourhood planning bodies), for the purposes only of enabling the Secretary of State to make provision by development order under paragraph 8(6) of Schedule 1 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990;”
Neighbourhood Planning Bill
Thursday 23rd February 2017
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberNeighbourhood Planning Act 2017 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 101-I(Rev)(a) Amendment for Report, supplementary to the revised marshalled list (PDF, 61KB) - (23 Feb 2017)
16:12 - Division on Amendment 18 - Ayes: 113 / Noes: 107 - Amendment 18 agreed.
Baroness Cumberlege
“Duty to uphold neighbourhood development plans
(1) In exercising functions under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 relating to development plans, development orders, planning applications and planning appeals, the Secretary of State, or any person appointed by him to exercise such functions on his behalf, must seek to uphold any relevant neighbourhood development plan, and in fulfilment of that duty must not override the provisions in such a plan except where the land is needed in connection with a national infrastructure proposal.(2) If it is deemed necessary to override a neighbourhood development plan and require the provision of additional housing or other development, the Secretary of State must have regard to the policies of the neighbourhood development plan, in particular, policies for employment opportunities.(3) If a neighbourhood development plan has been overridden in accordance with subsection (2) it is the responsibility of the local planning authority, in consultation with the local community, to decide where it is most appropriate to provide the additional housing, and their decision must be accepted by the Secretary of State except where the land is needed in connection with a national infrastructure proposal.”
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
My Lords, I should first declare my interests. I have a legal case pending. I have taken advice from the Clerk of the Parliaments and I have been told that the sub judice rule does not apply in my case. My other interests are in the Register of Lords’ Interests.
It is good to be back in your Lordships’ Chamber. We spent four days banged up in Grand Committee—perhaps that is not parliamentary language, but sometimes it felt like that—where we probed, examined and debated the Neighbourhood Planning Bill. Now that we are on Report we can go further and are allowed to vote on issues of importance.
Although the Bill may appear modest, it affects every community in England. It reflects the foundations of our society, now and in the future. It is not only about building houses, although we know that they are very much needed. It is about building homes, strengthening communities and ensuring that we create better lives for future generations. The public, parishes and local community groups have been inspired by the Localism Act and have set about producing their neighbourhood plans. Throughout our debates we have agreed that this is not a nimbys’ charter. On the contrary, neighbourhood plans have been drawn up by good people suggesting sites for new homes, conscious of the public good.
During the course of the deliberations, the Government’s White Paper was published, as was promised by my noble friend the Minister. In the White Paper we are told on page 17 that the Government is making it easier for communities to get involved and shape plans for their area. A little earlier it says that they are to be put in charge. This is very good news—but the Bill as drafted does not echo these admirable sentiments. On the contrary, it creates a gulf between these fine words and the reality.
In my community—and daily we hear of others— the cherished neighbourhood plan, created, lovingly researched and compiled, is cut to ribbons, first by the examiner, later by the inspector on appeal and lastly by a Secretary of State who cannot resist the temptation to meddle in business which is not his domain. His duty should be to uphold the neighbourhood plan except in the most extreme circumstances.
Throughout all stages of the Bill I have been clear and consistent. As I see it, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is charged to produce policies which he and the Government believe are right for the country. His policy is to build houses speedily and where they are required and to cut the red tape that thwarts developers from developing. He should demand that sites already granted planning permission should be used and that affordable homes must make up a large part of the building programme. That is his remit and I applaud it, but thereafter it is the local planning authorities that should fulfil the desires and petitions of the Secretary of State in the best way they can with the benefit of knowledge of their local area. Furthermore, individual parishes, town councils and community forums, which have even more intimate knowledge of the communities they care about, should then be given specific parameters such as the number of houses required in their parish or bailiwick. They have a key role in determining where, when and what homes are needed. That fulfils their part in the local plan which, as I have said, is encouraged in the White Paper.
Planning is a somewhat opaque discipline. I have said previously that it is unlike medicine, which I know a bit about and which has centuries of scientific research and data to build on. Planning relies on policies, opinions and a plan-based system. I have to say that it is a system which has worked reasonably well in the past. Through my amendments, for which I am grateful to have strong cross-party support, I seek to make the responsibilities of both central and local government crystal clear: each should respect the remit of the other. I have tried to work with my noble friend and his department to see whether we can reach some sort of agreement on this, but, although I have refashioned all my amendments, they are again up for debate because I honestly believe that the Government do not trust the people and are seeking to micromanage local planning matters.
If each side would just stick to their knitting, these amendments would not be needed. If planners fail to deliver, the wrath of the Secretary of State is justified. Where the Secretary of State interferes with the neighbourhood plan he gets, and deserves to get, the wrath and indignation of those of us who have drawn up plans and had them approved by their local community through a referendum. Subsection (1) of my proposed new clause sets out clearly that when the Secretary of State or those appointed by him are exercising their functions under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 they,
“must seek to uphold any relevant neighbourhood plan”.
In addition, they would have a duty not to override the provisions in the plan unless the land is needed for a national infrastructure proposal. By that I mean that the land is needed for, say, an airport expansion, a major highway scheme or a rail scheme of national importance—we discussed HS2 earlier.
In subsection (2) I have provided that, if that is the case, the Secretary of State should set out his requirement for further housing but that he,
“must have regard to the policies of the neighbourhood development plan”.
In our case, not only were our policies ignored—worse, they were reversed by the Secretary of State. We did not want street lighting because we are in a rural village. We have always opposed street lighting but he has insisted that it should be in place. We did not want five-bedroom houses. I know that they are very lucrative for the developer, but we actually have too many. He has planned them in. We wanted a break between our village and the next, but the parish boundary was ignored. No wonder we are furious.
Ancient boundaries should be respected. Communities want to keep their historic identity. Under subsection (3) of the proposed new clause, if more houses are required, it is not for the Secretary of State to decide where they should be sited but the local planning authority, with the local community. The Secretary of State should not meddle in the minutiae of local planning. He should stick to strategy. That is his remit.
My noble friend Lord Bourne has been very generous and considerate to all noble Lords who took part at Second Reading and in Committee. He has looked at our amendments, he has given his time and he has been very diligent in trying to meet some of our concerns—as has his department. His department has been very courteous and considerate throughout. But I urge my noble friend not to give up now but to think a little bit more about how our system works and where the responsibilities lie. Perhaps he would like to think again about my amendments and see what he can bring back at Third Reading. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, I will say a few words which I think will help the House in the context of my noble friend’s amendment. I am very grateful to her for the time that she has spent with me and my officials and for her championing of neighbourhood planning. However, contrary to the advice that she has had, I cannot say anything about her neighbourhood plan. I wish I could because there are things that I would deploy but the matter is sub judice and subject to appeal.
As I said, my noble friend has been extremely generous with her time on this important matter, meeting me five times in recent days to scrutinise the current framework for neighbourhood examinations, and has put her arguments forward for their reform. I am grateful to my noble friend and the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy, Lord Shipley and Lord Stunell, for the time they have given to work with my department to identify possible solutions to address their concerns. They brought practical experience and wisdom, for which my department has been most grateful.
I will take the opportunity to set out what we are already doing in response to these concerns because that is relevant to this amendment and others. I also want to be clear that I am continuing to look further at this matter and will keep noble Lords informed. It may be helpful if I put this in context. We are consulting in the housing White Paper on what changes may be needed to ensure that consultation and examination procedures for all types of plan-making are appropriate and proportionate. This provides an opportunity for communities and others with direct experience of the examination process to inform any reforms. I take this opportunity to encourage contributions to our consultation. Building on our discussions with my noble friend, we are also considering what additional material to support this consultation could be made available on our website.
I have also been talking directly to examiners to understand what action they will take now, independently of government, to ensure that communities and others have confidence in the examination process. Indeed, I had the first of these meetings yesterday with representatives of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, which manages the neighbourhood planning independent examiner referral service, and with a number of examiners. The referral service is one of the main providers of examiners used by local planning authorities. I am pleased to inform noble Lords that, in response to our discussions, RICS has committed to producing procedural practice guidance on examination by the autumn for the examiners it works with. The guidance will provide clarity and reassurance that an open and transparent process will be consistently applied to the examination of neighbourhood plans. I will endeavour to supply additional detail to noble Lords who have participated in discussions on the Bill as to how that will pan out.
We will also amend planning guidance to clarify our expectations of local planning authority engagement with neighbourhood planning groups before and during the examination process. We have already made amendments to the Bill in Committee that will enable the Secretary of State to, for example, require authorities to set out how they will provide advice to neighbourhood planning groups on the relationship between a neighbourhood plan and the plans that the authority has prepared or is preparing.
My noble friend and other noble Lords have also highlighted the technical knowledge needed to prepare a neighbourhood plan and the challenges that groups can face without access to specialist skills. We confirmed in the housing White Paper that we will make further funding available to neighbourhood planning groups from 2018 to 2020 and we are continuing to develop the tools and support available to neighbourhood groups. We are already doing more to promote the availability of these tools and resources.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I should declare at the start of Report that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I pay tribute to the tenacity of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and for her work on a range of amendments, but this one in particular because it is terribly important. It is about giving confidence to those engaged in neighbourhood planning that what they achieve will not be turned over by the actions of some other authority. We also know that where we have neighbourhood plans 10% more housing gets built, so having confidence in the system seems to me to matter a very great deal. It is just very important that neighbourhood planning groups understand that their neighbourhood plan can be defended from predatory actions by the local planning authority, the Secretary of State or the Planning Inspectorate.
A number of noble Lords know examples of where an adopted neighbourhood plan is under attack from the local planning authority. Therefore, making sure that we have the statutory position absolutely clear matters a great deal, and for that reason I am fully behind this amendment. I very much hope that the words of the Minister will assist us. There is probably a further conversation to have. I think the fact that the Government have withdrawn the Henry VIII clause, Clause 40, is material here. Although the Henry VIII powers in relation to compulsory purchase will stay, they will not apply any further to the planning parts of the Bill and that is therefore certainly a move in the right direction.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I apologise to the House for not having taken part in the Bill so far: every time I wanted to take part I have been in the committee upstairs, and when one has such a clash it is quite right that one should not come in, but today is a different story. First, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Cumberlege on what she has done. She has taken up a point and run with it against very formidable odds and I commend her hugely for doing so. She has a very strong point in principle. I also think that it was very important that my noble friend Lord Bourne got up at the beginning of this debate and said what he did.
Before I go any further I declare an interest as a member of RICS, although I have not practised for many years. I was delighted when my noble friend said that RICS is flexible about this and about amending the instructions it gives. I can only add to what the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said: neighbourhood plans are terribly important because they involve the neighbourhood. If people give their time freely and voluntarily to take part in putting these things together and they get kicked in the teeth, we will not get them to come forward a second time. It is hugely important for the Government’s policy, which I totally support, that the right support and instructions are given all the way down to the examiners and local authorities. This is not just about housing; in Hammersmith, there is a draft neighbourhood plan and a planning application which would drive a coach and horses straight through it.
These issues will affect the local community and if, having put all that work in, the community is seen to be ignored then the Government’s policy will fail. I hope that my noble friend Lady Cumberlege does not press this amendment because it is a very welcome sign that my noble friend the Minister said he is still considering it. I hope that the House will support the principle of the amendment but also support what my noble friend on the Front Bench is doing in giving this matter further thought.
Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)
My Lords, I speak in support of the spirit of what my noble friend Lady Cumberlege is trying to achieve. I have previously declared my interests in debate on the Bill, in being chairman of the Local Government Association and the leader of South Holland District Council. I said at Second Reading that I am not a fan of neighbourhood plans and nothing that I heard then or since would convince me that they are a good thing per se. But if we are to use a neighbourhood planning system, I certainly support the idea that when such a plan has been tested by the public whom it affects and by the local planning authority, and has been found to be in compliance with the NPPF, only in very extreme cases should it be overturned.
None of the proposals going forward, such as about training RICS inspectors to make sure they know what they are talking about, will suit what we need from this. We need an assurance from the Government that if the community goes through the pain of preparing a plan, that plan will be respected once it has been tested unless there is a major infrastructure need at a national level that would trump it. Revisiting how it is built will not give people any more confidence in a plan being respected once it has been done. The respect for the fact that it has been tested in public should be paramount. The Government really should decide whether or not they like neighbourhood planning and, if they do, they should find a form of words somewhere to insist that neighbourhood planning will be respected. I hope that my noble friend Lady Cumberlege does not press this to a Division because I would obviously go through the Lobby with the Government, on the basis that I do not think neighbourhood plans are the right thing to do anyway.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, I start my remarks by making my usual declarations. I refer the House to my register of interests and declare that I am an elected councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I too pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, who has led on this issue with considerable skill right from the start of our deliberations. We are all grateful to her for that.
Everyone who has spoken, with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Porter, has voiced support for neighbourhood planning. It is right for the Government to set out the policy and parameters—the broad aims of what they want—but it must surely be the job of the local community, local councillors, the parish and local planners working together to set out in the context of that overall policy what should happen locally. The noble Baroness’s amendment would do just that, with a number of sensible safeguards that should give comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth. The amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State to uphold neighbourhood plans, with the proviso that they can be overridden only in exceptional circumstances. The proposed new clause sets out clearly the responsibilities and how matters of national concern would not be frustrated by the neighbourhood planning process, which is a very important part to have in it.
Subsection (2) of the proposed new clause makes it clear that where it has been deemed necessary by the Secretary of State to override the local plans in the requirement to build additional homes, it must be done with regard to the local plan. Again this is a very sensible proviso, as surely we want any changes made locally to be done as sensitively as possible, and not to have some sort of fire sale where everything is up for grabs and no account is taken of the views of local people and the work that has gone into producing the local plan. It should not just be ignored in that respect.
Finally, subsection (3) of the proposed new clause makes it clear that it is the responsibility of the local planning authority, with the local community, to decide where it is best to have any additional required development. That is, as always, making sure the Secretary of State is setting out the broad policy parameters, but it is the local community, local councillors and the planning authority deciding the detail in the context of that broad policy aim.
I agree with many of the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. The noble Baroness made her case very well. I welcome the points made by the Minister in his helpful comments at the start of the debate, but I am not sure he has gone far enough. The noble Baroness referred to coming back at Third Reading. The Minister talked about policy and guidance and what they are doing in the department, but—perhaps he will come to this in a moment—I did not hear him say what, if anything, he will bring back at Third Reading. I look forward to hearing that.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated in the debate on this amendment, particularly my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, who is rightly acknowledged to have worked with great skill, diligence and good humour on this subject. It has been a pleasure to engage with her in this area and to make some progress on the issues we have been looking at.
It may be helpful if I say a little bit to put the Bill in context before I turn to the amendment. It is almost five years to the day since the people of Upper Eden in Cumbria went to the polls to vote on the first neighbourhood plan. Since then, we have witnessed what some have called a quiet revolution around England with more than 2,000 communities taking the initiative to shape the future of their area through neighbourhood planning. During the passage of the Bill, we have listened to some passionate arguments seeking a stronger voice for communities in local planning decisions. Communities are at the heart of this Bill, and I have been keen to respond to that.
Last year, the Government committed to this legislation to give additional strength to neighbourhood planning because neighbourhood plans are a powerful tool that bring with them responsibilities, and it takes significant commitment and determination to produce a plan. I am very keen on this issue, hence my earlier comments about ensuring that there is proper preparation and help in putting together a neighbourhood plan, which I think is where some of the problems arise. I cannot say anything specifically about the situation of my noble friend because it is sub judice, but in general, I think having that assistance at a very early stage will help communities. We will do our level best to ensure that all communities going through this process are aware of the help that is available. As I have indicated, I am happy to continue to engage with my noble friend on this subject, and I will keep noble Lords informed of the progress of those discussions, which have been ongoing and fruitful in many respects. Much of what we are doing here we are able to do without legislative intervention.
There is no doubt about the importance of the issues raised by the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege and supported by the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy. However, it would fundamentally change our planning system by removing the ability of those taking decisions to exercise their judgment when considering the planning merits of the case and the evidence for and against a specific development proposal, and the Government could not support that. We need to remember that the essence of planning decisions, particularly those on individual proposals for development, requires choices to be made. There must be freedom for decision-makers to make such choices according to the circumstances of the individual case. I certainly support the ambition behind the amendment to reinforce the primacy of the development plan, which incorporates the neighbourhood plan but is not limited to it. However, this amendment would elevate the policies in a neighbourhood plan above any other policies in the development plan, regardless of the relative weight the decision-maker considers should be afforded to individual policies in the development plan. Furthermore, the amendment makes no allowance for whether the policies in a neighbourhood plan have been kept up to date to ensure that they remain relevant.
To reiterate the point I made in Committee, the law is already clear that decisions on planning applications must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
Baroness Cumberlege
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I agree very much with my noble friend Lord Caithness about the start of the debate, when the Minister told us about the new help they are going to give to those making local neighbourhood plans. As has been said, they are volunteers, not experts in planning. The additional help he has suggested will be warmly welcomed, and I thank him for it.
To take this in sequence, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, made such an important point. When we start with a new policy and legislation and are trying to do something really quite different—this is about ensuring that local communities are in charge and can shape their local areas—clearly, we have to retain the confidence of the public. However, some of the things happening at the moment are ensuring that we lose the confidence of local communities who have put their heart and soul into drawing up their neighbourhood plans, sometimes for as long as five years—in our case it was two and half years. It is terribly important that if we are doing something different, we keep our populations with us.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, referenced new Amendments 64 and 68, which come right at the end of the Bill. He is perfectly right on this. It is a major change and I thank my noble friend Lord Bourne again for his generosity and for seeing the sense of what we trying to do with those amendments—although we will of course be debating them later on.
I really thought my noble friend Lord Porter was going to be a lost soul, but I do not think he is beyond redemption. His position is sincere. He is of course using his integrity and telling us that he does not quite believe in neighbourhood planning, but I will bring him around. I still thank him very much for his support for ensuring that when neighbourhood plans are drawn up they are not overridden, and that they should be upheld by the Secretary of State. I want to believe in this wonderful new policy and legislation. The Secretary of State should be the guardian of neighbourhood planning, yet we see different things happening in the countryside, which is very distressing for some of us.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, whose support has been stalwart throughout. I think of the very interesting debates in Committee—or maybe it was on Second Reading—when he came back and back. I thank him for that.
I have been very tempted to test the opinion of the House—I feel strongly about this issue, and I have had a great deal of support from across all sections of the House—and I thought, “Today is the day when I will actually test the feelings of the House”, but I have listened to my noble friend Lord Bourne and heard him say he is prepared to have another conversation with me. As I say, he has been very generous with his time and efforts in meeting all our amendments all across the House.
I live in hope. I am going to read Hansard very carefully and consider what he said. I think he strongly made the point about the primacy of the local planning authority as opposed to the neighbourhood plan, so I need to think a bit more about that. I am not one who gives up easily and I will think about what has been said. I sense from other Members of the House that they do not want this tested today, but there is always Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Cumberlege
“(3C) A neighbourhood development plan may include a phasing condition on development which is agreed with the local planning authority.”
Baroness Cumberlege
My Lords, the amendments in this group concern the position of the examiner. An awful lot of annoyance has been caused by some of the work that the examiners have been doing. I am sorry, these speaking notes refer to the wrong amendment. I apologise to the House.
Amendment 2 refers to the issue of phasing. I feel that phasing is very rational in planning, not just in a neighbourhood plan or a local plan. Phasing is relevant to the developers as well as to those making the plan. Although the Secretary of State may be under the illusion that building hundreds of thousands of houses as quickly as possible is a good idea and that local authorities’ neighbourhood plans should not frustrate that, the reality is that developers are acutely sensitive to demand.
There is a strong need for affordable houses, but for 60%—which for the purpose of distinction I shall call unaffordable houses—the market fluctuates. Developers are well aware of that; they do not want oversupply; and they hold most of the cards. There is a wide difference between the need for homes and people’s ability to pay for them; we know that. Throughout the neighbourhood planning scene, phasing is being ruled out by examiners. The political imperative is houses today at any cost. If achieved, that would end in tears.
I have previously mentioned the uncertainty that Brexit brings. A headline in yesterday’s Guardian read:
“Concerns grow among top City bankers that losing access to the single market will force a wave of relocations and lead to the ‘unwinding’ of key businesses”.
We also know that the future of interest rates is uncertain. Above all, if we get a lot of relocations, we could have negative equity in the housing market, and we know that that certainly ends in tears.
Developers and neighbourhood planners have a plan to fulfil by 2030, not until the next election. The Government have a plan to fulfil nearly a quarter of a million houses by the next election, but neighbourhood planners and developers have a longer-term view, and land banks for developers will be kept or released as the market dictates, not as the Government wish.
Local and neighbourhood planners are fully aware that to absorb newcomers takes time, and the impact needs to be assessed. If established residents feel that they will be overwhelmed, this can have serious consequences for a community. Newcomers and bricks and mortar do not build strong communities; communities that care for each other and cost less for the state to support take time to build.
Those involved in healthcare are all too aware that a quick cure for cancer does not involve giving the full treatment in one go. That would prove fatal. With a rush of injections, the Government are trying to solve the housing problem. The scramble for rooves is a folly. Common sense from neighbourhood planners and economic savvy from developers are both sensible. Phasing must be a key component of proper planning. I beg to move.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, concerns phasing conditions on developments, as discussed on the first day in Grand Committee on the Bill. The amendment is sound, and we are happy to support it. It provides for communities to agree with the local planning authority a phasing condition on new developments.
The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, may tell us in a moment that this can already be done and that the local plan should contain a realistic timescale for delivering development and putting in infrastructure, that decisions should be evidence based and are largely for the local community to take. That is fine, but he must answer the question: if you put all that in place, what happens when it is all thrown out by the examiner? We will listen to his response on that point with interest.
I want more houses to be built, but I also want them to be sustainable and carbon-neutral. We must learn the lessons of the past, not repeat its mistakes. With that, I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, I was not going to speak in this debate, but having listened to the noble Baroness, having spent a large part of my working life in housing estates in the East End of London and having been responsible as a clergyman for dealing with the families of people who suffered from the social and economic devastation of a lot of the housebuilding of the 1960s and 1970s, which has been an absolute disaster, I worry a great deal when I hear politicians on all sides talking yet again about building more and more houses without talking about communities and place making. I am speaking to enforce absolutely what the noble Baroness has said. It is really important that we do not yet again allow the machinery of government, which has not changed since those days, to continue to be in real danger of repeating, with the best will the world, all the same mistakes with developers—many of whom I worked with and who are good people, actually. It is really important that we talk about place making and communities, and not just about building houses.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for moving the amendment in the second group, and the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Mawson, for their participation.
I can reassure my noble friend that the Government agree that development is about far more than just building homes—a point that the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, has just made very forcefully. It is about creating communities, and the essence of this piece of legislation, as we all affirmed when it was going through Committee, is not just about building more houses, although clearly as a nation we need to do that, but about ensuring that it is done at an appropriate local level and giving strength to communities. That is the essence of this legislation.
The recent housing White Paper is clear that communities need roads, rail links, schools, shops, GP surgeries, libraries, parks, playgrounds and a sustainable natural environment. Without this infrastructure, no new community will thrive, and no existing community will welcome new housing if it places further strain on already stretched local resources. I agree with that general point. It is very central to the legislation.
A key benefit of neighbourhood planning is that it enables local communities to provide a long-term strategy for housebuilding so that they can manage when and where homes are built in their local area. Depending on the local situation, the process may include consideration of the likely impact of proposed site allocation options or policies on physical infrastructure, such as the local roads network, and on the capacity of existing services, which could help shape decisions on the best site choices. That provision of local infrastructure could well justify phasing the delivery of development. It may also require neighbourhood planning groups to consider phasing the delivery of development to ensure that they have a realistic plan for delivering their housing policy within required timescales with the right facilities available for the community.
At this point, I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. We are beginning to know each other so well in these exchanges that he is able to speak not only for the Opposition but for the Government—I know he is after my job, but there are limits. Neighbourhood planning groups are already able to phase development. We would encourage that, although it has to be appropriate to the circumstances of the local community. It must be backed up by clear evidence as to why there should be a restriction on when a specific site or sites should come forward for development. It should be evidence based, and we would all accept that. This is because we want as a nation to ensure the proposals are deliverable.
I agree with all the sentiments expressed in the debate, but I remind noble Lords that this facility is available at the moment. Provided it is evidence backed, it makes sense and is what local neighbourhood groups should be doing. The Government firmly believe that these matters are best dealt with by local communities and their local planning authority working together, as they are best placed to make decisions that affect their local area. With that reassurance, I ask my noble friend respectfully to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Cumberlege
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for his support throughout this. It seems to me that phasing is common sense. It does not have to be something that is scientific; it is very specific. I agree with my noble friend that it is up to local people. I am anxious to ensure that there is freedom with the Act, within planning appeals and applications, and that there should be an opportunity for phasing when the local community feels that that is right.
The noble Lord, Lord Mawson, has had real experience of huge developments across the country. He brings a very special quality to those developments in that he understands communities in a way that many of us do not; he knows the real detail. I have heard him speak on many occasions, and he is ensuring that what is happening works well. The noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Mawson, are right that we have to learn from the past and from when things have gone wrong.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Bourne and think that he does feel that there should be opportunities for this phasing to take place, where the local communities want it. I would like some more assurance, perhaps by letter or however he wants to communicate with me, that we can ensure that phasing is available to local communities. Phasing is not part of the way in which some of these neighbourhood plans are now being drawn up, because it is felt not to be appropriate. If we could have some commitment from the Government that it is appropriate, it would give a lot of comfort to a lot of people.
Baroness Cumberlege
12_ In exercising the powers conferred by sections 61E, 61F, 61G, 61K, 61L, 61M and 71A of, and paragraphs 1, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12 and 15 of Schedule 4B and paragraphs 3 and 11 of Schedule 4C to, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and sections 38A, 38B and 122(1) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the Secretary of State must—(a) require the local planning authority to provide the qualifying body with reasonable assistance to secure that, as far as possible, the development goals of that body can be drafted in terms that meet the basic conditions in paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 4B to the 1990 Act;(b) enable the qualifying body to brief an appointed examiner on the broad goals of the neighbourhood plan proposal, in order that the qualifying body may take into account any initial views of the examiner before submitting a final proposal to the local planning authority;(c) provide the qualifying body and the local planning authority with the opportunity to attend and contribute to any meeting called by the examiner;(d) require the examiner to—(i) provide the local planning authority and qualifying body with a draft report and recommended modifications to the draft neighbourhood plan only if necessary to secure compliance with the four basic conditions;(ii) consider any representations made by the neighbourhood plan body with a view to better achieving the goals of that body;(iii) provide a final report, taking account of the responses of the local planning authority and neighbourhood plan body to the draft report, and giving clear reasons for any points which the examiner is not minded to accept.”
Baroness Cumberlege
My Lords, the amendments in this group concern the examiner. The examiner comes into the scene quite late on when a neighbourhood plan is being drawn up. The examiner looks at the plan; he arrives; and in our case he did not talk to anybody. We were told that he had driven around the area, but we did not know that. We never saw him, met him or explained to him what we were trying to achieve. He disappeared and left us with sweeping changes to the years of work that had been undertaken by good people in the community—people who were the first to admit they were not professional planners. But our examiner was never seen. People say that their examiner did not understand. We hear people say that. The question is how to get this to work in a much more inclusive way, because the volunteers who make the development plan need to talk to the person who is examining it. The examiner needs to talk to the community to understand what it is trying to achieve.
There was a problem in our community because our village was at the vanguard of making a neighbourhood plan. When the examiner came in and made these enormous changes, of which we knew nothing until we received the written material that he gave us, we were completely dumbfounded. This was not the neighbourhood plan that we wanted to put to the public. It was a plan that was written by the examiner, who deleted pages and pages of our plan which we felt were informative and useful to the local community when it came to vote in a referendum.
I have probably been unfair and too hard on examiners, but I think that they have been tied up in a process that has not been inclusive and which Ministers, not least my noble friend, have recognised as unsatisfactory. Of course examiners must respect planning policy in law and need to make sure that neighbourhood plans are sound and respected, and they do that. However, they do not take on the wishes and aspirations of the community. The makers of the plan have their expectations and it is right that the examiner should at least hear them and meet the community that is drawing up the plan.
The amendments that I am putting forward in this group are designed to bring mutual understanding and realise the aspirations of both parties. I am very pleased that my noble friend the Minister has encouraged me to negotiate with his department, following our debates in Committee. We may well see that we have a basis for agreement on these terms. His department was very kind to me and gave me a flow chart that was hugely helpful, showing how the process should work.
The first part of what I am trying to achieve is a pre-submission health check, which is offered through the department and done by an experienced examiner, drawn from a pool of examiners. This examiner will not be involved later on, but is there to make an initial assessment—a health check—concerning the ideas that are being put forward by the neighbourhood plan makers. Secondly, I think that there needs to be a clearer duty on the local planning authority to assist the qualifying body—the neighbourhood plan makers—with drafting, so that there is much less need for modifications later in order to satisfy the basic conditions. We have had an earlier debate on modifications and I have not put down an amendment on this occasion because I accept what my noble friend the Minister said about that issue. The third thing that is needed is a provision requiring the examiner to meet the qualifying body in advance of submitting a draft plan to the local planning authority. The purpose of this is to help avoid the need for technical modifications later and after the plan is submitted to the local planning authority and public representations are invited.
The fourth element is a duty on the examiner: where he is minded to delete or amend a housing or economic development policy, he should seek to reach agreement with the local planning authority and the makers of the neighbourhood plan about alternative locations and about the phasing of the plan. The fifth is a provision requiring the examiner to share a draft report, with proposed modifications if he feels that they are necessary. He should be open to suggesting alternative ways of meeting the problems identified, before signing off the examination. This is of course very common practice in the finalising of local development plans. Lastly, I think that there should be a duty on the examiner that, where there are concerns that remain about the drafting, he should seek to find alternative wording to achieve the aims of the plan-making body, rather than recommending crude deletions.
I have had a lot of discussion on this and I have very much welcomed the advice that I have had from my noble friend Lord Bourne and his department and I think that, if he were to consider some of six elements that I have put forward, we could come to some really good agreement at Third Reading. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I want just to add a brief comment, but not to repeat what the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, has said, about the importance of this group. Broadly speaking, the impact of Amendments 3 and 4 is to get people talking, relating to each other and understanding the variety of views that they may have. In Committee, I was struck by the amount of discussion that we had around the tendency towards desk-based decision-making in the planning system, either in terms of examination or in terms of planning appeals by the Planning Inspectorate—and so I think that this will help. The wording in Amendment 3 of proposed new paragraph 12(c), encouraging the qualifying body and the local planning authority to have an,
“opportunity to attend and contribute to any meeting called by the examiner”—
the terms of how a meeting can be called are fairly well defined—will really help, I think. When people talk to each other it becomes much easier to understand points of view.
The other thing that I recall from Committee which relates to Amendment 4 concerns the use of language. It is very difficult for lay people who are constructing neighbourhood plans to understand fully the implications of some of the professional wording. The Minister has taken this problem on board. Having the assistance of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and other professional bodies will help in this regard. Through talking and listening we will get a better definition of neighbourhood plans that will stand the test of time.
Lord Mawson
My Lords, I was not going to intervene but this is a very important conversation in relation to this microexperience and the behaviour of the examiner, who I am sure is a very good and honourable person. However, this is not just about him or her building a relationship with the people on the ground who know the detail of the situation. I suspect that this is a clue to much wider things going on in our society. I have seen this all over the country and am experiencing it in 10 towns and cities in the north of England in which I am actively involved. Lateral conversations are taking place between the Government, civil servants, policymakers, academics and so on. Those conversations are profoundly out of date and do not cut through into real situations with real people, real places and real relationships. The modern world in which we live is all about people and relationships. It is not about systems, process and policy. I suggest that if government could find a way to encourage far more of these kinds of relationships to develop in relation to this microproblem, we might find a way to take the communities of this country into the new more entrepreneurial world we need to build within which they are active partners, not people who simply have something done to them.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, Amendments 3 and 4 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, carry on the same purpose of the amendments we have so far discussed today, which is to protect as far as possible the views and decisions that have been agreed locally. Where they are challenged, reviewed or modified, as far as possible the broad principles of what has been agreed locally should be kept on the table and changes that are deemed necessary should be sought within that framework and everything should not be thrown out and not taken account of. That is the broad thrust of these amendments.
These amendments seek to give local people a voice in a part of the process that can often appear very remote and where they may feel that they are powerless to affect the decisions that are being taken over decisions they have reached over a long period, working with the community, and over which they feel considerable ownership.
We all agree that we need more housing. I think that is something we can all agree on. But surely it must be better if we can agree on getting the homes built where we need them. Therefore, Amendment 3 seeks to include in the Bill a procedure whereby the local neighbourhood forum or parish council has the ability to appraise the examiner of what it is seeking to do and has the right to attend and contribute to any meetings that the examiner calls locally. It goes on further to require the examiner to provide a draft report and to have to consider any representations that are made before issuing the final report. I think that is a very sensible way of doing business which must surely lead to fewer disputes and fewer situations where local communities feel that they have put a lot of work into developing a neighbourhood plan only for it to be torn up, and they have had no ability to influence that process. Therefore, I certainly support these amendments.
As regards the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, I say to him that I grew up on a council estate in Southwark in the 1960s and 1970s. Therefore, I have some understanding of council housing and of some of the problems that have arisen. I am keen that we should build communities when we build new houses and that we do not make the mistakes that were made in the past. There was a lot of expectation and hype about the White Paper but then it seemed to disappear with a bit of a whimper. We will see what comes back on that but we need to look at building more council housing. I am not sure that we got that in the White Paper. Living in London, I know about the affordable rent model. I have told the House many times that when I walk to the station to come to the House of Lords, I look in my local estate agent’s window and am shocked that people pay considerably more in rent than I pay for my mortgage on my little terraced house—indeed, something like twice as much. I do not understand how people can bring up their families when paying those levels of rent. I think back to the rent that my parents paid. They were still able to afford to send their children on school trips, look after them properly, buy them clothes and pay for the family to go on holiday. It is very difficult for families to do that now, especially in property hotspots, particularly London. I hope that I am wrong about the White Paper and that a lot of social housing will be built. However, that is not evident to me from what I have seen so far.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated in this part of the debate. I shall deal briefly with the noble Lord’s slightly off-piste points about the housing White Paper. It is open for consultation until 2 May. My honourable friend Gavin Barwell, the Minister of State in the other place, is going round the country publicising it. There is rightly a lot of interest in it as it deals with a lot of things, including the issue, which is part, but not the whole, of the solution—that is, building more council housing. In the last year for which records are available, we have already built almost as much as was built in the 13 years of the Labour Government, as the official statistics will bear out. That is not to say that we should not do more. Many issues are dealt with in that radical White Paper, which I know the noble Lord approves of.
I once again thank my noble friend Lady Cumberlege for tabling these amendments. As a department, we have worked with her on much of what is in them. I thank the noble Lords who have participated in this debate. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy, Lord Shipley and Lord Mawson, for their important contributions.
Throughout our debate today, and those in the other place, many who have spoken have drawn on their own direct experience of working with communities in support of neighbourhood planning. Noble Lords will know, as I have said, that I cannot comment on the specific situation mentioned by my noble friend because the issue is sub judice. However, I can comment more generally.
We have provided communities with the tools to shape the development and growth of their local area. My noble friend has rightly challenged us to ensure that this opportunity is reflected in communities’ experience on the ground. We are very much in agreement that communities should not feel divorced from decisions about the neighbourhood plan that they have worked so hard to prepare, and that they should be alerted at an early stage if there are fundamental flaws with it. If that is not happening, then clearly a better dialogue is needed. I am a strong believer in dialogue. We have engaged in productive dialogue with noble Lords on this area, particularly with my noble friend, between Committee and Report. We are open to finding an appropriate solution. Part of that solution is ensuring that communities have access to the support and technical advice necessary to prepare a neighbourhood plan. Indeed, that is central. We have touched on this already today in considering the first group of amendments, when I set out what we were doing with regard to neighbourhood planning.
In Grand Committee, I set out the significant increase in grants and the range of technical support and advice now available through the Government’s support contract. As I have already said today, this support includes a “health check” of a neighbourhood plan before it is submitted by an experienced examiner prior to the plan going forward to the local planning authority. Priority groups can access this without charge. Other groups will be subject to charge but can, of course, pay for that out of the allocation that they get from the Government, as it were, in relation to registering as a neighbourhood group, so those grants can be used to pay for a health check. I encourage neighbourhood groups to do just that. I think it is the start of the process of understanding what admittedly can sometimes be very opaque language which is not always accessible to any of us, frankly, except people who are expert in planning law. My noble friend made that point forcefully and correctly.
On the details of my noble friend’s Amendment 3, local planning authorities are already under a duty to provide support to neighbourhood planning groups. Measures in the Bill will ensure that this advice is clearly set out in one place, in their statement of community involvement—there is a government amendment to that effect. We expect authorities to work collaboratively with neighbourhood planning groups and seek to resolve any issues to ensure that the draft neighbourhood plan has the greatest chance of success at independent examination.
While I am sure my noble friend did not intend it, the amendment would significantly expand the assistance authorities must provide to include matters unconnected to preparing a neighbourhood plan or neighbourhood development order—for example, environment impact assessments. We could not support that. I am sure that that would be an unintended consequence of the amendment.
Noble Lords have heard concerns about the neighbourhood planning examination procedure. I and my officials have welcomed the opportunity to discuss this further with my noble friend and with the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy, Lord Shipley and Lord Stunell. We are consulting in the housing White Paper, which has been given a good build-up by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, on what changes may be needed to ensure that consultation and examination procedures for all types of plan-making are appropriate and proportionate. This provides an opportunity for communities, and others, with direct experience of the examination process to inform any reforms. This consultation runs up to 2 May.
My noble friend has raised a matter of great importance but one that requires careful consideration. We need to guard against introducing changes that may have unintended consequences. For the same reason, while I welcome my noble friend’s championing of this issue, I fear that the practical effect of the amendment, as drafted, would be to introduce a number of changes that the noble Baroness almost certainly did not intend and which the Government cannot support.
By way of example, an examiner can only recommend modifications to a neighbourhood plan or a neighbourhood development order that are necessary for the plan or order to meet a set of basic conditions set out in the legislation and other legal tests—or to correct errors. There are currently seven basic conditions. The amendment as drafted refers to only four basic conditions, with no description of which ones are to be considered. Therefore, the examiner would not know which four of the seven current basic conditions they need to provide recommendations on following the examination of the plan. One consequence could be that development could be permitted through a neighbourhood development order that has a negative impact on, for example, a listed building or the character or appearance of a conservation area because the examiner was unclear what was within their remit to make recommendations on, and what was not. As I say, I am as close to certain as I can be that that was not intended.
With the assurances I gave previously on the continuing discussion on how we can improve the planning process and what we have already done on ensuring that health checks are there and that the RICS will produce the guidance, and so on, I respectfully ask my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.
My noble friend’s Amendment 4 also seeks to improve the neighbourhood planning examination process. While the Government take very seriously the need for all those with an interest in a neighbourhood plan to have confidence in the process for examining a plan, we cannot support this amendment. By requiring an examiner to recommend alternative sites for housing and other developments, the amendment as drafted could reduce the opportunities for the wider community to influence decisions on where development will be. Therefore, counterintuitively, this would not be supportive of local decisions or of localism. This could risk undermining public support for a plan which will still need to be successful at referendum before it can come into force. It also requires an examiner to take decisions based on what may well be incomplete or otherwise imperfect information; for example, further assessments may be necessary to determine whether the development of alternative sites may have significant environmental effects or whether the sites can be delivered.
The amendment, as drafted, would significantly extend the matters that an examiner can consider and therefore also matters on which they base their recommendations for modifications. It would enable examiners to modify neighbourhood plans and neighbourhood development orders “for other reasons”— as set out in proposed new paragraph 10(3A)—which would significantly extend the matters that an examiner can consider and base their recommendations for modifications on. Currently, as I have said, examiners can only recommend modifications that they consider necessary to ensure that a neighbourhood plan or an order proposal meets the basic conditions and other legal test, or to correct errors.
Again I am mindful of the discussions we have enjoyed hitherto and therefore suspect that my noble friend did not necessarily intend to broaden the discretion of examiners in this way. The Government cannot support this, and I respectfully ask my noble friend not to move Amendment 4, as well as to withdraw Amendment 3.
Baroness Cumberlege
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said about listening to people. As a councillor—I have been a parish, district and county councillor—I know that you resolve matters only when you see the people who are complaining about a certain issue, and you have to dig quite deep to find out exactly what their concerns are. That is so true of building a neighbourhood plan, where the examiner is concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, is also right about the words we use. We had a debate last time in Committee on the word “modification”, and we have had debates on “substantial” and other words. I appreciate that it is difficult for my noble friend Lord Bourne to have a definition that will hold water in all sorts of different circumstances. However, where the neighbourhood planners are meeting the examiner, those are the sorts of things they can discuss, and each can understand what the other means when they use certain words.
The noble Lord, Lord Mawson, is absolutely right about building relationships with people to achieve what you want to achieve. In this new entrepreneurial world, that is the only way forward. I think about what we are doing in the National Health Service with long-term conditions and maternity services. We are giving people their budgets to spend as they wish, because we believe that those people know best the care that they want. The results are amazing. Therefore we have to trust the people and think carefully about the way we involve them in all sorts of aspects of government, including planning. What the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said about disputes and the unhappiness they can cause was so true. Do let us iron them out before we get too far down the line.
My noble friend Lord Bourne rightly said that my amendments are faulty. I absolutely accept that. I am not a planner; I have not had the Local Government Association and various others behind me. Probably, these words are not quite right. However, I think that my noble friend understands that we can go further on this. I was interested that in our discussion in Committee he said that he accepted that something must be going wrong with some of the plans that have been produced. He said:
“I am happy to look at that to see how we might address it. The general position is satisfactory, but I accept that something can obviously be done to make it more watertight”.—[Official Report, 31/1/17; col. GC 214.]
That has been his view throughout the discussions we have had and the discussions I have had with his department.
We therefore need to go further on this. We need to ensure that at Third Reading we get something in the Bill that is more watertight and which ensures that the work of the examiner is respected. As the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, said, they are honourable people, but they are working in a difficult situation. They are too constrained. We therefore need to open this up and ensure that planners, local people and the examiner get together to iron out some of the difficulties that there are. They need to see each other, talk to each other and take the measure of each other. With the generous undertaking my noble friend made, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Beecham
“(1CA) The development plan documents must contain references to—(a) a threshold for social and affordable housing in the area;(b) the impact of the proposals in the documents on energy efficiency in dwellings and infrastructure in the local area;(c) flood protection for the local area;(d) the impact of the proposals in the documents on air quality in the area;(e) the provision of green spaces and public leisure areas; and(f) education, health and well-being needs of the population.”
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, this is the second last amendment to Clause 7. It is striking that in a piece of legislation called the Neighbourhood Planning Bill only seven pages out of 49 relate to neighbourhood planning. Perhaps at Third Reading the noble Lord might care to move that the title of the Bill should be somewhat different, because most of it relates to a wider issue.
Having said that, Amendment 5 proposes that a series of issues should be reflected in development plan documents. In Committee, the Minister stated that all these matters are covered by the National Planning Policy Framework, but in fact they are not. There is no mention in the NPPF of social housing, although the word “affordability” comes into it, and there is no mention at all of education, so in that respect the noble Lord was mistaken.
In any event, I argue that it would be sensible to include within the development plan specific reference to these requirements. Members of the public will not be terribly familiar with the National Planning Policy Framework, and I venture to think that some Members of your Lordships’ House—including, I confess, me—are not necessarily fully au fait with its provisions. What is the problem with setting out in what is to be a local document the matters that ought to be considered and then dealing with them? That seems a perfectly sensible way to go forward. I hope the noble Lord will reflect on that and agree that, after all, it makes some sense.
I also want to speak to Amendment 8, which deals with two-tier authorities—a county council and a district council. The object of the amendment is to try to ensure that there is a good working relationship between the two authorities. Where a district council does not carry out its planning responsibilities, it is perfectly reasonable for the Secretary of State to have the power to invite the county council to get involved. However, the amendment sets out some conditions relating to that and, in particular, will protect the lower-tier planning authority provided it can demonstrate that it is dealing adequately and efficiently with the timetable for the preparation of the plan. Conversely, if it requires another planning authority to become involved, the provisions of the amendment will not be invoked.
I think we have to tread somewhat carefully around the relationships in two-tier authorities. I hope that the Minister will accept that the amendment will assist better relationships by ensuring that the position of the district council will be respected unless it demonstrates a failure to respond adequately to the requirements of the situation. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I support Amendment 5, which contains an admirable list of the documents that a development plan should cover.
I shall speak to Amendments 7, 8 and 8A. Amendments 7 and 8A relate to the same issue in Clause 9 and Schedule 2. We had a longish discussion in Committee about the capacity of a county council to undertake the planning function where it was felt that a district council had not been fulfilling its obligations. I have thought very carefully about this and have concluded that Amendment 8, which stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and to which support has been given by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, seems a reasonable compromise. It provides a procedure that can be followed and it would probably command broad support in the country. Therefore, I hope very much that the Minister will feel able to accept Amendment 8, or at least come back at Third Reading with something similar.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I may interject on this group, although not in relation to Amendment 5. I am sure that the noble Lord understands that, if one were to incorporate that amendment as it stands, one would in effect create in statutory form a small subset of factors which might and should be taken into account in determining a local planning authority’s strategic priorities but which in no sense encapsulated what those strategic priorities might be. The alternative seems to be to incorporate pretty much everything in the National Planning Policy Framework into a statutory provision setting out what the strategic priorities should be. I think that the legislation is right as it is: it is the job of the local planning authority to set its strategic priorities, and those should be set out through the consultation and then through any subsequent process of approval of the development plan.
However, I want to talk about Clause 9 and Amendment 8 in particular. I would have thought that the Secretary of State would invite a county council to take over the development plan process from a district council only in extremis. I cannot quite see how the Secretary of State could enter into such a plan other than in the most extreme circumstances. The county council is not in any shape to do this. I think that my own county council would be horrified at the prospect of that happening. If district councils are told that if they do not get on with it, this will happen, they will regard that as an empty threat. There is even a fear that if district councils which resisted completing their development plan process—there are very few of those because they know how important the plan is for the local community—thought that they could hand the responsibility over to the county council, that might be an attraction rather than a deterrent.
Therefore, I am not sure that I see the purpose of Clause 9. If the Government feel that they need a toolkit, including a measure that they could take in extremis, it must be set out as that. However, your Lordships will recall that Schedule 2 says that the Secretary of State can do this in circumstances where he or she,
“thinks that a lower-tier planning authority are failing or omitting to do anything it is necessary for them to do in connection with the preparation, revision or adoption of a development plan document”.
That is far too sweeping. So I apologise to my noble friend on the Front Bench, but I rather like Amendment 8. It helps because it sets out straightforwardly that this should happen where the development plan process is not making, or could not make, progress because there is no timetable or capacity and the authority is not trying to attract the necessary capacity. I do not think that Amendment 8 could be incorporated into the Bill, not least because it should include the words “in the view of the Secretary of State”; otherwise the questions of whether the authority had a satisfactory timetable, or whether it was thinking of inviting a district authority to do the job, would become completely open to argument. The Secretary of State must have the power, and it must be the Secretary of State’s view that the local planning authority is not doing what it ought to do by reference to a timetable or to alternative capacity.
In responding to this short debate, will my noble friend say that he will at least take this amendment away and look at it with his colleagues to see whether there is a mechanism—acceptable to the Government at Third Reading—for demonstrating that the Government would enter into a process of this kind only in extreme circumstances?
Lord Porter of Spalding
Like my noble friend Lord Lansley, I will speak to Amendment 8, not to support it but as an opportunity to highlight the fact that county councils would probably be very unwilling to pick up the planning authority responsibility on the basis that they do not have sufficient funds at the moment to deliver adult social care. Why, therefore, would they try to take on planning, which is already subsidised by council tax payers by about 30%? That would leave county councils with less resources to provide the services they currently need to provide, which are already not given sufficient resources.
I cannot understand the Government’s obsession with getting a local plan in place. When we drafted the National Planning Policy Framework it was a stand-alone document that would give pro-development councils sufficient protection where development took place in their own area. A local plan is needed purely so that councils can reduce the amount of development they will take, not increase it. If the Government’s intention is to try to speed up planning and build more homes—something that everybody supports—that will not necessarily be assisted by having a local plan in place. I do not see the attraction, yet we keep going back to focus on local plans. They are not necessary in a pro-development area. Pro-development councils will get sufficient protection from the NPPF; that is how we drafted it.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who participated in the debate on the amendments in this group. I turn first to Amendment 5. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for raising an issue that is, I acknowledge, of some importance. I checked the NPPF and he is right that social housing does not have a separate section, although it is covered by affordable housing. He is wrong in relation to education; it features in paragraph 72, which covers education facilities in schools and so on. However, let me turn to the substance of the amendment. I thank my noble friend Lord Lansley for his participation. There is a fundamental difference in approach. We believe that these matters are more properly addressed in national planning policy, independently of where the list takes us, whereas I think the noble Lord wants them to be included in the Bill. The Government could not support that. We believe it is best left to local authorities to decide their priorities, and I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
I turn now to Clause 9 and the amendments relating to the provision to ensure that the Secretary of State could, in extremis, ask county councils to step into a void to help prepare a local plan. I stress the word “ask”—this is not an imposition; they would be invited. The Secretary of State currently has the power to intervene in a development plan document, so there is nothing new here. Noble Lords seem to think that this is some radical departure from previous practice, but that is not the case—it could happen now. All the Bill does is provide the Secretary of State with a further, more local option for getting a plan in place.
In February 2016 we consulted on our proposed criteria for making decisions on whether to intervene in plan-making. Those criteria are: where the least progress in plan-making had been made; where policies in plans had not been kept up to date; where there is higher housing pressure; and where intervention would have the greatest impact in accelerating local plan production. We also proposed that decisions on intervention be informed by the wider planning context in each area, specifically the extent to which authorities are working co-operatively to put strategic plans in place and the potential impact that not having a plan has on neighbourhood planning activity. We also made it clear that authorities would have an opportunity to put forward any exceptional circumstances before we took a decision on whether to take intervention action. In other words, there is necessarily a dialogue here: this is not something that just happens out of the blue. The housing White Paper—an important document which has already been mentioned—confirmed that the Government intend to make a decision on intervention on the basis of these criteria. As I have indicated, that consultation closes on 2 May. If noble Lords or others want to influence the process, there is an opportunity to do so.
As I said, this proposal supplements the Secretary of State’s existing intervention powers to provide a more local solution and provides an important backstop to ensure that communities are not disadvantaged because their district council has not put a plan in place. It would happen only in the rarest of circumstances, but we believe that it adds to the range of powers that the Secretary of State has and offers an alternative to the direct power he would have at a more local basis. I stress again that it is only an invitation: a county council is quite open to say no and would be reimbursed for the costs if, in extreme circumstances, we should get to that position. It is for county councils to decide whether they wish to accept the Secretary of State’s invitation. Where they choose not to, the only remaining alternative would be for the Secretary of State to intervene more directly. On that basis, and with the reassurance that this is included in the consultation on the White Paper, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments and that Clause 9 stand part of the Bill.
Lord Lansley
Before my noble friend sits down, will he undertake to at least look at defining rather better the circumstances in which he and the Government think it appropriate to invite a county council to take on these planning powers? The broader intervention powers that are currently available do not necessarily translate well to the circumstances in which a county council could, in effect, create a capacity to do this. There would have to be a pretty substantial problem with a district planning authority for a considerable period, and the county council would have to go to a lot of trouble and expense to put a plan in place. Therefore, it must be only in extremis. Schedule 2 does not explain that it is in extremis. My noble friend has said it, but he has not explained it. Perhaps he might yet, in Schedule 2, set out rather better why it will be only in exceptional circumstances.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Before the noble Lord responds to that, could he also say a little about the reimbursement process? Who will do the reimbursing? Will it be the district council that has had a plan taken off it? How then does it agree any dispute over who pays what and how much it will cost? Who will arbitrate that? We may find that a district council is very cross to have a plan taken away from it and will then dispute the amount to be paid to the county council. It seems to me that the noble Lord has opened a can of worms.
Lord Porter of Spalding
Following on from that point, on the basis that district councils are not getting paid for carrying out the plan in the first place, it cannot possibly be them that reimburses a county council—it must be the Government. If the Government are now prepared to pay for planning, perhaps those districts that do not yet have a plan will consider asking their county council to take it on so that the Government actually pay for it.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I cannot help but stand up at this moment. It seems to me that the solution to this whole problem is unitary authorities.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, in response to that last intervention, the answer is no. However, if my noble friend would like to table a debate on that issue, I am sure we would be only too delighted to respond.
I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Porter for his advertisement of the LGA’s position on this. He is, I know, immensely pleased with what is in the White Paper on planning fees.
In response to the point on reimbursement, I do not think it is opening up a can of worms. Reimbursement is something everybody understands. However, when it comes to opening cans of worms, the noble Lord opposite is an expert.
Let me respond to the very valid points from my noble friend Lord Lansley. The power will be used only in extremis but I come back to the point that it is already an existing power for the Secretary of State to take. It is not new and did not come out of the blue. It will be used only in extremis and there will be discussions on that. All we are doing is extending the range of options the Secretary of State has. At the moment, he can intervene directly. This power would mean that he could intervene directly or ask a county council—I repeat: ask—whether it can carry out the plan using its local knowledge and expertise. If a county council has not got that local knowledge or expertise, I am sure that no Secretary of State would want to ask it and would take the power directly.
As I said, noble Lords and others can raise this issue as part of the consultation on the White Paper. We have no intention of altering the position in the Bill but it is open as to how this plays out in the regulations that will follow. The consultation is now open and I know all noble Lords will wish to advertise that. It would be good if people could respond to that by the deadline of 2 May.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, there was a brief debate a moment ago about who would pay the bills where a county council undertook the work. I raised this matter in Committee. On page 47, lines 31 to 40, the Bill makes it absolutely clear that the lower-tier planning authority must reimburse the upper-tier county council. The difficulty with this paragraph to the schedule is that nothing is said about who decides what is a reasonable level of costs, what is included in the costs and what costs the county council might be entitled to ask for.
Therefore, for the avoidance of later difficulty—presumably the Government plan to deal with this matter in guidance, or possibly in regulations more formally—it might be helpful to have the Minister’s reaction now as to who determines what is a reasonable charge for the district council to pay.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and I apologise to my noble friend Lord Porter and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. It is indeed the district council that pays for this—that is absolutely right—on the basis that they have been funded for it. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, on the issue of determining what is reasonable—it may be a matter of dispute but it happens all over the place—place a copy in the Library and send a copy to all Peers who have participated in the debate.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
We do not want the county council network deciding on arbitration.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I am still recovering from the shock of the support of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for anything I have said in this Chamber, particularly on this occasion. However, I am grateful for his support.
I am not sure where the Minister is leading us on situations where county councils are involved or invited to become involved, because it is not clear what happens if they decline.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, it is very clear. The option is available at the moment for the Secretary of State to take direct control. That is the only other alternative to getting a more local solution. That is why this has been included.
Lord Beecham
That is an option of what might be called undemocratic centralism, which is not to be relished.
The Minister made a correction regarding education, which I said was not included in the national policy framework. He is right to say that it is found in paragraph 72. As it describes providing healthy communities, I assumed that it was to do with health matters but clearly it extends beyond them. However, I still believe that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and I were right in suggesting that these matters should be referred to in the local plan. I cannot see any difficult in doing that. I regret that the Minister does not seem to be persuaded of the validity of that argument. However, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Cumberlege
“Planning appeals
Where an application for planning permission has been refused by the relevant local planning authority, on the grounds that it is not in accordance with adopted local development plan documents, including adopted neighbourhood plans, and the applicant appeals the planning decision, the Secretary of State must uphold the decision of the local planning authority unless it contravenes a development scheme of national importance.”
Baroness Cumberlege
My Lords, the amendment is self-evident. It harks back to my opening remarks and seeks to clarify the respective responsibilities of the Secretary of State and local neighbourhood planners. It is all a matter of trust.
I was appalled by the figures that my noble friend gave in a previous debate on the number of appeals being made. Our planning is in danger of becoming rule by appeal inspectors who overrule democratically elected councillors. I trust the Minister will uphold democracy over the ruling of inspectors. The inspector’s role is to examine whether the decision of a local planning authority is clearly at variance with its own policies. However, inspectors are now venturing into making planning policy, overruling totally legitimate plans.
Unusually, I am delighted that my amendment is grouped with others. Amendment 6A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, is eloquent, and I totally support what they are trying to do with it. As a farmer’s wife I know what it is like when you have a building on land that you want to reclaim and that it is very difficult to do. In our case it was only a couple of cottages. However, it is not practical to think that we can build on great swathes of open land and then reclaim it in time. That will not happen. Amendment 40, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, is comprehensive and well thought through. It goes into some depth and has true clarity and also has my full support.
In Committee, we debated the question of appeals, and in replying to the debate, my noble friend Lord Bourne said,
“we place great importance on local development plans. They provide the local community’s vison of how it sees its area developing. It is right that they should be given the weight they deserve within the planning appeals process”.
He went on to say:
“As I have said, where a development plan’s policies are material to an appeal, a decision must be taken in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This does not mean that a planning appeal that is not in accordance with the local development plan will always be dismissed. It means that the appeal should not normally be allowed and that the planning permission should not normally be granted”.—[Official Report, 31/1/2017; col. GC 203.]
There is leeway in this amendment and the ones proposed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Parminter, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. We have to be careful that we do not have planning by appeal, a phrase that is used around the country at the moment. I beg to move.
Baroness Pinnock
My Lords, I draw attention to my entries in the register of interests as a councillor in the borough of Kirklees and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I support wholeheartedly Amendment 6, which has been moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. My Amendment 6A simply adds detail to the broadness of her amendment in relation to planning appeals.
Noble Lords will recall that in Committee I raised the issue of the importance of enabling development on contaminated brownfield sites by the provision of a government fund for remediation. Since that time we have learned from the housing White Paper that action may be in progress on that. However, in the Minister’s response to my amendment in Committee, he reiterated the Government’s commitment—I am pleased about this—that brownfield sites should have development precedence over greenfield sites. I want to explore further that commitment because experience and evidence point in a different direction.
In the National Planning Policy Framework of 2012 the Government introduced the concept of a five-year housing land supply within any local authority area. Initially the concept was to be gradually introduced in order to give time for councils to develop new plans to take this requirement into account. But that transition did not really happen and from the start, green belt land, urban green space—which is the equivalent of the green belt within an urban conurbation—and even land in areas of outstanding natural beauty became vulnerable to developers seeking to build on attractive sites; that is, attractive to residents who wanted to retain them as green spaces, and also very attractive to developers who wanted to build on them.
The CPRE commissioned an analysis of the outcomes of planning appeals and the results were published in September 2014. It found that of around 270 planning appeals between 2012 and 2014 lodged in areas that did not have a five-year housing land supply, three-quarters were granted despite their allocation in the existing planning policy of the local council as green belt, urban green space or an area of outstanding natural beauty. I repeat, three-quarters of those appeals were granted, and that equates to rule by planning appeal, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, said earlier. It certainly seems to be the case. This demonstrates conclusively that a local planning authority which does not have a five-year housing land supply is vulnerable to developers who will cherry pick green belt or greenfield sites because the land is easier to develop and the value of the properties is thereby enhanced.
The Government have also commissioned their own report. The Local Plans Expert Group published its findings in March last year. The report states that Section 78 appeals, which are appeals against determinations by local planning authorities,
“by developers bringing forward new evidence”—
mainly the lack of a five-year housing land supply—
“leading to extensive dispute and the release of unplanned sites … brings the local plan process into disrepute”.
And so it does, because the third piece of evidence I have is from my own experience in my authority where, this year, planning consent for two sites that had been allocated as urban green space—which is precious to those living in built-up areas because such sites are their only green areas—has been granted on appeal because the report of the Planning Inspectorate deemed that a five-year housing land supply is more important than land being allocated as green belt or urban green space. As the Government’s report states, local people feel that they are powerless, have no say in local planning, and are wondering about the point of going through the long-drawn-out process of developing a local plan for the planning committee. The decision is taken out of their hands and sites are allocated without any reference to the need for infrastructure in the form of school places and so on.
I ask the Minister to give me confidence that, as the amendment seeks, equal weight will be given to the fundamental policies of either a five-year housing land supply or designation as green belt or urban green space. I would prefer the weighting to favour allocations as green belt, urban green space and areas of outstanding natural beauty. They should be paramount to other uses because in any local authority area there is plenty of land that is not designated, including in my own authority where reserve sites are still available. But no, developers go and cherry pick the green belt sites. As noble Lords can tell, I am extremely cross about what has happened. Again, I hope the Minister will be able to say that green belt and its equivalents will be given greater priority and that applications from developers will have to be refused when other sites are available. I look forward to his response.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 40, tabled in my name, is included in this group and carries on the theme of many of the amendments before us, which is how to give communities confidence that the work and effort they put into a local plan will be taken seriously. In so doing we would encourage more widespread planning in local communities, which is something we want to see. The Minister has suggested that the Bill and the ministerial Statement produced before Christmas are sufficient. Although I acknowledge that they are a step in the right direction, I and others who spoke in Committee did not and still do not believe that on their own they are sufficient. Let me make it clear: a neighbourhood planning body has no right of appeal if the local authority approves an application contrary to the neighbourhood plan or if the development would comprise fewer than 10 homes, which in rural areas means the majority of applications. Their only recourse is to go to judicial review. However, these are neighbourhood planning bodies. They are not all parish councils and they do not have substantial budgets, while of course the judicial review process is costly and largely procedural anyway.
I echo others in saying how helpful the Minister has been in his communications on these matters and I accept the sincerity of his belief that the measures in the Bill are sufficient. I would give him the benefit of the doubt if I knew that the department will be monitoring local planning authorities which do not respect the wishes set out in neighbourhood plans. This is a new process, but when in the future we get new planning Bills, which we surely will as a result of the housing White Paper, noble Lords need to have evidence if the welcome intentions in this Bill are not being delivered. We could then seek to ensure that there is a proper system of review along the lines that I have proposed in the amendment if neighbourhood plans are not being given the weight that they deserve. Here I should say that I am most grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. The time and effort that is invested in neighbourhood plans means that communities have the right to expect them to be taken seriously and we should address the concerns of those who feel that they are simply being ignored and that there is nothing they can do.
I know that the Minister will not accept this amendment, but I would ask him to say in his response whether the Government will commit to asking local planning authorities to notify DCLG when they decide on an application which is contrary to the views of a post-examined neighbourhood plan.
Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)
My Lords, I should appear to be sympathetic to anything that seeks to push power back into the hands of local planning authorities as regards their ability to reject a planning application and the Secretary of State having to support the decision. But I am worried about anything that would compel that, on the basis that if developers were not able to appeal to the Government to revisit the decision, they would go through the courts, at which point a council would not only have to employ planning people to deal with a planning appeal, it would have to pay for a barrister as well. So while I am sympathetic to the fact that planning applications which have been refused for non-compliance should not be routinely overturned, I would rather see the Government take a firmer hand with the Planning Inspectorate to ensure that when it does intervene in a case, it does so in a way that has been properly tested by the Secretary of State. I said on the last occasion that people in the outside world are saying that some planning inspectors have gone feral, and that position still pertains today. So rather than compelling the Secretary of State to support a refusal by a council, we need to encourage him to take a firmer grip of the Planning Inspectorate to make sure that in all cases it operates in the way the Government have sanctioned and not in a way that it chooses to sanction for itself.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I apologise to noble Lords for appearing late but I have been performing duties for what I declare as an interest, as leader of a local authority which is a London borough. On my way to the Chamber I was listening to the remarks of my noble friend Lady Cumberlege on the annunciator and I have considerable sympathy with the spirit and thrust of all she has been arguing for in this Bill and indeed in the amendment before us. I rather agree with what my noble friend Lord Porter has just said, and I will come back to that in the question of the real non-accountability of the system operated by the Secretary of State in terms of the inspectorate, where there are overturns. I am really addressing my remarks to Amendment 6.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, my name is attached to all three amendments in this group; I will try not to repeat what other noble Lords have said because I think there is a degree of unity on a number of aspects. The aims of Amendment 6 are very important. Maybe the wording can be looked at, and maybe the Government can come back at Third Reading. The amendment would give people in local authorities confidence that the Secretary of State is not simply going to operate within the appeals system, which rides roughshod over a local planning authority and an area with a neighbourhood plan.
My noble friend Lady Pinnock made a very forceful case for Amendment 6A. I remain very concerned by the Government’s decision to have a three-year housing supply requirement where there is a neighbourhood plan area, but a five-year housing supply requirement where there is not. Can the Minister say something further about this? Had the proposals in this amendment applied, then in some of the instances my noble friend mentioned, a three-year housing supply requirement may have resulted in a different outcome to the planning application.
Amendment 40 is terribly important. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for her support for this amendment because it is extremely well drafted—I do not claim any personal credit for that at all. It defines what the problem is and what the solution may be. My noble friend Lady Parminter made it clear that it is a problem when a local planning authority goes against an adopted neighbourhood plan. I listened very carefully to the Minister’s reply to the first amendment. He made it clear—if I heard it right—that a local planning authority could make a decision which was contrary to the adopted neighbourhood plan, which forms part of the local development plan. I support my noble friend Lady Parminter in that the Government should monitor where this happens. However, I want to add one thing. Where the local planning authority owns the land in question, the Secretary of State should have an automatic right to call that application in. In other words, there is a subtle difference. Monitoring and notifying the local authority if it does not own the land and seeing whether the law needs to be changed is one thing, but where it does own the land, that should be a matter for automatic call in. I would be grateful for the Minister’s observations on that.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in a far-ranging debate on many important issues covered in this group. I turn first to Amendment 6, in the name of my noble friend Lady Cumberlege and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. This is an area of importance. Planning inspectors are appointed by the Secretary of State to decide planning appeals on his behalf. They are not, as perhaps the impression was created at times, random individuals making arbitrary decisions. I wholly accept that there is an element of mystique here and that it would be good if we were able to demystify it. It is a bit like debates we have had recently in relation to judges: these people are taking decisions at arm’s length, based on a body of law and in accordance with legal procedure. They are properly qualified and should be supported. Planning inspectors make decisions in accordance with the national planning policy and the development plan, which includes, of course, any in-force neighbourhood plan, unless material considerations, which we touched on earlier, such as those relating to nationally significant infrastructure projects, indicate otherwise.
Amendment 6 would create a situation where all appeals which are contrary to the local development plan must be dismissed. Amendment 6A would prejudice proper consideration at appeal of how national and development plan policies should be applied. I do not accept that it is helpful for planning inspectors to be told, in advance of any deliberations, what their conclusion should be. I accept that that is probably not the intention of the amendment, but it is dangerously close to the effect the amendment would have. Nor should we tell planning inspectors how to exercise their discretion in terms of the weight attached to particular matters in the consideration of an appeal. I would also guard against what would appear, to some extent at least, to be the inconsistency of arguing, as at times we have been, understandably and correctly, for proper local planning procedures and localism and then, when we do not like it, saying that the centre needs to intervene and this is what the Minister must do. We have to consider a proper balance here. That said, I understand some of the issues that have been raised and I assure my noble friend Lady Cumberlege and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that the White Paper commits us to taking forward a proper procedure and giving proper weight to planning appeals. I accept that there is something to look at here and we are continuing to look at these issues with my noble friend.
I turn to Amendment 6A and some of the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, in relation to brownfield land and the green belt. She will know, because we discussed this in Committee, that there is a lot in the housing White Paper about the green belt. A lot of things are currently being processed in relation to brownfield land and I assure noble Lords that we are bringing in regulations this April—it may be later but I will correct that, if I am wrong, in a letter to noble Lords—for brownfield registers, which every local authority must complete and which will include appropriate brownfield sites identified for possible housing. We expect that housing to be delivered and there will be percentages, which, again, I will outline in the letter, that have to be delivered within this Parliament, up to 2020. So there is much happening there. We have provided loan funding for developers, through the home building fund, which has an emphasis on brownfield land as well.
Furthermore, as the White Paper makes clear, constraints on development on green belt land remain constant. The White Paper, which I do not have in front of me, says that before even looking at green belt land you have first to consider denser provision of housing which may be appropriate. We know that London, for example, is the least densely occupied capital city in western Europe. I think that Madrid is four times as densely populated. Denser housing does not sound attractive but in terms of where we are it could well be an attractive option that we should look at. Also, building on brownfield land is identified in the White Paper, as is co-operation with other local authorities to see whether something can be done if there is not sufficient housing supply in one area. So we do regard green belt land as sacrosanct. If I may, I will pick up more details on that in a letter to noble Lords, because I had not anticipated this and some of my figures may not have been absolutely accurate in relation to brownfield and green belt land.
Lord True
Before my noble friend sits down, I will say that I am grateful for the measured tone of his response. As this is Report I will not take up the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley—although I would not always assume that the Secretary of State will be friendlier to local interests than a local authority that owns the land.
The Minister gave a partial response on the point about the accountability of inspectors. He referred to the mystique of the system and said, quite rightly, that inspectors are highly professional. The difference between the inspectorate and the judiciary is that the judiciary is subject to testing by a higher instance, but in this case it is a one-off shot. It need not necessarily be in the context of the time between now and Third Reading, but it would be helpful to have some reflections from my noble friend on how one might shine a little more accountability on the system, because there is divergence of practice. My local authority had considered publishing league tables but we thought that it would not encourage an enthusiastic or friendly approach from some of the inspectors named. If might be interesting if the Minister could reflect on how there could be greater accountability.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I thank my noble friend very much for that point and I apologise for not picking it up in my earlier response. I will go away and reflect on it. Certainly, it would be helpful if we could give more information about how this process operates—how people are qualified, what the training is and so on. Perhaps we could do that on the website. I will look at that and I thank my noble friend also for the constructive discussions we have so far had on the issue of permitted development, which I know is of concern to him.
Baroness Cumberlege
My Lords, I thank those noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I particularly value the support from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley.
It was interesting that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, talked about green belt land. My experience has been with areas of outstanding natural beauty, which in a way have a synergy with green belt land, and it seems that those areas are not designated easily. It takes a lot of effort to get the designation and they should therefore be treated with real respect. I was also interested in what she said about the urban green spaces. In my area I know that they are much cherished by local people, who are forced to live in small and crowded accommodation. They can go to those spaces and there is some relief—relief for all generations but particularly for young children and, I think, for boys who want to kick about a football and all the rest. If we build on all those areas, we will have much more trouble with our future generations.
I was interested in what my noble friend Lord Bourne said about London and how it is not a very densely populated city. We should rejoice in that and think of all the wonderful parks we have, and the gardens shared by inhabitants in the area. When you fly over London, you see in its centre these wonderful green areas. I am sure that my noble friend does not think we would want to build over them all. For me, they are precious—but more precious are the small, green urban spaces, which really affect the people who live in difficult circumstances and find in them a relief or a way out.
The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, was so right: we need the evidence and to know what is going on. It is so easy to continue with policies that are really not assessed. We need some assessment to ensure that what we are doing is the right thing. My noble friends Lord Porter and Lord True were interesting on the role of the inspector. The system is strained and once we get real strain, we get confusion. That is not good for government; government needs clarity.
I very much accept the view that the amendments I tabled can be mightily improved and I appreciate that those who are in the business as council leaders and so on feel that the language is too strong. Perhaps we should avoid “must” and say “have regard to”. We need to make sure that what we are doing allows some flexibility.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, again talked about how we have had some difficulties with the three-year supply, the five-year supply and all the rest. In summing up, my noble friend Lord Bourne said that there were issues which needed demystifying. We need to do that and to think about the role of inspectors. I look forward very much to what the Minister can tell us in more detail about their role and whether guidance is considered inappropriate—although we use it in a lot of other instances. I accept that inspectors are professional people and clearly need to come to their own conclusions—but not in a vacuum. We need to consider carefully what happens when these appeals are allowed outside the neighbourhood plan and are called in by the Secretary of State. What has been carefully crafted is then blown to pieces. So I am grateful to my noble friend for the assurances he has given and I look forward to further negotiation on this aspect of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Public consultations
(1) A local planning authority must extend the length of any public consultations regarding a planning application if any public, or bank holidays fall within the consultation period by one day for each public or bank holiday.”
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
This is in some ways a minor amendment but in other ways a hugely important issue for ordinary people who are faced with a situation where things around them can change without their ever being aware that something was going to happen. I spoke on this at the last stage of the Bill, so I do not intend to take a lot of time going into it again.
It was interesting that in this morning’s paper there was quite a large article about ordinary working families—OWFs. The headline was:
“OWFs (ordinary working families) get May out of a JAM”.
The article goes on to say that the Prime Minister’s earlier comment was about those who are “just about managing”, the JAMs, and now everyone in Whitehall has been told that that must not be used any more. They have to be called OWFs, which is interesting because my amendment is geared to ordinary working families—and all sorts of ordinary families, whether they are working or not.
Your choice of holiday time has changed nowadays. I remember factories closing for the whole month of August. Everyone had August defined as the holiday time, but programmes have changed and it is all a different world now. But your choice is still governed by one big factor, which is school holidays. You are not allowed to take your children out of school at any other time; in fact, we read all the time in the press about someone being fined for taking their child away for a holiday at some other stage. So August is very much a traditional holiday time for families of all sorts. Years ago, when I was in dental practice, the people in the East End of London used to go hop-picking in Kent as their big holiday. That does not happen any more because it is now all done by machinery but that was everyone’s big holiday for the year—and most of my patients were in that category.
Home ownership, which we are all busy promoting for everyone, makes us much more concerned about what happens around us. There is nothing worse than to go away, however briefly, and return to find that things have just been nodded through in your absence. The other unfortunate issue is that it certainly gives opportunities for corruption. Whether it really is corrupt in all cases is a different matter, but the loophole is certainly too open for people to exploit those times when they know that locals will not be around to take an interest and say what their views are.
Amendment 9 is so clear that it does not need any explanation. In Committee, the Minister said that very many local authorities already implement an extra day for a public holiday period. They are the good ones. I hope that this amendment will address the less good ones.
I have gone on for quite a long time about Amendment 10 because it speaks for itself. To give an advantage to anyone to feel that they might be able to sneak something through because everyone is concerned with other things in life—this applies particularly during holiday periods—is an important issue. I beg to move.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness as an ordinary working Peer. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept the amendment. I am not quite sure what the position is in relation to Amendment 38 and whether the noble Baroness intends to move it.
Lord Tope
My Lords, I, too, support the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner. She is right that probably all good planning authorities do this already and take it into account. Perhaps where it does not happen it is more by accident than by intent. One of the more serious points behind this is that we know that there is, sadly, a deep-rooted distrust of planning authorities. Whereas something may have happened by accident, the public are only too ready to believe that it is a conspiracy. This is a fairly simple measure. Amendment 9 certainly is. On Amendment 10, we may need to consider a little more what constitutes the holiday period. The intention of these amendments is very good and would perhaps go some small way to restore public trust in the planning process or at least to weaken the distrust in that process. So I hope the Government will take seriously these two amendments and look at how the intention can be met.
Lord Swinfen (Con)
My Lords, I, too, support these amendments. They appear to be drafted in favour of the person who has made the planning application, but let us not forget that council officers also need family holidays, and they may not be there to consider the application and to give it the proper consideration that it requires—or not all of them, or not the relevant individual. So this amendment, although simple, is very sensible.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes for tabling these amendments and the noble Lords who participated in the debate: the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Tope, and my noble friend Lord Swinfen.
In relation to Amendment 9 relating to public holidays, as I indicated in Committee, I have sympathy with it. It seems to be a common-sense provision. I am more concerned about Amendment 10 in relation to August and Christmas. It makes assumptions about holidays which, while often true, may not always be true. There are other holiday periods. So I am more concerned about that, but I am very happy to talk to my noble friend about it.
I will undertake to implement the provision in relation to public holidays by the end of this year. I would like to be able to talk to local authorities about it. With the firm undertaking that we will implement this in relation to public holidays later this year, which we can do by secondary legislation, and my offer to talk to my noble friend about August and Christmas, which I want to have a discussion about because the amendment raises wider issues, I hope that she will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
Will the Minister clarify when he will talk to me about this? Is he planning to talk prior to Third Reading or at a later stage?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I had not given it much thought; obviously I have quite a lot on between now and Third Reading. On the basis that my noble friend has the undertaking that we will definitely do what she wants us to do in relation to public holidays by the end of the year, the discussion is less urgent because this would not be something that we would do at Third Reading. However, if my noble friend particularly wants to meet before Third Reading—we do not have a date for Third Reading yet, with any certainty—I would be happy to do so.
Lord Swinfen
Before my noble friend sits down, what is the difficulty? Surely all the planning authority has to do is to stick a red marker on the planning application that says, “One extra day is allowed”. It is a matter of practicality and a bit of common sense.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
The difficulty relates to the other amendment. It is only fair that we inform local authorities and have a discussion with them by the end of the year. I do not think that that is unreasonable. If my noble friend is asking about the other provision, it raises other concerns. The other provision is a common-sense provision, but I would like to make sure, in accordance with my approach, that we have an appropriate dialogue with those who are affected.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
I welcome what the Minister said. It sounds as if he is thinking kindly of Amendment 9, which is so clear-cut that I cannot imagine anyone opposing the idea. But the holiday issue is important to families and, as has been said, to officials in the various authorities. Will the Minister clarify whether, if he brings this out in secondary legislation, we could hope for it to be looked at a bit more rapidly? As he knows, I have been quite disappointed at how long things have taken in relation to the Housing and Planning Act 2016. It went on interminably without us ever seeing any regulations. So if he proposes to deal with this through secondary legislation, I would like an assurance that it will be fairly soon—and if we could have a quick word before Third Reading, that would be helpful, too. Perhaps he could confirm that.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I have given an undertaking to take this away and implement it by the end of the year. It could be that we could expedite it before that, but I have given a very firm undertaking to act on it. I do not think that I have been slow at all. I note what my noble friend said about the Housing and Planning Act, but that was not discussions that we had; I was not involved in that legislation.
I am also very happy to take away the other issue and have a look at it to see whether there is anything we can do in relation to it. However, as I think my noble friend will accept, there are other considerations about when people go away—Easter and so on—so there are broader concerns. My noble friend is right that it is a common-sense provision; it may be that we can expedite it more quickly than the end of the year, but that is the undertaking I will give. I am very happy to meet her in short order when we can both find time in our diary to have the discussion, if that is acceptable to her.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
I am sorry to have made a bit of an issue out of all this, but the Minister has been very good in clarifying what he has said. I pin my hopes on him doing what he said and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Parminter
“New town local planning authority powers
Where a new town development corporation is established by an order under section 1 of the New Towns Act 1981 (designation of areas), on request of the local planning authority the Secretary of State must delegate to the authority the powers to appoint the board and to approve expenditure in applying the compulsory purchase provisions and subsequent development of the new town and its administration.”
Baroness Parminter
My Lords, with the leave of the House, in the unavoidable absence of my noble friend Lord Taylor of Goss Moor, I move the amendment standing in his name. The amendment introduces the principle of localism to the New Towns Act to enable the delivery of the highest quality new garden villages and towns by locally accountable elected local planning authorities rather than, as at present, any such development corporation being established on the initiative of a local authority and agreed by the Secretary of State.
Garden towns and villages are local solutions to the pressing need in so much of the country for homes, but by using the uplift in land values generated by development not purely to line the pockets of the few with fantastic wealth but to deliver great, thriving, 21st-century villages every bit as well served as the best historic communities. Already, 14 are being supported by Government, but the success of that programme will be greatly enhanced by the ability of local authorities to ensure quality by using the New Towns Act to guarantee that new garden villages and towns all meet the policy objectives of the Government. But local authorities will adopt this opportunity only if they know it is locally controlled. Local communities would accept no less. In the age of localism, why should they hand control of finances, planning, ownership of the land and its long-term value to the Secretary of State?
A similar amendment was moved by my noble friend Lord Taylor in Committee, where it received cross-party support. It also gained clear support and a positive response from the Minister at that time. Since then, we have had the Government’s White Paper, and the Government have made a clear and unambiguous commitment to localise the New Towns Act powers, exactly as proposed by this amendment. Mindful of the fact that this has cross-party support, I genuinely welcome that and beg to move.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I have not declared interests during the course of the Bill so far, so declare that I am a vice-president of the Town and Country Planning Association and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
In the debates on what became the Housing and Planning Act 2016, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and I jointly proposed an amendment, which the Government supported, to make it easier for new corporations to be set up to establish new settlements, along the lines of the old new towns but probably rather smaller—garden villages or garden towns they are sometimes called. This takes the story to its next stage, as the White Paper from the Government promises to do. It would allow local authorities to have significant influence over the new corporations set up to create new communities. Local authorities would be able to appoint the board and approve their budgets.
Sadly, without this kind of measure, a lot of local authorities will not think it worth while establishing new corporations for this purpose. This amendment would take away a deterrent to local authorities embarking on this road, fearful that the Secretary of State will dictate what happens in their area. It would instead replace the Secretary of State with the local authority having considerable influence over the new corporation.
Why are we making such a fuss about this? Why do we need these new settlements? From the perspective of local communities, in order to make sufficient land available for a five-year supply of all the new homes that we are going to need, you sometimes get the choice between 25 homes in 100 or 200 different villages or small towns, and one major development of 5,000 homes—perhaps not quite as much or perhaps a bit more—in one place. Apart from anything else, this means that instead of the hassle of having 200 local community groups opposed to the 25 homes in their village, you have one group. That group probably is opposed to the very large development, but at least the opposition to the development is concentrated in one place, instead of the development disturbing an awful lot of local communities. Putting a number of the homes that we need in one place is in itself helpful to local authorities and to their communities.
That is a negative. The positive is that having a properly planned new settlement or community, where you have a master plan that ensures that all the facilities that you need—transport, schools and the rest—are all in one place, is itself a really good way to try to achieve this enormous number of new homes which we know the country desperately needs to end housing shortages.
I can speak with a bit of experience here because one of my duties for nearly 20 years at the Joseph Rowntree Foundation was looking after the model village of New Earswick, created by our founder, Joseph Rowntree, in 1904. We can look back over 100 and something years to see whether a garden village really works. I can tell your Lordships that this kind of planned community of more than 1,000 homes, with two schools, shops and a wonderful arts and crafts folk hall and community centre, 100 years on, is the way that you get all the things that you need to build a proper, strong community, rather than packing in 25 more homes at the end of the village, which causes nothing but disruption.
This amendment would put local authorities more in charge and would therefore make it much more likely that we will see these new settlements and communities created in the future. I strongly support it.
Lord Porter of Spalding
I also support the amendment, although no one should panic—I might not vote in a Division, if it gets pushed, unless I am instructed to. But it just makes sense.
We know this will not fix the whole housing shortage, but it will be a useful tool to help that happen and we need to encourage councils to do this. While the control of these developments rests with the Secretary of State, it will be very difficult to persuade local councils and the communities that they represent that this is the right way to do it. By pushing power closer to the councils, and therefore to the people they represent, this amendment will make it more likely that more of these will come through. The noble Lord, Lord Best, tried to do this in a positive way, and the really positive point is that we can actually capture the value of the land. The land will give us the ability to make the communities truly sustainable: it will give us the money to make sure the roads, the water supply, the gas supply and the electricity supply are all right. In some areas, if probably not my own, the broadband might even be all right as well on the back of this.
I gave evidence to the Public Accounts Committee yesterday. One of the other witnesses was from Shelter, and he pointed out that one of the flaws in this argument is that we may need to revisit the compulsory purchase rules, because even when you compulsorily purchase land for a new town settlement, the land uplift still goes to the current landowner. If the Government are seriously interested in this, I would urge them to look also at reforming the compulsory purchase rules relating to new town settlements.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I also very much support this amendment from my noble friend. I declare that I have chaired two small commercial development companies in the south-west, but that makes me even more in favour of the amendment and of giving local authorities control.
Down in Cornwall, where I live, the eco-town around St Austell, where I was a local councillor for a short period of time, which we unfortunately failed to deliver, showed how full local authority involvement—although it was not as full maybe even then as I would have wanted it to be—meant that we could start to get local buy-in and make these things happen by involving local communities and ensuring they were connected in the right way. I am sure that empowering local authorities will make the process a lot better.
However, dissociating myself from some of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Best, I would say that some of the best developments in the far south-west have been in villages, particularly in areas of community land trusts. Small extensions make shops, pubs and schools more viable and make sure there are young family elements to those villages as well. I see no conflict between the two. What we want to produce through this amendment is public buy-in, so there are not these large objections from local people and so that we can move ahead, not just with small developments but with these new garden developments—effectively, properly, environmentally and quickly.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I will be very brief. We discussed this amendment in Grand Committee. There was cross-party support for it then, and as we have heard, there is support for it today. The Minister was supportive of the aims of the amendment when he spoke in Committee, but it would be good when he responds if he could go a bit further. The amendment is about putting power over expenditure and the appointment of board members in the hands of local authorities. It is about localism and has lots of support around the House. It is a good thing to do. It may be that the Minister cannot accept the amendment as it is now, but maybe he could outline a bit more how he intends, or hopes, to bring what is asked for in the amendment into effect.
The Archbishop of York
My Lords, I spoke at Second Reading about building flourishing communities, not just houses, and emphasised the contribution of affordable housing and green spaces to communal life. If land has been compulsorily purchased, surely the powers need to be given back to the local community to decide what kind of housing will go there. The Government have been very good at taking measures to increase the supply of affordable housing. However, the number of completed social rented homes has decreased from just under 40,000 in 2010-11 to just 6,550 in 2015-16, and affordable housing completions more generally, including other tenures, are at the lowest level for 24 years. The recent government housing White Paper showed a greater focus on homes to rent and it is important that that includes genuinely affordable social homes to rent, which is the only affordable housing tenure suitable for those on the lowest incomes.
Affordable housing not only benefits individuals who would otherwise be unable to secure a home but contributes to the diversity of local places, encouraging interaction across social boundaries. Securing a mixture of tenures in local development enables different types of people to meet each other every day, rather than being shut behind gates. Derwenthorpe in York, a development by the Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust, is a good example of integrated housing provision on one large estate. Why was it done? Because the local authority had some say. The amendment would allow us to ensure that the example of Derwenthorpe can be replicated in many different places, so I support it.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I had not intended to speak on the amendment, but my degree of rage is rising so I feel I need to say something. I declare an interest, because the very phenomenon that has been described—reducing the number of people who could object to the creation of a vibrant, attractive and charismatic garden city that nevertheless ruins one village next to it—is precisely the situation I find myself in in North Bedfordshire.
I make one plea in all of this. There can be an unholy alliance between the proposers of such a development and the local authority, because it plays very much to the business of achieving housing targets in a publicly very sellable way and reduces the angst felt in many communities across the whole of the planning authority’s patch, where previously the proposals to meet housing targets would have been infill, edge-of-village development and attempts to boost the viability of smaller settlements within the planning authority’s area, of the sort the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, talked about. I sound a note of caution about the unholy alliance that can arise, because it can be seen as the line of least resistance.
Having been involved in a similar development in Cambridgeshire, in Cambourne, where there was a considerable commitment to get the design of the settlement right ab initio on a greenfield site, I believe there needs to be a clear view of how the promised benefits touted at the beginning of the planning process actually get delivered over a substantive period. The experience is that they can gently dribble away during the course of many successive years until the settlement is complete.
Lord Lansley
My Lords, the noble Baroness mentions Cambourne, which of course was in my former constituency. The benefits did not dribble away; they disappeared because the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, when Secretary of State, imposed a density requirement on building so the masterplan could no longer be effected. That is why the change from the original planning had such a material impact on the environment in the village.
Baroness Cumberlege
My Lords, we have had examples of new developments that were produced centuries ago, in the 1800s or whatever, I think we should look to today. Poundbury near Dorchester is a very interesting new development. Of course, it has a very distinguished landowner, and I am sure he or his people negotiated extremely well with the local authority. My nephew lives there, so I know it quite well. There is a variety of housing there, which is a good start for a community. It was phased—it was grown over time. Critically, it has employment; it is not a dormitory. It has Dorset Cereals and all sorts of different employment opportunities. It is not all on an industrial estate that is marked “Industrial Estate” on a map. It weaves through the whole of that village and community—that growing little town. We must think seriously about this issue in our planning; otherwise, as I have said before—I apologise for repeating it—we are going to have a Secretary of State not for communities but for dormitories. We should avoid that. We should be building proper communities, and proper communities have employment.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated in the debate. I thank the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York for his very helpful tour d’horizon. Something occurred to me regarding what he said and the recent work on the bridge at Tadcaster. He rightly talked about the mixture of tenures that is in the White Paper, affordable housing and a sense of place and community. We have broad support for this amendment. I thank him most particularly.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for moving the amendment so effectively in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, who, unavoidably, is not in his place today. I am sympathetic to the case she made and to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Best, about the importance of garden villages and towns. We have of course initiated a programme extending to 10 garden towns and 14 garden villages. I thank my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, who rightly said that there are examples such as Poundbury that should act as signposts for what we can accomplish.
I think there was general support for this measure. I understand the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young—I applaud her for the work she has been doing on ancient woodlands—who said that it has to be done with consideration and sensitivity. I support the concept, as do the Government, as outlined in the White Paper. We are strongly of the view that this should be put in local control, so I am very sympathetic to the amendment. I would like to discuss the matter further between now and Third Reading with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Best, because they have great experience in this area—with an undertaking that I would really like to do something on this, as would the Government, and return to it at the next stage.
This has been a particularly enlightening debate. There was clear support across the Chamber for taking action; there are lessons that need to be learned, but strong examples of what can be achieved. I hope that, with that assurance, the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment. However, I would be very happy to discuss the issue further with the noble Lords, Lord Taylor and Lord Best, and indeed any other noble Lord, with a view to coming back on Third Reading with at least a report on the discussions, and perhaps firmer action based on them.
Baroness Parminter
I thank noble Lords from all Benches, including the most reverend Primate, for supporting this very important amendment. It is quite radical: the Treasury is allowing an uplift in land values to deliver thriving communities every bit as good as those in other parts of the country, to which the noble Lord, Lord Best, referred. Garden villages and towns will be an important tool in delivering the housing that we need in future, as will good-quality neighbourhood plans. They can work together in the right places—a point well articulated by my noble friend Lord Teverson. I am most grateful to the Minister for his commitment to further discussion with my noble friend Lord Taylor and the noble Lord, Lord Best, between now and Third Reading. We hope that will result in a firm commitment to an amendment. On that basis, and on that basis alone, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Simon) (Lab)
In calling Amendment 11, I must advise your Lordships that if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 12, 16 to 18, 21 or 33 due to pre-emption.
Clause 13: Restrictions on power to impose planning conditions
Amendment 11
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, Amendment 11 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, deletes the proposed new powers for the Secretary of State to set conditions on the granting of planning permission. This matter was discussed at some length in Grand Committee, and I did not feel then and still do not feel that the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, has made a convincing case for why the powers should be granted. We have had little evidence to date that they are necessary. If there was a major problem, I suspect we would have heard a lot more about it outside the Chamber. I see little evidence and, if I was wrong, I would expect to have had emails, letters and requests for meetings from builders, trade bodies and others trying to convince me and tell me why I was wrong and why they needed the changes. I do not recall one organisation getting in touch about the problems and why the powers need to be taken by the Government.
Planning conditions and pre-commencement planning conditions imposed by a local authority must always be reasonable, necessary and help to deliver sustainable development; there is no point delivering development that is unsustainable. We would just be creating a problem down the line for others to deal with because we did not have the foresight or ability to face up to the challenges before us.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord True, who is not in his place, who said in Committee in the Moses Room that he feared the department was bringing out a dreadnought to deal with problems on the local public pond. I agree, and I have heard nothing so far from the Minister—perhaps I will in a moment—to convince me otherwise.
Far too much planning legislation from this Government has been about centralising power, agreeing what can or cannot be done by regulations and with the power to impose conditions. I remind the House that this is the sixth piece of planning legislation in six years. It is just not the case that local authorities are against development; there is no evidence to support that. There is ample evidence to suggest that local authorities are best placed to make decisions about sustainable development, consulting local people within the framework. The framework is quite properly set out by the Government, but it must be a framework, not a straitjacket that prevents local authorities playing their full role. I beg to move.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, the co-pilot is in charge of this part of the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for revisiting an issue that we spent some time on in Committee. Amendments 11 to 14, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Beecham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, either remove subsection (1) from new Section 100ZA, and corresponding subsections (2) and (3), or apply exemptions to how the power is to be exercised. I will deal with Amendments 12 and 14 separately, but Amendments 11 and 13 together, as they deal with leaving out the whole of the wider power.
Amendments 11 and 13 would remove a key measure from the Bill, which is designed to put on the statute book what is already best practice in the appropriate use of planning conditions. The power under subsection (1) would allow the Secretary of State to ensure that certain conditions were not imposed, in certain circumstances, where this is appropriate to ensure that conditions meet the policy tests for conditions as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.
Conditions which fail to meet the tests in the framework can cause unjustifiable delays and costs to the delivery of new development. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked for further evidence of the misuse, or potential misuse, of preconditions. This issue has arisen frequently during our debates. It is not a recent issue, and the claims date back several years. The Home Builders Federation has seen instances where unnecessary or unreasonable pre-commencement conditions have been imposed on development—for example, full details of a play area which, while commendable as a condition in general, could easily be discharged at a later stage. This is not just an issue with larger housebuilders. Small builders have also expressed dissatisfaction with the use of conditions. Research by the National House Building Council in 2014 found that 33% of small and medium-enterprise builders identified the planning process and conditions as the largest constraint to delivery. As well as issues with the time to discharge, 29% of respondents thought that the extent of conditions was an issue. If we are serious about increasing housing supply, we need to do all we can to support the builders.
Government planning guidance provides examples of specific circumstances where conditions should not be used, such as conditions which place disproportionate and unjustifiable financial burdens on an applicant. Removing subsection (2), as proposed by Amendment 13, would remove an important constraint on the regulation-making power in subsection (1). Subsection (2) ensures that the Secretary of State may make provision in regulations only if such provision is in pursuit of the policy tests. In effect, it places each of the policy tests in paragraph 206 of the framework on a statutory footing.
As with subsection (2), leaving out subsection (3), as proposed by Amendment 19, would also remove an important constraint and safeguard on the power in subsection (1). Subsection (3) requires that before making regulations under subsection (1), we must carry out a public consultation. This would afford the opportunity for local views to be put forward as part of the process for determining how the power will be exercised.
The Government published draft regulations in December to illustrate the proposed use of the regulation-making powers in Clause 13. The draft regulations have informed our debate by clarifying how the power might be used.
In Committee concerns were raised about the potential for Clause 13 somehow to act as an anti-localist measure. I should clarify that we intend to use the powers in Clause 13 to restrict local authorities’ ability to impose those conditions in regulations, already identified in planning practice guidance, which fail to meet the well-established policy tests in the NPPF. A reasonable local authority would not seek to impose such conditions.
We recognise that an opportunity for users of the planning system to comment on the proposed regulations would be beneficial. Therefore, subject to the Bill receiving Royal Assent, we will consult on the draft regulations.
I can also confirm that, following the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and in the light of concerns raised by noble Lords, about the intended use of the power in the Bill, we have tabled a government amendment that would apply the affirmative procedure to the exercise of the power in new Section 100ZA(1). This will ensure the necessary parliamentary scrutiny of how the power is exercised.
The effect of Amendments 11 and 13 would be to miss this opportunity to elevate best practice on the use of planning conditions. I hope that I have justified why the regulation-making power is integral to ensuring a robust and sustainable planning system. Therefore, with the reassurances I have provided on further safeguards on the exercise of this power, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
On Amendment 12, I reiterate what my noble friend said in Committee. There are good intentions behind the amendment, which is intended to ensure a local voice in judging local circumstances and the impact of planning decisions. That is absolutely the Government’s aim. The Government intend to use the power in new Section 100ZA to prevent the use of unreasonable and unnecessary conditions which are already well established in the Government’s planning practice guidance as not meeting the tests set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.
In response to the Committee debate held on 6 February, my noble friend wrote to noble Lords, providing further information on the policy objectives for the power to make regulations under subsection (1) of the new Section 100ZA. It will not restrict the ability of local authorities and neighbourhood groups to prepare local plans and neighbourhood plans and it will not restrict their ability to determine applications for development in accordance with those plans.
Subsection (1) of the clause will ensure that the well-established policy tests for conditions are adhered to. These tests are reflected in the wording of subsections (2)(a) to (d) of the new Section 100ZA and constrain the use of this proposed regulation-making power and ensure that conditions imposed on a grant of planning permission make the development acceptable in planning terms; are relevant to the development and to planning considerations generally; are sufficiently precise to make it capable of being complied with and enforced; and are reasonable in all other respects. In other words, the Secretary of State may make provision in regulations only if such provisions are in pursuit of these policy tests.
While I am confident that the constraints referred to above are sufficient, I do understand the concerns expressed about the use of this power, and that it may somehow prevent local authorities being able to use their discretion in carrying out their planning duties. However, we believe that it would be detrimental to the planning process for regulations made under the new Section 100ZA(1) to provide for local authorities to make exceptions to the prohibition of the use of certain conditions. I cannot foresee a situation where a local authority would want to make a local exception to regulations under subsection (1), especially if this would have the effect of allowing the imposition of the types of conditions that are already well established in government guidance as being contrary to the national policy tests. In fact, during our consultation on this measure, local authorities agreed overwhelmingly that conditions should be imposed only if they passed each of the national policy tests.
As a further assurance for local authorities and other interested parties, subsection (3) of new Section 100ZA includes a requirement to carry out a public consultation before making regulations under subsection (1), so this will provide an opportunity for local views to be put forward and given full consideration in advance of making regulations. In addition, the Government have tabled an amendment that would require any regulations under subsection (1) to be approved by each House of Parliament. I hope that, for the reasons I have set out, noble Lords will not press that amendment.
The Government’s position on Amendment 14 remains as it was in Committee on the Bill, and in another place, where it was tabled. I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, particularly pressed Amendment 14. If the House will permit, I might skip the relevant pages because they are broadly similar to an argument deployed by my noble friend in Committee.
I emphasise finally that if subsection (2) was left out of the clause, it would remove a vital constraint on the power in subsection (1) so that it can only be used to ensure that any conditions imposed meet the well-established policy tests for conditions in the National Planning Policy Framework. In effect, subsection (2) places each of the policy tests in paragraph 206 on a statutory footing. As noble Lords are aware, further safeguards on the use of this power are provided. Before making regulations under subsection (1) we are required to carry out a public consultation, as set out in subsection (3), and the Government have now brought forward an amendment which would require the approval of both Houses of Parliament. I hope that, for the reasons I have set out, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I thank the noble Lord for his response and will happily withdraw my amendment in a moment. I still do not think that the case has been made very well. We heard from the noble Lord about a playground somewhere, and we had a list of statistics, but I still do not see the clearly overwhelming case for why this is needed. It may only be me—maybe other noble Lords are getting all these emails, requests for meetings and stuff from developers, but I certainly am not. As I am opposing the measure I would have thought that they would want to convince me that I am wrong. As many noble Lords know, when issues are brought forward, members of the public and campaigners are always very happy to press noble Lords. I am sure that our inbox is full of all sorts of things at the moment concerning legislation going through this House—but certainly this is not one of them.
I do not think we have heard a very convincing case from the Government on why this is necessary. As the noble Lord, Lord True, said, a dreadnought to deal with a problem in a local public pond is quite a good example of where we are. I do not think that it is necessary. The noble Lord said he gave some statistics on how local authorities want to impose conditions unnecessarily. They do not want to impose such things. Certainly, I sit on a planning committee in a local authority in London and I have never tried to impose unreasonable conditions on any development. Most cases are dealt with by the officers. Anyway, I am clearly not making any progress on this matter, so I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
I call Amendment 31. I am so sorry, I turned over two pages. I was not trying to hurry the House unduly. Amendment 15.
Amendment 15
Lord Beecham
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I can reassure the Deputy Speaker that I shall not take long. The amendment deals with restrictions on planning conditions set out in Clause 13, and in particular the new provision which will incorporate into the Town and Country Planning Act new Section 100ZA which deals with restrictions on the power to impose planning conditions.
Amendment 15 is basically a simple amendment that adds something to the conditions that will apply to those regulations. For example, the Bill refers to them as having to be,
“necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms …relevant the development … sufficiently precise to make it capable of being complied with and enforced … reasonable in all other respects”.
The amendment simply adds,
“sustainable development and public interest”,
to the criteria for making those regulations. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept that and I beg to move.
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for moving his amendment. I do not think there is any disagreement between us on the objectives that planning decisions should be acceptable to local people and that planning development should be sustainable.
Amendment 15 covers similar ground to that of the previously discussed Amendment 14, in that it is also intended to ensure that these measures do not have an adverse impact on sustainable development. Sustainable development is at the very heart of the planning system, as reflected in the National Planning Policy Framework, and I can assure noble Lords that Clause 13 will contribute to this goal.
My noble friend has written separately on this matter, as promised, to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in Committee, giving reassurance of our commitment to see that development that takes place is sustainable and in line with the well-established policy tests in the NPPF. Clause 13 will not impact on local authorities’ ability to seek to impose any necessary conditions and appropriate protections for important matters such as heritage, the natural environment and measures to mitigate the risk of flooding. That ability will be maintained, as well as the ability of local people to make representations to the local planning authority on how a development proposal will affect them.
If the amendment were introduced, it would add to the list of constraints on the Secretary of State’s regulation-making power in subsection (2) of new Section 100ZA by explicitly requiring the Secretary of State to take account of sustainable development and the public interest in deciding whether it is appropriate to exercise the power in subsection (1), as the noble Lord explained.
As my noble friend said in Committee, and I say again now, both sustainable development and the public interest are already relevant planning considerations in the NPPF, and I can reassure the noble Lord that these matters are already captured in subsections (2)(a) and (b) of the clause we are discussing. This includes the need to consider the presumption in favour of sustainable development which drives planning policy, plan-making and decision-taking—and local views, which are already central to the planning system.
In terms of taking account of the public interest, and that planning decisions and conditions are acceptable to local people, we continue to ensure that the planning system is centred on community involvement. It gives statutory rights for communities to become involved in the preparation of the local plan for the area, and any neighbourhood plans—including strengthening their powers in this area through the Bill—and to make representations on individual planning applications, and on planning appeals, in the knowledge that the decision-maker will give these representations full consideration. I hope that, for the reasons I have set out, the noble Lord might feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I am reassured up to a point, but I would have thought it would be better to have these as statutory protections rather than protections contained in the National Planning Policy Framework, which does not have quite the same statutory impact. However, I recognise that the Government’s intentions are good, even if they may not quite be embodied in a statutory form. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Beecham
“(2A) Regulations under subsection (1) may not be made in respect of the granting of planning permission for Environmental Impact Assessment development.(2B) In subsection (2A) “Environmental Impact Assessment development” has the same meaning as “EIA development” in the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011.”
Lord Beecham
My Lords, Amendments 16 and 17 in this group are connected to issues of major concern. They seek to protect communities from extremely controversial decisions in areas with which we are becoming increasingly familiar; for example, fracking and other processes which impact on the environment. Fracking, I guess, is currently the most controversial of these. Similar concerns around minerals, waste development and the like are covered in Amendment 17. The intention here is to make it clear that the regulations which are otherwise authorised by this part of the Bill would not extend to these very controversial areas. In other words, there would have to be primary legislation to embark on changing the position on these particularly controversial areas. Some danger, I think, is sensed at the moment about the Government’s enthusiasm for fracking; their overriding of local authority concerns, for example, in Lancashire, is very controversial. These amendments are designed to constrain the exercise of those powers, which we may see more of under the Bill, in such decisions taken by government over the wishes of local communities, and effectively outside the normal planning process. I hope the Government will rethink their position on these matters. I beg to move.
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, I am, again, grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for explaining the reasons behind his amendment and understand the concerns he has expressed about those confronted with substantial developments involving minerals and other raw materials.
Amendment 16 would allow exemptions to be made to any regulations brought forward under new Section 100ZA(1) for certain types of development. In this case, the amendment relates specifically to the environmental impact assessment of development. As the noble Lord explained, environmental impact assessments are demanded of development likely to have significant effects on the environment. These assessments are a way of ensuring that local planning authorities, in deciding such applications, are in full knowledge of the likely significant effects, and take these into account during the determination process.
I recognise that the noble Lord’s amendment appears to stem from a wider concern about the measures—that they might in some way weaken existing environmental protections. I confirm that the Government intend to use the power in new Section 100ZA to prevent the use of unreasonable and unnecessary conditions, which are already well established in the Government’s planning practice guidance as not meeting the tests set out in the NPPF.
A local authority will still be able to impose planning conditions necessary to be able to grant planning permission for environmental impact assessment development, provided that those conditions meet these six tests. The Secretary of State may make provision in regulations under new subsection (1) only if he is satisfied that such provisions are in pursuit of these policy tests.
That is why, as set out in the draft regulations we published in December, we are proposing to prohibit the types of conditions set out in guidance as failing to meet the policy tests. I hope this will reassure the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. I should like to be very clear that our guidance currently advises that these types of conditions should not be applied to any grant of planning permission, whether an environmental impact assessment is required or not. We cannot foresee a situation where a local authority would want to impose such conditions on any planning permission. As a further means of assurance, we propose that these regulations will be subject to the affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament, which will ensure appropriate levels of scrutiny.
Amendment 17 is similar. It exempts minerals or waste development from new subsection (1). The arguments for rejecting Amendment 17 are broadly similar to those against Amendment 16: the Bill will not impact the ability of local planning authorities to impose planning conditions to ensure the necessary protections to achieve sustainable development, provided they meet the well-established policy tests.
I also emphasise that our guidance currently advises, as I have just said, that these types of conditions should not be applied to any grant of planning permission, as they clearly do not meet the national policy tests in the NPPF. We cannot foresee a situation where a local authority would want to impose such conditions on the grant of any planning applications. We therefore do not see a need to make exceptions, as the amendments seek to do, for EIA development, minerals and waste applications, or any other type of development. With those reassurances in mind, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I am partly reassured by reference to the affirmative procedure being applied in these cases, which allows greater parliamentary scrutiny. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Stunell
“(2A) No regulations shall be made under subsection (1) that would have the effect of preventing a local planning authority from requiring a condition that would otherwise be in conformity with the national planning policy framework.”
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendments 18 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Parminter, I will also speak to Amendment 25.
The whole of Clause 13 is somewhat out of place in the Bill. For the most part, the critics of the Bill, such as they have been, have looked at where it either goes slightly too far or does not go quite far enough. This clause does something completely different, which is entirely out of the context of the rest of the Bill. It has a very strong power for the Secretary of State to interfere with, change, direct or—as it puts it—“regulate” the kind of planning conditions local planning authorities can use.
New subsections (1) and (2) particularly do that. In Committee, the Government introduced a number of amendments, which were welcome but which essentially introduced the word “relevant” before a number of phrases, which might, in any case, have been superfluous and certainly did not affect the application of new subsections (1) and (2). In Committee, I asked the Minister to set out the Government’s intentions with Clause 13 as a whole and its two separate contexts. The first is a general capacity for the Secretary of State to introduce additional regulations on local planning authorities for every stage of the planning condition process. Within that, there is a subsection dealing with pre-commencement conditions. Amendment 18 deals with the generality and Amendment 25 with the specific case of the pre-commencement conditions.
Baroness Parminter
My Lords, as these amendments are also in my name, I want to add that I think that they are an incredibly eloquent solution to the position that the Government now find themselves in, for which I commend my noble friend Lord Stunell. As we have heard from noble Lords around the House, there has been no real evidence put by the Ministers of the problem that these pre-commencement condition limitations are seeking to solve. We have had single citations from developers and development organisations, but there has been no clear indication of the scale of the problem—no indication at all. It is, I am sure, no surprise to noble Lords to find out that, when the Government consulted on this matter, there was not a majority in favour of pushing ahead with these proposals. Only a minority of people supported them.
In Committee, I spoke about the need to ensure that the housing we build in the future is truly sustainable, particularly from the perspective of dealing with flooding issues. I have genuine concerns that if the Bill goes ahead in its present form the limitations on pre-commencement clauses will limit the ability of local authorities to ensure at an early stage in the planning process that the homes of the future that we need are robust and do not add to flood risk. I contend that as regards not only flood risk but also risk to our natural environment, heritage and culture, the Bill does no more than respond to protests from developers, and will constrain our ability to build the homes that we need in the future.
My noble friend’s amendment is absolutely right and is a very clever way of ensuring that the Government achieve what they want to do, which I am sure we all agree is reasonable—namely, to ensure that unreasonable pre-commencement condition clauses are not put forward and that we focus on ensuring that anything that comes within the scope of the National Planning Policy Framework is deemed to be suitable. That seems to answer all the questions that noble Lords might have about that. Therefore, on that basis, I fully support these amendments.
Baroness Cumberlege
My Lords, I strongly support these amendments. If my memory serves me right, in Committee we voted against what was then Clause 12 standing part of the Bill. Clearly, that was not acceptable to my noble friend Lord Bourne. In the intervening period a lot of thought has gone into how we arrive at what the Government are trying to achieve. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, put forward a case that was persuasive, clear, simple and elegant. As a latecomer to this debate on neighbourhood planning and local planning, I have learned a lot about the NPPF. I say with respect to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York that it is the bible of planning. It is the document that everybody looks to. The most reverend Primate whispers at me. I will seek absolution later.
This measure is a very clever way of meeting everybody’s needs. When one takes part in a Bill such as this, it is interesting to note where the traffic comes from in terms of the people who write to you and all the rest of it. I have not had any developers write to me but I have had correspondence from a lot of other people. As I say, this measure is a very clever way of trying to find a way through this issue. I hope that my noble friend—in this case it is my noble friend Lord Young, of whom I am an admirer, possibly a groupie, I do not know—with his intellect, and with the great intellect of my noble friend Lord Bourne, will say that we can find a way through this. This measure is probably the very best way we could find of doing so.
The Archbishop of York
My Lords, first, I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. I was whispering to her because the spirit was on me, and was saying, “Preach it, sister, preach it”, as she referred to a document as a bible.
Clause 13 concerns pre-commencement planning conditions. This is the most controversial aspect of the Neighbourhood Planning Bill as it attempts to ban pre-commencement planning conditions without the developers’ agreement. This has been done on the basis that such conditions slow the development process, but I remain concerned that it could lower environmental protection and other standards. This is at the heart of the Bill. Amendment 11 was very graciously withdrawn because it would have neutered the entire Bill. I do not know why Amendment 12 was not pressed as it goes in almost the same direction as Amendment 18, but be that as it is.
The change we are discussing shifts the balance of power towards the developer. I know that this is a very technical issue and that there are arguments on both sides. However, I support Amendment 18 because it seeks to give local authorities exemptions to the regulations framework, particularly in regard to conditions that ensure conformity with the national planning framework. The Government’s proposed arrangement in which local authorities can only refuse planning permission entirely may lead to some authorities compromising on important environmental regulations in order to get a development off the ground.
The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, eloquently explained Amendment 18, and was supported most eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. That amendment would ensure that regulations would not prevent a local planning authority imposing conditions on a grant of planning permission that are in conformity with the National Planning Policy Framework. If we do not allow that subsidiarity in every local authority, I am afraid that we will lose some of the best planning regulations. Therefore, I support this amendment because what it seeks to do is in keeping with the National Planning Policy Framework. It simply says that these regulations will not prevent local planning authorities imposing conditions on developers which they consider necessary in the interests of the environment, the development and sustainability. Therefore, as I say, I support the amendment too.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, I will try not to embarrass the co-pilot any more but he is a reasonable man, and these amendments seem to be reasonable. They attempt to help the Government to make clear what is genuinely not clear at the moment.
On the principle of pre-commencement as set out in the Bill’s requirement for a written consent, the question of evidence is important—that is, whether the lack of that at the moment is generally slowing down the planning application process. I am not convinced, and clearly few other noble Lords across the House are. There is clearly a lack of detail about how this will actually be applied.
However, I am more concerned about the unintended consequences that might occur as a result and the confusion inherent in the situation. I would like to know from the Government whether it is correct—and therefore Amendment 18 would genuinely help—that the Government intend to stick to the NPPF. If that is the case, Amendment 18 would ensure that pre-commencement conditions in line with the National Planning Policy Framework could still be imposed. That is all that we are seeking to do to establish some clarity. If that is not the case and the Government want to go further, we should know exactly what they want to do, how they see any extension of that process working, why they think it is important to do it, what effect it will have, what problem it will solve and what benefits it will bring.
To come back to archaeology, which is a key area and an exemplar of what might happen, there are concerns among the archaeological and heritage bodies about the clause. Of course, for most applicants the archaeological work is done in advance of development work to mitigate risks—we all know that; we have been over it many times in this House. The archaeological bodies are concerned that it would potentially allow less scrupulous developers to try to avoid paying for archaeological work by refusing to accept a pre-commencement condition. That means that, essentially, they could just walk away and nobody would benefit, which seems a rather draconian situation.
I know that the Minister is inclined to say that that should be governed by regulations and guidance, but an awful lot goes into guidance and regulations in this Bill, and something as crucial as being clear about the status of the NPPF in relation to pre-commencement orders should be established in the Bill if there is any difficulty around what is intended.
Lord Lansley
My Lords, pre-commencement planning conditions arise in both this group and the subsequent one. Clearly, we have entered into the debate on this group, so perhaps it might be simpler if I speak now rather than in the debate on the subsequent group. I will try not to detain the House for too long, but there are essentially three good reasons why we should proceed in the way the Government propose, by seeking written agreement with applicants before the planning permission is granted.
First, I draw attention to my interests in the register. I am chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum, and in that context I am reminded partly by this debate that, on the last occasion that our forum met—quite contrary to the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, represented the views of the development sector—the head of the historic environment team for Cambridgeshire came to the meeting, made a full presentation on what that team does and why it does it, and responded to questions. They agreed to work on a collaborative basis, because the development community appreciates that satisfying the needs of the historic environment is an essential part of their responsibility. However, I will come back to that as an example in a minute.
The second thing is that we have to remember that at the back of this is the fact that local planning authorities have an obligation not to grant planning permission in circumstances that would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework if an applicant would not agree to a condition that was implied by it. We are having a debate that is not based in reality. The implication is that the applicant does not sign up to this pre-commencement planning condition, and therefore planning permission is granted without it. That is not the situation. I am afraid that these two amendments in particular seem to have ignored that local planning authorities would be quite within their rights—and indeed are required by the legislation—to proceed on the basis of the NPPF. If they fail to do so and grant planning permission, they will be in dereliction of their planning responsibilities.
I come back to three points. I do not mean to steal the thunder of my noble friend on the Front Bench, because his thunder will be better than mine, but, first, this is about creating an expectation. The Government are promising to issue guidance. This is driving towards the situation where a written agreement with applicants will direct them towards trying to anticipate and meet the proper expectations of a local planning authority and a local community in advance, and to proceed probably by way of a draft set of conditions associated with a planning application in the first place, which would relieve the pressure on local planning authorities. It is also perfectly clear from local experience that it would also assist local planning authorities, which are short of experienced planning officers. It is the inexperienced planning officers who tend to put forward long—and often arguably unnecessary—sets of planning conditions. Experienced planning officers recognise what is required and are then likely to get to a better result more quickly. It will therefore enable that to happen more directly.
Secondly, it will avoid the ambush—the sense that at the last minute conditions can be applied, and the applicant has very little opportunity to respond or to decide whether they can proceed with a planning application on the basis of something that is applied at the last minute.
The third point is really important. It has come to my attention that pre-commencement planning conditions can create a problem because often, like other conditions, they have yet to be drafted after planning approval is granted. We are trying to avoid delay—we are trying to build the right housing in the right places as quickly as possible. Drafting the conditions after planning approval is granted causes unnecessary delay, and seeking written agreement to the conditions with an applicant in advance will ensure that we get rid of that delay.
Finally, we need to minimise the number of pre-commencement planning conditions. There is always a debate about whether something is pre or post commencement. If the number of pre-commencement planning conditions can be minimised, that too will help with the difficulty of discharging the conditions. Where there are a lot of consents, discharging the conditions is often a considerable source of delay in moving from planning approval to the point where build-out actually starts on site. We want to see those starts on site taking place. For all those reasons, I feel that the Government have a perfectly reasonable basis for proceeding in the way they have set out in the Bill.
Baroness Young of Old Scone
My Lords, I too commend the trustworthiness of the noble Lord, Lord Young, mainly because we Youngs are totally trustworthy.
I must admit that when I read this whole section on planning conditions, my brain began to hurt, and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has just made it hurt even more. Achieving the desired outcome through a series of double negatives seems incredibly tortuous. Considerable anxiety has been raised about this whole area by a variety of groups from different ends of the spectrum—planning groups, environmental groups and heritage groups. It does appear to be complicated. It seems that the Secretary of State can say no to local authorities saying no, but he cannot say no to local authorities saying no unless that fulfils the NPPF. That is a very tortuous way of going about things. I think that these two amendments are extremely elegant and send a very clear signal to both developers and planners, providing reassurance to those concerned with the environment and heritage. I believe the amendments should be supported.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I agree that Amendments 18 and 25 are important, although the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, largely related to Amendment 25, and perhaps to some others that we will deal with later, on the subject of pre-commencement conditions. Those comments were very similar to ones that I recall him making in Committee. I repeat what I said on that occasion, which is that I find the case exaggerated. I do not find the evidence base that the Government came up with for the problems requiring this solution to be as great as they imagine it to be, and I have heard nothing further to convince me that that is the case.
Clause 13 is simply one clause, but almost a third of the amendments tabled to date relate to it. Twenty-four amendments to Clause 13 have been tabled by noble Lords, and that suggests to me that there is something structurally wrong with it. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will feel that there is a great deal of merit in Amendments 18 and 25.
In response to another comment from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, I would just say that I do not think that a local planning authority should have to negotiate a written agreement with a developer on a matter which is in conformity with the National Planning Policy Framework. It seems that there is a basic principle there that the Government should surely support, and it is spelled out in Amendment 18. I think that a local planning authority should have the right to impose a condition if it is in line with the National Planning Policy Framework. Therefore, I hope very much that, when he replies, the Minister will tell us that he agrees with the wording of the amendment.
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate—particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, who may have endeared himself to me by saying that I could be trusted above every other noble Lord in the Chamber. However, I am not sure what the reaction of other noble Lords might have been to that. He also implied that I might not be in government for ever. That is a question which my wife sometimes asks me. I first joined the Government in 1979 and have left it four times, each time thinking it was the last time but each time, back I come. If the noble Lord, when he was a Minister in the DCLG, was given a one-line zinger to deal with any amendments, he was more fortunate than I am this afternoon.
Perhaps I may try to address some of the issues, which to some extent go broader than Amendments 18 and 25. First, I reassure noble Lords that this clause will not stop local authorities seeking to impose planning conditions that address any specific issue—the natural environment, heritage, archaeology or flood mitigation—where those conditions meet the policy tests in the National Planning Policy Framework. Those protections remain in place and changes to the Bill are not needed to maintain this position.
Lord Stunell
I thank the Minister and noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I thank particularly my noble friend Lady Parminter, who spoke strongly in support of the amendment, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Cumberlege, Lady Andrews and Lady Young, about whom I need to be careful that I get my designation right. I was delighted—it was certainly a first—to receive the blessing of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York for the amendment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, challenged the Minister to, in essence, say whether the NPPF is a yes or a no. I think I heard him say that it is a yes because subsection (2) is taken from the NPPF and therefore that is all we need. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, referred to inexperienced planning officers—in an earlier debate we could have referred to inexperienced planning inspectors, but I am sure we would have been described as out of order—but the professionals provide professional support to those taking the decisions in local planning authorities, and the local planning authorities are entitled to take the professional advice they receive and to use their judgment.
It would be helpful for members of local authority planning committees to have in front of them legislation which states what the Government want. If the Government want a restriction on local planning authorities—or, if you like, a strong reminder to local planning authorities that they cannot go beyond the boundaries of the NPPF—then why not say so and enable the legislation to be used effectively? If many outside organisations and many Members of this House can fundamentally misunderstand the intention of the Government because of the language in the Bill as it stands, is it any wonder that a number of councillors sitting on planning authorities all over the country have exactly the same problem? We know that they become frightened when uncertainty comes into the system, and the planning regime is so draconian and difficult for LPAs at the moment that they are exceptionally cautious.
Something that clearly references the NPPF, with which they are familiar, as the touchstone for their decision-making is surely preferable to something as circular and difficult to understand as the language the Minister has put in front of us—or, perhaps I should say, as his explanation has sought to transpose into a more benign meaning than many of us believe it has.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, referred to the pre-commencement provision in subsection (5). I draw his attention to what it actually states:
“Planning permission … may not be granted subject to a pre-commencement condition without the written agreement of the applicant”.
It is not about consultation with the applicant—rather, it provides that a condition cannot be imposed,
“without the written agreement of the applicant”.
So the applicant has the whip hand and is the person who quite reasonably does not want burdensome conditions. But is the judgment of what is burdensome to be left in the hands of the applicant or should it not rather be in the hands of the NPPF? Amendment 25 would make it so that the decision-making is limited by the NPPF and not by the preference of the applicant who may or may not have benign intentions and a deep-seated sense of civic pride and social obligation.
The problem that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, identified is that pre-commencement conditions lead to delays in issuing decisions because of delays in drafting. I am certainly not going to say that there are never delays in drafting but it is not clear to me that pre-commencement conditions are a major contributor. However, if that is so, the solution has to be feeding through the results of the Government’s decision to allow planning authorities to put extra resources into the planning service so that the delays can be overcome. There is no point in using primary legislation that overturns a fundamental approach to planning as a solution to delays in drafting conditions. That really is entirely disproportionate.
I turn now to the Minister’s response. He was good enough to say that he would provide more guidance but no zingers. I understand that he has done his best with the brief that he has got, and as he reminded me, his brief is probably not quite as elegant and substantial as he would like; I know that feeling. However, having heard the debate and given the breadth of support across the Chamber, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, these amendments concern Clause 13, which we debated in previous groups, and the restrictions on the powers to impose planning conditions. There have been a total of 24 amendments to this clause—some of which we have already debated—which deleted or added words or otherwise amended it. That is 24 amendments to this one clause, out of a total of only 77 amendments to the whole 44-clause Bill on Report. That highlights, as other noble Lords have said, the problem that some parts of the House have with the clause.
My noble friend Lord Beecham referred in a previous debate to the title of the Bill: it is the Neighbourhood Planning Bill but very little of it is actually concerned with neighbourhood planning. As we have heard, it is far more about the Secretary of State taking powers to direct, order and intervene in local decisions. For me, that is not very localist and does nothing to enhance, support or encourage localism. The amendments in this group have to be seen in the context of all the amendments to the clause.
Amendment 19 would delete the section on public consultation. Amendment 20 would add a provision whereby consultation has to include local authorities. I am sure the Minister will tell me shortly that of course it will include local authorities, but it is not in the Bill and we think it belongs there. Amendment 21 seeks to build in an appeals process.
Amendment 26 refers to “a mediation system”. When I raised this issue in Grand Committee, I did not get a particularly favourable response from the Government and I have put the amendment down again. We need to have some system for dealing with these matters but, as I say, I did not get a wildly favourable response from the Government then.
Amendment 27 would give local authorities another option in dealing with these matters. It would set out in the Bill a default position, so that if an applicant has not responded to the council’s pre-commencement conditions, they would be agreed by default. The amendment is an attempt to help move the process on. We all want to get homes and properties built quickly, without having to sit there when things have not been agreed. If, after a certain period, the council’s default position were to be agreed, that might encourage people to talk and seek early agreement.
Amendment 28A would require that regulations be made by statutory instrument, and that there should be a consultation period.
This is the final opportunity at this point for the Government to explain why Clause 13 is necessary. The case has not been made today, or in Grand Committee. I have not heard any noble Lords talk about receiving representations to that effect, but perhaps the Government can tell us more about those they have received. What is the pressure behind the clause? We have not really seen the evidence.
Finally, Amendment 34 seeks to help the Government by requiring that an independent report be commissioned and brought to Parliament; then, we would finally be able to set out the robust evidence that is necessary. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
I must advise the House that if Amendment 19 is agreed to, I am not able to call Amendment 20 for reasons of pre-emption.
Lord Young of Cookham
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for speaking to his amendments. He said that the Government had not set out the purpose of the clause. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, in the debate that we have just had, I set out the two main objectives of Clause 13. I hope that, on reading Hansard, noble Lords might find that that was a succinct explanation of why we believe that the clause is necessary. The policy was announced in the Budget last year and confirmed in the Queen’s Speech, and we have set out the case on several occasions during the passage of the Bill.
There are a substantial number of amendments in this group and if I am to do justice to them all, I am afraid that it may take a moment or two—although less time than when the speaking note was originally drafted. I will begin with Amendment 19, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, which would remove subsection (3) of new Section 100ZA. This amendment would therefore remove an important constraint and safeguard on the power in subsection (1), much the same as Amendments 11 and 13, which we have already discussed. Subsection (3) requires that, before making regulations under subsection (1), the Secretary of State,
“must carry out a public consultation”.
This would afford the opportunity for local views to be put forward as part of the process for determining how the power will be exercised.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I am not disputing for one minute that the Government have said what their intention is, or at least that they have sought to do so, but they have failed to set out the evidential basis to demonstrate why the clause is necessary. That is the issue that we are disputing. The Government have had the opportunity to do so at Second Reading, in Committee and repeatedly today, but we have still have not had it. So I contend that the evidence for what they seek to do is weak. There is no pressure for it that I can see; I do not recall any great mass of support from the government Back Benches to claim that the clause is necessary and has to be delivered. I think it is a classic example of a sledgehammer to crack a nut. However, it is quite clear that I have not convinced the Government, nor have we done so in previous debates on this issue. I therefore reluctantly beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Young of Cookham
“(6A) Before making regulations under subsection (6) the Secretary of State must carry out a public consultation.”
Lord Young of Cookham
“(8A) The Secretary of State must issue guidance to local planning authorities about the operation of this section and regulations made under it.(8B) The Secretary of State may, from time to time, revise guidance issued under subsection (8A).(8C) The Secretary of State must arrange for guidance issued or revised under this section to be published in such manner as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
Lord Young of Cookham
“( ) In section 333 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (regulations and orders) after subsection (3ZA) insert—“(3ZAA) No regulations may be made under section 100ZA(1) unless a draft of the instrument containing the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.””
Neighbourhood Planning Bill
Tuesday 28th February 2017
(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberNeighbourhood Planning Act 2017 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 101-II(Rev) Revised second marshalled list for Report (PDF, 104KB) - (27 Feb 2017)
16:17 - Division on Amendment 35 - Ayes: 278 / Noes: 188 - Amendment 35 agreed.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
“Change of use of drinking establishments
(1) In regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, after paragraph (6)(o) insert—“(p) as a drinking establishment”.(2) Before exercising his or her powers under section 41(1) of this Act, the Secretary of State must exercise the powers conferred by sections 59, 60, 61, 74 and 333(7) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to remove permitted development rights relating to the change of use or demolition of “drinking establishments”.”
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, as this is the first time that I have spoken today, I refer noble Lords to my entry in the Register of Lords’ Interests. I declare that I am a councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I should also mention that I am a member of CAMRA and vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Beer Group. I am a supporter of pubs and recognise the important role that they play at the heart of local communities, be they in our cities, towns, villages or rural areas. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for signing up to my amendment today.
The amendment is simple in its effect. It seeks to amend the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to provide further protection for our pubs. We have to take further action to protect our pubs, and by that I mean protecting thriving businesses, not businesses that have failed. There are a number of problems that need to be addressed. First, I want to pay tribute to CAMRA, which, since its formation in 1971, has stood up for the enjoyment of beer, responsible drinking, the pint, and pubs at the heart of our community. It is without doubt one of the most successful consumer campaign organisations in the UK.
Permitted development rights, as noble Lords will be aware, removed the requirement for a building owner to seek planning permission before making changes to a property. This includes change of use or even demolition. The permitted development rights that we are talking about here allow pubs to be changed to retail or to temporary office use without the need to secure planning permission. The effect is that the people in the local community are prevented from having a say over their local pub. We should be clear: these are small businesses, not failing businesses, but decisions are taken and the community loses its pub, having no say whatever. That cannot be right.
Pubs are a much-loved part of British life. They bring people together to meet, socialise, watch football or other sports, and enjoy live music or conversation with family and friends. I recall going to the event in this House organised by the Royal Voluntary Service some years ago to speak to some of the volunteers there. They were getting people out of their homes to potter down to the local pub to meet their friends and keep up their friendships. That was an important part of keeping them involved in the local community.
Pubs are also much loved by tourists. Both my brothers and my father have been black taxi drivers in London, and they could tell you about the number of tourists who arrive in London, get in the back of a taxi and want to visit a traditional pub, as well as see some of the magnificent sights that we have here. It is not uncommon for a Prime Minister to take a head of state down to the Plough in Cadsden for a pint. But permitted development rights, as they are presently in force, are estimated to contribute to the closure of 21 pubs a week.
We, of course, have the assets of community value scheme, which was introduced by the coalition Government in the last Parliament. It has proved to be a popular initiative and it has led to the removal of the permitted development rights for listed pubs. There are, however, issues and unintended consequences associated with the ACV scheme, which I will spend a little time talking about. There is a burden of time and cost placed on local authorities, community groups and pub landlords and owners. There are also a few instances where local authorities, for whatever reason, are not keen to list pubs under this scheme. All sorts of reasons are given, including that the authority is fearful of costly appeals. There have also been problems where some landlords or owners have struggled to raise funds for works, as the listing has proved a deterrent to some lenders. These are clearly an unintended consequence, but they are a consequence nevertheless.
The amendment before us today will lead to fewer pubs needing to be registered under the scheme. It will put them on a level footing with other businesses so that a developer looking to convert a pub, for whatever reason, would have to go through the normal planning application process. It is quite possible, even likely, that the application will be approved, but my amendment would give the local community a proper say in the sort of development it wants in its area and stop local assets being lost for ever with local people having no say. Surely that is something we should all support. I beg to move.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 39, to which I added my name. I also support the thrust of what the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has just said. As it is the first time I have spoken today, I will place on record my interests in the register as a member of Sheffield City Council.
In Committee, the Minister generously asked for examples of where the asset of community value scheme was not working well in particular authorities. He will be aware that I contacted CAMRA in Sheffield to ask whether there were any incidents of such difficulties with the scheme in regard to pubs. I was quite surprised at the amount of information CAMRA gave me—which I am sure the Minister has seen. It became quite clear from reading about what was going on that this is not isolated to Sheffield, which merely exemplifies what is happening in many communities across the country. This is a burden on communities. It is a David and Goliath fight where the community must fight sometimes a large local authority to prove that an asset is of community value. We talked many times in Committee about the difference between pubs and other commercial operations. It is about not just the economics but also the community and social value that a pub has in binding communities together.
I have come to the view that the asset of community value is not enough in itself to protect those pubs, particularly given the time needed and the burden put on community organisations to save a pub. It is an unbalanced fight between the giant and the small community organisation. For that reason, pubs should have permitted development rights taken away. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said, that would give the community an equal voice in the planning process. It does not necessarily mean that a pub will not be converted to a particular use if it goes through the planning process, but it gives a statutory right to every single member of the community, without cost, to have a say within the planning process, and to be able to explain why a particular pub should or should not be changed and the effect that that will have on the community and the setting of that pub. For that reason I have come to the conclusion that we need to take the permitted development rights away from pubs if they are changing specific use or will be demolished and put them properly and correctly within the framework of the planning process.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, I must declare my various interests in this area: as the founder and chairman of Cobra Beer; as the chairman of the Cobra Beer Partnership Ltd, a joint venture with Molson Coors, one of the largest brewers in the world and the largest brewer in Britain; and as an officer of the most popular and largest all-party parliamentary group—the All-Party Parliamentary Beer Group.
I came to this country as a 19 year-old student from India and remember my first evening here, staying at the Indian YMCA in Fitzroy Square in London. Opposite was the White Horse pub. That was my induction to Britain. Pubs are a way of life in this country. I have been lobbied and lobbied by various organisations, including two of the most prominent associations in our industry. The British Beer and Pub Association, or BBPA, represents companies that between them own 20,000 pubs and brew more than 90% of the beer sold in the UK. The ownership ranges from UK plcs, large companies such as my joint venture partner Molson Coors, privately owned companies, independent family brewers, microbrewers and divisions of international brewers. The association is campaigning to support a thriving brewing and pub industry in the UK. After all, pubs are at the heart of our community.
The Archbishop of York
My Lords, Amendments 35 and 39 were debated extensively in the other place. They relate to planning protection for pubs. At the moment, pubs are subject to permitted development rights, meaning that they can be developed for alternative commercial use—for example, they can be turned into offices or shops—without the need for planning permission. The only exception is where a pub has been designated or recommended as an asset of community value—an ACV. More than 1,750 pubs have been given ACV status but, like the noble Lord who moved Amendment 35, I argue that the process is too cumbersome. As Roberta Blackman-Woods put it on Report in the other place:
“Although pubs can be protected if they are designated an asset of community value, the process for that can be very cumbersome. I believe it is much more appropriate to return the decision on whether a pub can be demolished or converted to the local community, where it belongs, rather than dealing with it through permitted development”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/12/16; cols. 737-8.]
Unless pubs are designated or recommended as an asset of community value, they are at risk of closure in a difficult market for pubs and landlords. Pubs in high-value areas are highly sought after for conversion, even if they are profitable. The amendments would remove pubs from permitted development rights, meaning that planning permission would be needed for conversion, regardless of ACV status. It is argued that this would help local communities protect profitable pubs as the local council will be able to refuse an application for conversion where the pub is profitable and viable. Given that pubs are considered an important aspect of a vibrant community life, and given the Church of England’s concern for that community life being vibrant, these amendments should be supported. I have no investment in any pub.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, pubs, as we realise, arouse strong emotions. We had a lengthy debate on this topic in Committee in the Moses Room. I do not want to rerun all the remarks that I laid out then. I remind the House that until three years ago I was a non-executive director of a company that operated brewers and about 2,000 pubs. I am outside the quarantine period, so that is no longer in my entry in the Register of Lords’ Interests.
I begin from what I hope is a shared position: we all want to keep pubs open wherever possible. The question posed by this amendment is at root this: will pubs be kept open by this additional legislation? I am afraid that for me the answer is negative. Pubs are closing because people use them less, and people are using them less because of changing leisure habits. Pubs are closing because people can buy the beer far more cheaply in the supermarket and then drink at home. Pubs are closing because of increasing beer duty and council tax and because of the introduction of the minimum wage, the living wage, the smoking ban, the drink-driving ban, new licensing requirements, and new health and safety legislation. Collectively, these have all combined to squeeze the general profitability of pubs to a point where many can no longer provide an adequate return to long-suffering and hard-working landlords.
Legislation cannot make a bad landlord into a good one. Legislation will not enlarge the curtilage, or land area, of a pub to enable new kitchen facilities or new parking areas to be constructed.
Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)
Will my noble friend give way? He said that no pubs are closing because of the changes to permitted development rights. I do not think anyone disputes that a number of pubs will close because they are not used by the communities that they are situated in, but can he prove that no viable pubs have been turned into supermarkets?
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
I certainly cannot. There are 37,000 pubs in the country and I am not able to stand here and say that the 37,000 pubs have been operated completely to the highest standards or that people have not tried to run them down. I shall return to the point about how there is already adequate protection for the community if it chooses to use it. One of the ways to improve a pub is to improve your kitchen facilities or enlarge your car park, but some of these pubs do not have the land area or curtilage to be able to do that.
It is not as though there is not already an opportunity for individual communities, using the asset of community value—the ACV facility—to apply for it to be listed. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, suggested that this was not an adequate remedy and that in some cases local authorities were reluctant to get involved for a series of reasons. I am sure there have seen cases like that, which is why I shall come in a minute to the question of one of the remedies for this. But equally, it is fair to say there are cases where local authorities have blanket-classified a whole series of pubs in their area—the lot—and that is also not what the ACV arrangements were designed to do.
Am I suggesting that every pub is being run scrupulously? Of course not: there are thousands of them and there will be outliers, on both sides of the case, in every community and every part of the country. But to introduce new legislation on the basis of a small number of cases—and it is a small number of cases, some of them anecdotal—is in my view a mistake. What the industry needs above all is more investment, not less, and nothing is more likely to put off potential investors than restrictions on how they can, in the end, realise their investment.
It has somehow gained credence that the groups at which these amendments are aimed are the allegedly rapacious pubcos and integrated brewers. If that is the aim, I have to tell the House that the target is being missed. The losers will be the independent operators, for example the many thousands of mum and dad operators. There are probably 20,000 couples who have worked long and hard, maybe after inheriting the pub from parents, and who now wish to sell up and retire. But because of restrictions like these, they find the sale price of the pub—also their home and their only asset—reduced in price drastically and maybe even unsaleable pending the ACV negotiations. If it is felt that the ACV process is not working well, I agree that it should be reviewed—but reviewed in the round so that the cases that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, refers to and the other cases where there have been block listings can be looked at and we can see how the balance of the ACV operation has been proved to work.
I urge those who support the amendment to be careful what they wish for. Legislation about the pub industry in the past has all too frequently led to some very unhappy unintended consequences. It is worth remembering that the emergence of the pubcos—companies that only own pubs, buy in all their beer and alcoholic drinks and are most disliked by CAMRA—came about only because of legislative action. The beer orders had the intent of opening up the market by reducing the power of the large brewers to dictate which beers were produced, and which owned and controlled the vast majority of the pubs.
Forced divestment of pubs did not lead to the anticipated happy outcome. It led instead to the emergence of what were essentially specialist property companies, all too often highly geared, with all that that implied for reinvestment in the pub industry. In my view, a similar unintended consequence may result if my noble friend were minded to accept this amendment, or the noble Lord was minded to put it to the vote and won the subsequent Division. My reason is this: because of the highly competitive nature of the market for the sale of alcoholic drinks and other changes in our socioeconomic life, pubs have increasingly turned to food, as a means of improving their profitability. Increasingly, they are becoming, in effect, restaurants. If I were an independent owner of a pub, faced with yet further changes, I would consider what the balance of my business was like; I would boost my food offering and apply for a change of use from my current A4—drinking establishment—to A3—restaurant/café. As a result the loss of pubs would accelerate, not slow down.
There is no evidence of widespread running down of pubs to accelerate closure. Where it happens the ACV procedure is available for the community to use. A handful of cases do not justify the imposition of additional restrictions on the whole industry. Hard cases make bad law—
Lord Bilimoria
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I made the point about pubs increasingly offering food. That is happening—it is part of their offering, along with the drink. But the noble Lord’s argument seems to imply that he is not for the British pub industry and British pubs. The BBPA, which represents 20,000 pubs in this country—the majority—and CAMRA, which represents a huge part of our beer industry, feel that these amendments are good. The noble Lord has not convinced me, for a start.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
I hear what the noble Lord says. Actually, I am not sure that the British Beer and Pub Association does approve of these amendments. It is concerned at further restrictions being placed on the operation of pubs which will deter investment. What the British Beer and Pub Association favours, with which I entirely agree, is a review of the operation of the asset of community value system in the round. We are taking a sledgehammer to crack a very small nut. The danger is that we will miss the nut and damage the industry.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am very interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for once sticking up for the couples who run pubs. We have been listening for the past two or three years to him, virtually single-handed, opposing the ACV system that both the Labour Party and the Government supported. There are still problems with it, as we know; we need not get into it. It was, however, good to hear him stick up for the small pub couples. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, is wrong. Pubs are closing. They are closing and having change of use when the community does not want them. It is very easy to stereotype. I live in Cornwall, in a little village by the sea; if the two pubs there were to close it would be a disaster for the community, but the owners would make much more money selling them as desirable second homes. The same applies in London, because the property prices are so high. Many owners would rather sell their pubs and turn them in to luxury flats or something rather than keep them going, especially when the business rates issue is coming to the fore and there is fear of an enormous growth in the rates they will have to pay.
It is perfectly reasonable and very desirable that these amendments are supported. Pubs, as other noble Lords have said, are an essential part of the community. There have been examples where people have walked down the road and found that their pub suddenly has a barrier around it and is closed for good. They did not know that was going to happen as it was all done in secret.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
Just to be clear, I support keeping pubs open and I support people’s property rights.
The Countess of Mar (CB)
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I remind him that this is Report. If he has a question for the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, would he ask it briefly?
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My question is: is the noble Lord now questioning property rights for individuals? If someone has an asset, should they not be allowed to dispose of it?
Lord Berkeley
There are many types of property in this country that have different constraints on them, and from my point of view pubs should be one of them because they are a very important part of the community. These are reasonable amendments and I fully support them.
Lord Swinfen (Con)
My Lords, I spoke briefly on this in Committee and I will not weary your Lordships by repeating what I said then. I shall say simply that I support the amendment, and if there is a Division I will vote in favour of it.
Lord Tope (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I should perhaps also declare a non-interest: I have never been involved in any way in running a pub but am simply an occasional and perhaps too frequent consumer.
I do not think any of us here are suggesting that all pubs should be preserved in aspic regardless of circumstances. Of course pubs become unviable for all sorts of reasons, such as different social trends or changes in the local neighbourhood. There are all sorts of reasons why a pub genuinely becomes no longer viable. However, there is a big difference between “not viable” and “not as profitable as it could be”. In other words, a building can certainly be used more profitably as something other than a pub; the site on which a pub stands could certainly be developed more profitably than by being retained as a pub. That is the difference, but no one here is suggesting that pubs should be retained regardless of local circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, referred several times to new, additional legislation. I suppose, since we are considering legislation, it is in a sense new legislation, but actually the effect of what is being proposed is simply that the consideration of any demolition or development of a public house should go through the normal planning process. I am not sure that strictly speaking that is what I would have understood by “new legislation”. What we are saying is that the local community should have its opportunity to give voice to its views on any proposed development of a public house in the normal way through the normal planning permission. The position at the moment is that through permitted development rights the owner or someone else has the right to demolish or develop the pub regardless of the local planning authority or the local community’s views. That is what is objectionable and it is one of the reasons, though not by any means the only one, why so many pubs are disappearing—because there are more profitable uses for the building and/or the site. That is what is causing so much concern.
The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, is probably right that some local authorities have possibly used the device of assets for community value rather too liberally or generously. Maybe so, but there is a good reason why they are doing that: it is the only way that they can avoid the problems with the permitted development rights. I think “assets of community value” was an excellent measure, introduced as it was by the coalition Government through the Localism Act—“localism”, incidentally, is a word that we do not hear very much these days—but it was put in there for rather different purposes than a blanket position to refer to all pubs in a particular local authority area regardless of circumstances.
All that is really being suggested here is not strictly new legislation but rather that we revert to the situation that used to apply that, if you wish to make appropriate changes to a building—in this case a public house—whether by demolition or redevelopment of the site, you apply to the local planning authority. It goes through the normal planning process; the local community has its opportunity to make representations and the planning applicant has its opportunity to make representations and the elected planning authority makes the decision. That is what is being proposed here—not that all pubs should be preserved regardless of circumstances or, alternatively, that all pub site owners should have the right to develop regardless. I very much support the amendments and I hope that they will be put to the vote. I hope, of course, that that vote will be successful, and I hope then that the Government will consider very seriously what seems to be—we may be about to prove it—a majority view on all sides of this House, which is most certainly the majority view in most if not all communities.
Lord Framlingham (Con)
I spoke very briefly in Committee in support of this amendment, and I would like to do the same again now. I have no shares in pubs but, like many Members of your Lordships’ House, I have made a considerable investment in a number of pubs over the years and continue to do so.
I understand the points that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, makes in an accountancy sense and a clinical sense. Of course, they are true. He talked about people drinking at home, which people are doing more of, as we know—but this is not about people drinking at home; it is about people drinking with other people, in the community, and all that brings to the community. It is not just about drinking anymore. I think of my local pub, which has wi-fi and excellent food—not just fish and chips on Friday, although it does that very well. It has an art gallery behind it and all sorts of things, including pub quizzes, of course. It is a major hub in the community and would be hugely missed.
I am sure that in your Lordships’ House we all have memories of pubs and pubs we currently use. They are a uniquely British institution. We are losing them too fast anyway and surely we should do anything we can to hang on to those that we have. There are good reasons why we might have some difficulties in keeping them open, but they are a uniquely British institution and this amendment is a very sensible one. I hope that the Minister feels minded to accept it.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, has just said. There is a big problem. The facts are these: more than 20 pubs are closing every week, and 2,000 pubs have been listed as assets of community value, but around another 40,000 have not been listed and, currently, have permitted development rights applied to them. As the London Borough of Wandsworth has demonstrated, it is possible for local authorities to use Article 4 directives on pubs, but that is a very complex process—and certainly in this respect far too complex for most areas.
I puzzled over the question of whether, if you have 2,000 pubs listed as assets of community value, there is actually a problem. If 2,000 community organisations can make a proposal for their pub to be listed, the process seems to work fairly well. However, there is another way of looking at that, which is the view that I take, which is that if communities feel that it is necessary to list 2,000 pubs as assets of community value, there is clearly a problem that needs to be solved, because 2,000 is a very large number. Of course, we have now experienced the fact that, despite 2,000 pubs being registered, large numbers have not been listed and have been lost. The solution is simply a minor amendment to the law to end permitted development rights and to require that any proposed change to a pub should secure planning permission. It is a simple remedy.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment. Of course, pubs have to be closed where there is no business. All we are seeking is a filter so that there is an opportunity for the local community to make representations and consider it seriously. Planning laws cover so many—often very minor—things. It is not asking a lot that, if there were a request for a pub to be closed, at least a planning application would have to be made. This would mean that the local parish council—and I declare an interest as the chairman of my parish council—would have the opportunity to gather the views of the community. They could make their point to the planning authority—the district council—which may go the other way.
There are two reasons why pubs close. The main one is that there is not the business to keep them going. The other is that people buy pubs in order to convert them to houses. I know cases in Suffolk where that has happened. They buy them as going concerns and then, quite callously, seek planning permission to close them.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has a strong point and I hope the Minister will agree that, at least, closures should be subject to a planning application. I think it is pretty silly to have to get planning permission to put up a garden fence more than six feet high and eight feet from the road. All one is asking here is for the community to have the opportunity to express a voice.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, my name is attached to this amendment. I have no interest to declare in every sense of the word. I became interested because the area where I live has seen a great deal of development. Houses have been pulled down; big new estates have arrived. The very few local pubs have served as stabilising factors and community centres. They are places where people can meet to get to know each other and, in particular, they act as a sort of verbal noticeboard to find out what is going on in the community. Communities would be much impoverished were these pubs to be closed down more readily.
All this amendment is asking is that pubs should not be treated more casually than other demolitions and changes of use. There can be no harm in this. I hope that the Government will see the truth of it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated in this debate, in which there has been a great deal of passion and much agreement. There is not anything that divides us on the basic tenet that we want to protect pubs. Where there is a difference is on the best way of doing that. There is no disagreement about the diagnosis, only about the remedy. One or two noble Lords were, perhaps, in error—or have expressed themselves ambiguously—on one point. If you are converting a pub to residential accommodation, you need planning permission; that is already the case and this would not alter that.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Shipley, Lord Tope, Lord Scriven, and Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for speaking so effectively to the amendments. I reaffirm that the Government do recognise the importance that local communities place on valued community pubs. I have experience of this because, in another life, I was co-chair of the All-Party Beer and Pub Group in the National Assembly for Wales— one of my more pleasant jobs there—and met regularly with CAMRA and the British Beer and Pub Association. I was pleased to set out in Committee the range of support that we are providing to some communities to enable them to purchase their local pubs and to enable other pubs to diversify. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, that this is a package of arrangements. It is not a silver bullet; we have to look at the problem more holistically.
Our package of fiscal measures—scrapping the beer and alcohol duty escalators and freezing beer duty at Budget 2016—has supported all pubs. These measures have made a considerable difference and have been widely welcomed across the House and in communities up and down the country. Some noble Lords have made the point that some pubs are not viable and no amendment we pass will make them so. There are others which we should seek to protect. There are things we can do today, but whatever we do will ameliorate and help the situation, not solve it with a silver bullet.
As I said I would in Committee, I have continued to give consideration to the issue of pubs and assets of community value, to try to do something that will address this across a range of pressure points and issues. I have met with the Campaign for Real Ale—an excellent organisation for which I have great respect—and the British Beer and Pub Association. I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, that it was clear from our meeting that they are much more of the view that we should have a review than that we should press this amendment. I was intent on listening to their views to see how the current arrangements work.
I am very keen to respond to the concerns that have been raised today, and it is clear that a delicate balance needs to be struck. Indeed, the evidence put forward by the Campaign for Real Ale does not necessarily point to permitted development rights as having the most significant impact on pubs. I am keen that we should look at this issue and the evidence available to us. It is clear from these conversations that the majority of pubs that change use do so following local consideration of a planning application in relation to residential development rights—or, in this case, non-rights.
Figures provided by CAMRA estimate that 90% of pubs changing use do require planning permission. Where this is the case, for example for the change of use to residential, there are strong policy protections for pubs. Paragraph 70 of the National Planning Policy Framework requires local planning authorities to deliver the social, recreational and cultural facilities and services that the community needs, including pubs. That is why it is important for local planning authorities to have relevant, up-to-date, local policies in place to support their decision-making.
In respect of the change of use or demolition of pubs under permitted development rights, as noble Lords will know, the current arrangements already provide protections for pubs that are valued by the community. As has been indicated in this debate, permitted development rights for change of use or demolition are removed from those pubs that are listed as an asset of community value for the period of the listing. I have had a look at the process of nominating as an asset of community value. It is not complicated and there is no fee attached to it. Communities have responded positively, and more than 4,000 assets have now been listed, of which over half are pubs; a “very large number” as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said.
That is a sign of success, not failure, but I agree that we have to see how we can do better. My starting point would be to look at the impediments to other pubs being listed as assets of community value. For example, it may be that some local authorities are not looking at this in the way they should. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for coming up with some evidence, which we have certainly had a look at. That, together with other evidence I have heard, has persuaded me that we do need to consider the issue.
While we recognise the intent of the amendments, we cannot support them as such. However, that is not to say that there is no room for improvement. Clearly, there is. I believe that there is scope for improvement in the assets of community value area. I am pleased therefore to be able to offer—as an alternative to pushing this to a vote—that the Government will undertake an open and transparent review of the current arrangements in respect of assets of community value and the planning regime for pubs, including looking at permitted development rights. The review would start no later than straight after the local elections, with a clear commitment to report within six months—that is, to come back in the autumn with a view to taking action on whatever the review throws up.
We all want to protect assets of community value. The review would therefore look at the process of nominating and listing pubs as assets of community value—at how communities can better be supported to take advantage of the community right to bid and have a say in the future of their pubs, while appropriately safeguarding the rights of owners. We would invite detailed comments from communities, pub owners, local authorities and interested parties on where changes, improved guidance and other support would be helpful. This could include looking at whether there was a case for changing the planning rules—that would be part of the review.
For example, from my discussions it is clear that across the country there are inconsistencies of approach. The evidence brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, demonstrated that and, of course, there are other examples of local authorities not applying the rules in the way they should. While decisions on whether to list a pub as an asset of community value are rightly matters for individual local authorities, we can look at whether further guidance for communities and local authorities would be helpful. In one case I heard about, a local authority did not want to list a pub because it served alcohol—which seems rather to miss the point of what we are seeking to do. So I would be keen to put a spotlight on cases like that and make sure that we get some sense into the system.
Alongside this, the review would consider the impact of the removal of permitted development rights for change of use—including the impact on owners. I would also be keen to look at issues around the raising of finance, which the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and others have raised. It is inconsistent; some financing bodies do not regard listing as an impediment while others do. The objective is to ensure we get best practice here. The review would enable us to look at this on a fairly short timescale and on a much broader front. This is not just about planning issues; it is broader than that. It is also about the assets of community value approach, which does work extremely well in many parts of the country. In the borough of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy—indeed, on his doorstep—the Ivy House, where he is, perhaps, an occasional rather than a frequent imbiber, appears to be working very successfully. So there are examples that we can use to inform this review of where the approach is working extremely successfully.
I would be content to put on the face of the Bill that we will have a statutory review within the timescale I have indicated. I do not think I can be fairer than that. This would look at things across the range and come up with evidence not just on the narrow area of planning permission but around the assets of community value scheme—which all parties have signed up to as a valuable process—to see if we can find a way forward.
I have been pleased to engage with noble Lords on these issues. We have had some good discussions and we share the aim of doing something positive. However, I believe that a review within this tight timescale would be the answer. I therefore ask the noble Lord and other noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I am very grateful to them all. I agree very much with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. His analysis of the problems experienced in Sheffield was very telling and highlighted that action needs to be taken. The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, was right when he spoke about the variety of food and drinks sold in pubs. I live in Lewisham and the pubs there have different offerings depending on their clientele. The amendment simply asks that those who want to convert pubs apply for planning permission, and I am delighted to have the noble Lord’s support.
The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York spoke about the need to protect profitable pubs and I very much concur with what he said. My noble friend Lord Berkeley made an important point about the value of pubs to the community, and he mentioned in particular Cornwall, where he lives. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, highlighted the loss of local pubs by the conversion of an asset through permitted development and not because they are failing businesses. I am also very grateful to have the support of the noble Lord, Swinfen. I thank, too, the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, for his supportive remarks. Like him, I have no shares in pubs, although I have spent quite a lot of money in them over the years.
I return to my earlier remarks about the visit to the House by representatives of the Royal Voluntary Service. They talked about how they would take people to a pub not just to have a drink but to meet their friends and family. They emphasised how that was an important part of getting people involved in their community.
The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, was right: this is a modest proposal which simply allows the community to have a voice. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, made an important point about the need to show that pubs are treated no less favourably or more casually than any other business.
That brings me to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, with whom I did not agree. It was an interesting intervention but it did not address the substance of my amendment in any way. This amendment is not about propping up failing businesses. If a business is failing and cannot pay its way, meet its liabilities and return a modest profit, it will close. Nothing in my amendment seeks to change that, and it would have no effect whatever on the type of issue that the noble Lord raised. Not one word of my amendment would keep open a pub or business that was failing and not meeting its liabilities. It would simply close a loophole and ensure that, specifically on change of use, a planning application would have to be made and the local community would get to have its say. It would do nothing more and nothing less, and really should cause the Government no problems whatever.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, for his remarks. I have great respect for him. He is an effective Minister and an effective operator in this House. He deals with all noble Lords with great skill and courtesy, as has been evident as he has taken the Bill through this House, and I am very grateful to him, as we all are. I have considered all the issues in today’s debate and in Grand Committee very carefully. I do not do anything by halves but clearly we are at the point of calling time on this debate, and I now want to test the opinion of the House.
“Retrospective planning permission
(1) Where there has been a breach of planning control, as defined under section 171A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (“the 1990 Act”), the person or body who has caused the breach must make a retrospective planning application for planning permission under section 73A of the 1990 Act (planning permission for development already carried out).(2) In respect of a retrospective planning application, the person or body who has caused the breach of planning control is liable for the payment of fees or charges to the local planning authority in respect of the costs incurred in carrying out the functions connected with the retrospective planning application.(3) The person or body who has caused the breach of planning control is liable for the payment of a significant additional charge, connected to the retrospective nature of the planning application, in addition to the fees and charges the person or body is liable for under subsection (2).(4) In carrying out the functions connected with a retrospective planning application, the local planning authority must consult the people residing in the local area to which the retrospective planning application relates.”
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
My Lords, I have brought this amendment back in exactly the same form it had in Committee because I thought the comments the Minister made then really deserved to be re-examined. This is an important issue that ordinary people care about very much. Everyone is very unhappy to find suddenly that something has been given retrospective permission without them having any idea that it was even up for reconsideration.
As the Minister said on that day in Committee:
“How we deal with unauthorised development is an important issue that concerns many people”.
I think that is right. He also said:
“It is important to note that retrospective planning applications must be determined in exactly the same way as any other application, that is, in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise”.—[Official Report, 6/2/17; col. GC 346.]
He then referred to what the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, said about this, which was also interesting. The Minister mentioned that if somebody has deliberately concealed the fact that they are doing development, as in the famous haystack case, they can be required to demolish the property.
What I found most disappointing in what the Minister said was that the local authority concerned does have an obligation to consult people—I put the part about consultation in my amendment because local authorities are not doing so. Certainly, in the cases where I have been affected by retrospective planning permission, the first thing I have known about it is when I received a note saying, “We have granted planning permission” for whatever disastrous thing it was near me. I have met so many other people who have been in the same situation. If there is an obligation to consult the same people whom you would have consulted before, why is it not being done for retrospective permission? It all smells a little bit. Is this because someone is trying to slip something through retrospectively and feels that they will get away without any consultation or having to attach any conditions? It bears looking at again.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, who mentioned the serving of enforcement notices. The Minister certainly picked up the point about enforcement proceedings, but I am not suggesting going any further on those issues.
I must reiterate that my interest is declared in the register; I should perhaps have said that at the beginning.
The Minister went on to say, regarding enforcement, that,
“there is already a double charge”.—[Official Report, 6/2/17; col. GC 347.]
I had not appreciated that there was already a double charge, but apparently that is the case only if you have an enforcement notice. There is no extra charge if you have simply not applied and come back to get your permission, and the local authority has not notified those people who should be consulted. Is that because there is corruption, or is it laziness on their part? It is very important to have some way of ensuring that—it really would be good. The Minister said that it would not be helpful to delay effective enforcement action. All of these things are true, but why are they not adhering to the letter of the law as it is? Why are ordinary people suffering? They are finding that, instead of being able to insist that some reasonable condition that would suit everyone in the locality be included in the planning consent, and the planning authority would consider whether it was a justifiable condition to attach, they are simply not being consulted and are getting word after it is all over and done with.
I suggested a penalty fee in that proposal because planning officers to whom I have spoken have said to me that, at the moment, there is no disincentive whatever to going retrospectively for permission. You can be brave and just have a go and you have nothing to lose because you have no disadvantage: if you find out that you have not got permission, you go for it then and it does not cost anything more; you might have saved yourself a lot of time, trouble and bother, and you have just gone ahead with what you wanted. On the idea of a penalty fee, the Minister said:
“It is a matter which I know previous Governments have considered and to some extent grappled with, but in the interests of fairness have decided not to take forward”.—[Official Report, 6/2/17; col. GC 347.]
In speaking to other amendments in Committee, the Minister said that he would be looking very seriously at various things for secondary regulation, as to what should or should not be regulated and what should or should not be considered. However, I believe that this is the sort of instance that should be looked into. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has said to me that this is more complicated than I imagine. I am sure, from his wisdom and knowledge, which is very great on these subjects, that I would accept that that probably is a fact, but it does not mean that it cannot be investigated and looked into. If, as I understood from the answers in Committee, there is going to be all this consideration of future regulations, then this merits being looked at much more closely. Rather than going on and on, because we have an awful lot to get through today, I beg to move.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, this matter was debated briefly in Committee. I made the point then that I had a good deal of sympathy with the intentions of the noble Baroness’s amendment requiring a retrospective planning application, although it did not seem to me that the rest of her proposals—with all due respect—had been fully thought through in terms of how they might be applied.
In particular, subsection (2) in the amendment is unnecessary, because if there was a planning application then, of course, fees would have to be paid. There is also a real problem with subsection (3)—I think I said this to her in Committee as well—which prescribes the payment of an additional charge without giving any indication of how that might be calculated. I suggested that the matter could have gone forward on the basis that that would be determined by secondary legislation, but that has not appeared in this amendment. For those reasons, I am afraid that we cannot support the noble Baroness’s amendment, although I suspect that she will not divide the House in any event. While her intention is very good, the means of carrying it through do not quite meet what is required.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interest as a councillor in the borough of Kirklees and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I agree with the principle behind the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. The issue that she has brought to our attention is important, although, in common with the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, I am not entirely clear that the amendment that she has drafted will address the fundamentals behind the issue that she is trying to address.
Baroness Maddock (LD)
My Lords, having listened to the debate, I will intervene briefly because this issue goes back a long way. I declare my interest as a vice-president of the LGA and many years ago I was a councillor.
One thing that happens is that, if people get away with this once, they go on doing it again and again. I was once successful in persuading the planning committee to say to this man, “You must change what you have done”, to stop him in his tracks. However, there is a bit of a nasty turn to this, because I was standing at the bus stop in front of the building where he had to change the windows at the top and I heard this lady say, “Oh dear, it is a terrible waste of money doing that, isn’t it?”. That may have been the case, but this is important. I did not realise that nothing had been done in the time since I dealt with this issue years ago. The real problem is that, if nothing is done, people who do it once go on doing it again. We need to take that into account when listening to this argument.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, it is 43 years since I was on a planning committee and I am sure that the law has changed a lot. However, when I was an MP, I became involved in a case in the Lake District in which someone built a building without planning permission, and there was subsequently a row. The conclusion I drew was: “Knock it down”. The law allows too much flexibility. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned risk. People are prepared to take a risk, and the only way in which we can make this law work well is if we are far more vigorous in its application.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I very much agree with what has been said and thank my noble friend Lady Gardner for tabling the amendment. I am conscious that we all want to make progress. This is an area where, in time, we should have some examination and this is not a statutory matter to address now.
I always conceive planning as being about good neighbourliness. One of the problems is that retrospective planning applications often come in when someone has encroached a little too much and not quite followed the drawings. Then, because a neighbour who has opposed an application is cross, they go to the council and say what they want to happen. One can get into a whole rigmarole involving costs, not only of retrospective application but of demands to building control such as, “Are you coming?”, “I don’t think that they are building on the right line”, or, “They are moving that hedge”.
Such areas, which seem small, have an impact on the issue of consent in the planning system, about which I have spoken to your Lordships in Committee on this and other Bills. For many reasons, including that given by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, my noble friend’s amendment does not work but I hope that we will hear some sympathetic sounds—I know we always do—from my noble friend on the Front Bench. This is an issue on which the Government might reflect as time goes by, because there is a sense that a lot of injustice is done out there by those who willingly or unwillingly play the system. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, that local authorities are generally loath to intervene unless it is a big issue. Planning officers ask themselves, “Would I have refused the planning application for that one or two-foot encroachment?”. These are the kind of considerations that apply. People should do what they promise they are going to do; that is what the system is about and should be delivered. People should not play the system.
I do not think that we can take this matter further now but hope that my noble friend will think about it over the months and perhaps years—I hope not too many years—ahead and closely examine where the frontier between consent and abuse of consent should be.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, I should declare an interest as an honorary officer of the Campaign for National Parks. I am glad that the noble Baroness has introduced her amendment and is standing by it here on Report because this is a worrying development. A growing number of people deliberately defy the regulations that are meant to operate. It is not just a matter of building something for which they do not have permission and looking for retrospective approval; a more sinister element is that they get approval with conditions attached—for example, compliance with national parks’ general policy. However, the people then try to do what they want with the building and do not observe the conditions. There is an indication that they are doing this believing, for example, that the national park authority will be hesitant about pursuing them because it is worried about its budget, the costs and all the rest if that person appeals.
We must take seriously the prospect that the quality of an area can change within a short period because, once one person has done it, there is an invitation for all sorts of other people to do it too. I am glad that the noble Baroness is making a stand.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated in this debate on Amendment 38. I particularly thank my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, who has vast experience of not just national politics but, in particular, London politics. I know she feels very strongly about this issue. I have great respect for her and for the way she has presented the case. I am conscious that she has raised it on a number of occasions, most recently in Grand Committee.
Other noble Lords participated in the debate and sympathise with the general thrust of what my noble friend is seeking to achieve. They include the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, who stunningly remembers being on a planning committee 43 years ago. It is hard to appreciate that, but he clearly has vast experience in this area. There were also the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Maddock, and my noble friend Lord True, who talked about good neighbourliness, which goes to the essence of it. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, sympathised with the thrust of what is being said here.
At the outset, I remind noble Lords that one thing that we are seeking to achieve in this legislation and more generally as a Government—supported, I think, by noble Lords from around the House—is localism, and therefore we have to be a little careful about resisting the temptation every time something goes wrong to weigh in and say, “That is not the right way to do it”. I appreciate that there is more to it than that, but we need to keep that sense of perspective in our minds.
The ideal is, of course, that everybody should seek planning permission before they start work. That is what the majority expect and, indeed, what the majority of people do. Sadly, as my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes has experienced, that does not always happen. We therefore need a way to deal with these cases. Where a local authority considers that a planning application is the appropriate way forward, it can invite a retrospective planning application. Otherwise, local authorities have at their disposal a wide range of enforcement powers.
My noble friend’s amendment calls for changes to the retrospective planning application process. I am afraid that the Government’s position on this has not changed. I think I said in Committee, and I say again now, that there are many cases where there is a genuine error, so we need this process to deal with that situation rather than a harsher regime. The retrospective planning application process is there primarily to give those who have made a genuine mistake the opportunity to rectify the situation, but I appreciate that the examples that get into the media are much higher profile than that. We have had the haystack case, the palace in Kirklees and so on. Different considerations will apply there.
Local authorities have other tools at their disposal. Local planning authorities have flexibility, but planning applications have to be determined in the same way as any other application. My noble friend did not receive notification of the planning application. That is a mistake under the current law, and we need to look at proper enforcement. If she is able to bring forward evidence of the process not being followed, I would be very keen to look at it with officials, and I undertake to do so. I am sure that there are things that we can be doing better in relation to that with a view perhaps to looking to the future rather than this legislation. She has highlighted an important problem.
There is no guarantee that planning permission will be granted just because the development already exists. We have seen examples where that has not been the case, so we know that there are local authorities that are tough and are probably doing the right things in relation to some development. In some cases, the impact of the development may be mitigated by imposing planning conditions on the retrospective grant of planning permission. Otherwise, local planning authorities have a wide range of enforcement powers, with strong penalties for non-compliance, at their disposal. Where an enforcement notice is served and the person appeals on the ground that planning permission ought to be granted, the person is deemed to have made an application for planning permission and must pay a fee. That fee is twice the fee that would have been payable in respect of a planning application to the relevant authority seeking permission for the matters stated in the enforcement notice. This is in recognition of the additional work and would obviously act as a disincentive in that situation.
My noble friend’s amendment would make retrospective planning applications compulsory for all breaches of planning control. As I say, we cannot accept that because we see situations where that would be inappropriate, as I think successive Governments have done. It would be difficult to enforce and could lead to delays and additional burdens. My noble friend’s suggestion of a penalty fee in addition to charges in respect of the costs incurred by the local planning authority would unfairly penalise those who had made a genuine error, and discourage the submission of such an application for proper consideration by the local planning authority.
That said, I recognise that my noble friend has brought forward a very important issue. As I say, if she is able to come forward with some evidence of local planning authorities not doing what they should be doing and not enforcing the law, I would be very keen to see that; if other noble Lords have experience of it, I would be very keen to see that too. I can give that undertaking. However, while thanking my noble friend for bringing forward an important issue which clearly has resonance around the House, for the reasons I have outlined and in the light of the undertakings I have given, I respectfully ask her if she would withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, I thank those who have spoken. I have been very impressed by how clear they have been and by how many have had direct experience of exactly what I have brought forward, which encourages me to think that we have a case that should be looked at. On my last amendment, the Minister remarked helpfully that he would be willing to look at the issues raised, particularly in terms of secondary legislation that was possibly going to come forward later in the year. If he could similarly assure me that this would be the case here, and the matter would not be just dropped and forgotten, I would be very happy to accept that assurance. It is an important issue, and ordinary people feel justifiably aggrieved when something like that happens and they did not even have the opportunity to know that it was going to happen before suddenly getting the letter which says “We have granted permission”. You did not even know anything was going to be considered, and it has gone through the whole retrospective permission without anyone being notified.
Perhaps the Minister could do something to ensure that people considering retrospective permissions see that the correct consultation takes place and that people know that these matters are being considered. It is very upsetting for people when they suddenly find out that it is all a fait accompli. A very telling point indeed was made that if someone is doing this as a deliberate policy, they will do it again and again. A lot has come out in the debate today and I just hope that the Minister will say that he will look thoroughly into these issues in terms of possible regulations or secondary legislation on the subject at a later date.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I shall respond to my noble friend’s suggestion. There is certainly no intention to postpone action on this where action is needed, but I would first like to see the evidence of what the problem is before identifying possible solutions to it. I certainly give her the undertaking that I very much look forward to her bringing forward evidence, but some of this seems to relate not so much to not having the legal process there but to the legal process not being enforced. If we see evidence of that, we can look at how it can be properly enforced, but I am very happy to engage in discussion with my noble friend. I think she knows me well enough to know that that would not be with a view to postponing action but with a view to amassing the evidence so that we can look at this.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
I thank the Minister for that undertaking, which is very valuable. It is up to us now, particularly those who have spoken today and who clearly have direct experience of this. I would be very grateful if they would bring forward cases that they have come across so that the Minister has a fairly good list of things, ranging over different parts of the country, because the practice varies from place to place. He has given a very fair answer to my debate and for that reason I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Planning: duty to have regard to the protection of ancient woodland and veteran and aged trees
In section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (planning permission to include appropriate provision for preservation and planting of trees), after paragraph (b) insert—“(c) to refuse permission for any development which may result in the loss or deterioration of ancient woodland, and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location are wholly exceptional;(d) to refuse permission for a development in respect of which there is insufficient provision made for the preservation of woodland and planting of trees; and(e) to impose any such conditions and make any such orders as are necessary to protect woodland and trees.(2) The local planning authority must—(a) ensure that all planning applications are compatible with the protection and enhancement of the environment; and(b) ensure that the protection and enhancement of the environment is identified as a strategic priority in the authority’s area under section 19 or 35 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.(3) In this section—(a) “ancient woodland” means an area that has been continuously wooded since the year 1600;(b) “veteran and aged trees” means trees which because of their age, size or condition are of exceptional value culturally, in the landscape or to wildlife.””
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my chairmanship of the Woodland Trust and my interests as president or vice-president of a range of conservation organisations as recorded in the register of interests.
First I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, who, in my absence abroad, led on this amendment in Committee. I also thank noble Lords who spoke so eloquently in support of the amendment. It seems to have done the trick—because I also want to thank the Minister and the Government, who have responded since then, in the housing White Paper, to the evidence of increasing damage to ancient woodland and veteran and aged trees with a strong statement of commitment to increasing their protection. All of us in this House, in the other place and among the wider conservation community, and all those who value ancient woodland, are very grateful. The Minister may therefore find it a bit churlish of me to move my amendment again, but let me explain why I am doing so.
I am delighted that the Government have clearly recognised the importance of ancient woodland and the need for better protection, and put forward a proposal for consultation to include ancient woodland in a rather bizarre little list in footnote 9 of the current National Planning Policy Framework. Planners would be encouraged by this footnote to recognise ancient woodlands as being as valuable as the rest of the list, which includes sites of special scientific interest, national parks and green-belt land, meaning that the development which impacts on them should be more definitively restricted. The list is also strengthened in that it is no longer just a set of examples but intended to be a clear list of categories of land where development should be restricted. I absolutely welcome the Government’s intention to improve protection but fear that the actual proposal will not deliver that very welcome intention.
I have two concerns about the footnote list approach. First, the list includes a range of types of protected land, all of which have got very different levels of protection. I can give two examples. Sites of special scientific interest have had strong protection for some time, and indeed the rate of loss or damage to SSSIs has dropped hugely over the last 20 years—from the early 1990s, when 15% of SSSIs were lost or damaged every year, to the position now where only about 0.1% of SSSIs suffer damage each year. But at the other end of the spectrum of this list are local green spaces, which, alas, get challenged by development on a regular basis. It is therefore not clear what level of protection amending this footnote would result in, in practice, for ancient woodland.
My second concern is that each of these categories in the list has its own corresponding policy wording in a specific full paragraph elsewhere in the NPPF, and ancient woodland is no exception. The relevant wording is paragraph 118:
“planning permission should be refused for development …unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss”.
A kind of balancing act is described there. It is absolutely clear that the wording in paragraph 118 is currently failing to deliver sufficient protection for ancient woodland. It seems to imply—and I know that planners interpret it this way—that the protection of ancient woodland is optional if the development has benefits. We know from surveys that that is how planners see it. I believe that paragraph 118 also needs to be addressed if we are really going to secure the clarity of increased protection that I am sure the Government intend in such an admirable way.
My amendment would place protection in equivalent terms on the face of the Bill—though in reality none of us wants that. What we need is one further change in paragraph 118, and I urge the Minister to seriously consider adopting the revised wording that has been suggested previously by several parties who have already considered this matter in some detail, including the Communities and Local Government Select Committee, the All-Party Group on Ancient Woodland and Veteran Trees, and the Woodland Trust. The wording that is being commended by those groups in paragraph 118 would make it clear that:
“Substantial harm to or loss of irreplaceable habitats such as ancient woodland should be wholly exceptional”.
That is an equivalent wording to the level of protection given to heritage buildings.
So I hope that the Minister does not judge me ungrateful. It cannot be often that a new White Paper commitment comes within days of an intervention in the House of Lords. I am sure that it was entirely due to the skilful advocacy of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and the other noble Lords who supported the amendment in Committee, though I have a sneaky feeling that, as a result of the logic of the case and the persuasion by a range of groups and parliamentarians across both Houses, the Minister has actually been cooking up this improved commitment for some time. There was a bit of winking and nodding going on at each of my meetings with Ministers in both Defra and the DCLG.
This further wording would ensure that there was no confusion in the minds of the planning authority or the developers about the Government’s intended protection. That cannot be anything other than a benefit in the drive to deliver houses for people. It would help developers by making it clear that ancient woodland should be avoided, and hence streamline a process that might otherwise get bogged down when the controversial damage of ancient woodland is enthusiastically campaigned against by local communities or conservation bodies.
There is much to play for. Since the NPPF was introduced in March 2012, more than 40 ancient woodlands have suffered loss or damage from development. The Woodland Trust is currently dealing with more than 700 ancient woodlands under threat across the UK, and the number continues to grow. One last tweak to paragraph 118 of the NPPF could deliver a landmark improvement. I hope the Minister, who has been absolutely ace so far in his support, can get that one further change to the NPPF and complete the package. I beg to move.
Lord Framlingham
My Lords, I support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. I think the words “clearly outweigh the loss” are not going to give the same protection that “wholly exceptional” would. For those of us interested in this issue, and that now includes many people, our campaign and indeed our mission is to turn the fine words about and growing understanding of the value of trees and woodlands, particularly ancient woodlands, into action. In this, the lead given by the Government is crucial.
It is a question of priorities. In planning terms, the balance between the built environment and the natural environment is slowly being understood. Trees are not just an adornment to the built environment but play a much more important role in so many ways. In our rush to build more houses, it is important that the role of trees is kept at the top of the agenda. Ancient woodlands are so very valuable and, although planning deliberations can sometimes drag on for years and be extremely complicated, a thoughtless 10 minutes with a JCB can do untold and irreparable damage.
The amendment would give greater clarity to developers, who would be better aware of what they could and could not do. It would fit very well with the idea of every planning authority holding maps and registers of ancient woodlands and important trees, saving everyone time and money as well as protecting the ancient woodlands. The current White Paper is extremely interesting and helpful but the Bill is our current vehicle for these important changes. It is an opportunity not to be missed. If you let one vehicle go, you never quite know when the next one will come along—and what ancient woodlands may be damaged in the meantime.
The Minister has been extremely helpful and constructive in all these debates, but he knows what a significant effect a modest tightening of the law can sometimes have without detriment to the planning process. This is just such an issue, and I hope he will be able to accept the amendment.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, I am very attracted to the amendment. I agree with everything that I have heard, and I am encouraged. I know the Minister is himself very keen on trees, green spaces and ancient woodland.
It is terribly important, given what the noble Baroness was saying, not to forget how, especially in underprivileged areas, trees and green spaces have been shown in recent research to have a quite astonishing effect on the well-being, the social cohesion, of a society. We really have to treasure these trees. I am pleased to see that we are talking about not just ancient woodland but the odd oak tree that has been there for 300 years and which can be for a community a kind of fulcrum—a meeting point, something which generates huge affection. The fact that sometimes these trees have been, as the noble Lord has just said, bulldozed out because of a slip or because stringent due attention was not paid to them is often a tragedy for a local community.
I note that in proposed new paragraph (c) in Amendment 38A there is the caveat that the development in that location is “wholly exceptional”. The Government and the Minister therefore have a way out in this clause—it is not absolute. Where woodland communities are concerned in their relationship to them, we have to be as strong as possible in protecting ancient woodland, trees and green-space areas.
Lord Judd
I am very glad to support my noble friend in this amendment. She has put the case admirably this afternoon. I, too, am deeply impressed by the Minister. I have been in this place a long time now, and I find it difficult to think of a Minister who has gone out of his way more generously to try to meet wishes expressed in the context of serious debate. We had a very serious and useful debate in Committee.
Ancient trees and woodlands are almost impossible to value, because they have so much significance. I am particularly concerned in this context with urban areas. We are desperate to build houses and we very much need more houses in this country; it has to be a priority and we have to get on with it—but it is not just about putting people into shoeboxes. It is about putting people into a situation in which they can live and in which their imaginations can be stimulated—in which they can feel the spiritual dimensions of life, as the noble Lord has just said. All trees contribute in that context, but ancient trees have particularly powerful significance. Of course, if there are imaginative teachers in local schools, there can be references in the context of the education going on in those schools to what those trees represent in terms of the history of the country. We are at a time when we are very worried about national identity; we are very worried about people feeling what it means to be British and how the roots of being British are planted. Of course, the tree is a link to the past; what the tree has witnessed in its life is almost invaluable. From that standpoint, we ought to be very certain indeed that we are doing everything possible to protect trees in the situations that might threaten them.
I too find the wording in the Bill not convincing. Sometimes, there is an urban community—perhaps a relatively deprived community—where there are trees that matter in the ways we have been describing. What happens when it comes to the development process? You have the big forces of development—the big boys at work. How does the community assert itself effectively? We want to make sure that it can and that those who are concerned for the community can make representations on its behalf.
Personally, I would always like a total ban and to say that developers everywhere should do their development around the trees, particularly where there are ancient trees. This would be the ideal, but what we are putting forward seems to be a reasonable compromise. I much appreciate the sincerity and commitment of the Minister in trying to find ways of meeting our concerns. So I support him in every way I can—together with others, I am sure—by saying: let us just go this further mile and make sure what he has already been trying to do can be done well and effectively. I believe my noble friend’s amendment will make this possible.
The Duke of Somerset (CB)
My Lords, in Committee we heard powerful arguments both for retaining veteran and ancient woodlands and for the planting of new trees in new estates. I welcome the proposals in the White Paper but, as the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, has said, this is the vehicle that we are discussing now. So I support this amendment, as I feel strongly that trees in any form hugely enhance an urban setting. They can ameliorate the sterility and newness so often and inevitably associated with such new developments. It is not just landscape or townscape; it is biodiversity and ecology that are improved. It also has a beneficial effect on the people, young and old, who live in the new community; it is they who will benefit from these trees. Trees and plants promote respect and foster community by softening the architecture and giving scope for educational projects.
In Committee, I gave a long list of benefits associated with urban tree planting, so I will not repeat them now. I will merely say that trees add value to a scheme, over and above any detriments that one can imagine. As to what those detriments may be, I await the Minister's reply, as I cannot discern any. When he answered in Committee, he had none, except to cite the forthcoming White Paper. I thank him for what this will do, but support the greater aims of this amendment.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches, I support the intent behind this welcome amendment. I too thank the Minister and the Government for what they have already committed to do. If we could just nudge them a little further, it would give life to the position that this House made clear in Committee—which is that we believe there should be an equivalence of protection for ancient woodlands. At Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, used the memorable phrase,
“the cathedrals of the natural world”.—[Official Report, 17/1/17; col. 161.]
We need to be clear that the wording has to be watertight. We have seen with the National Planning Policy Framework that every word matters. We have boiled down planning policy guidance and we need planners to be clear about the level of protection that the Government want to offer to ancient woodland. If it is not given an equivalence in the wording, then there will be arguments about the level of protection that the Government wish to see and that this House has so clearly articulated that it would wish them to give.
That equivalence is important but if we do not do it now, at an early stage when we are beginning to understand the natural capital resources in trees—their cultural, social and biodiversity significance—there will be endless arguments among planners as this emerging field develops. The Minister’s clear statement that the Government want to give protection to ancient woodlands is welcome. With a small step in this direction, and tightening the wording of the NPPF, the Government could give us confidence that this intention can actually be delivered on the ground.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, I could not agree more with the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. There is a strong argument for consistency of vocabulary and for the notion of significance in planning and the treatment of national assets. Paragraph 132 of the NPPF states that:
“The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction … As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification”.
This new status has taken many years to achieve. I remember having discussions in the department about how to increase the protection of ancient woodlands at least a decade ago. Thanks to the Minister and his officials, we have now got to the point where we recognise that there is an equivalence between a natural and a built asset. When we are dealing with the question of loss—even more than damage, in terms of ancient woodlands—it is fair to look at what equivalence can be made in relation to the NPPF. It is not just the use of language but the significance we attach to the notion of damage, and how extensive or irreparable it is, and to what it means to be wholly exceptional.
The formula which my noble friend Lady Young has come up with is quite sensible. It will save time and grief for planning authorities and people who have to deal with balancing these issues. Greater clarity and some consistency would be a help rather than an obstacle to achieving the objective and facilitating development.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, for her kind words and for raising again the important issue of protecting our ancient woodlands and veteran and aged trees. She should not underestimate the role she has played in putting this on the agenda. She made a very powerful case, as did other noble Lords. I thank noble Lords who have participated in the discussion, including my noble friend Lord Framlingham, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, spoke with great force and passion as he always does on these issues; his generous words were most kind. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, about ensuring that we have watertight protection, and with the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, who talked about consistency of vocabulary and these “irreplaceable assets”.
In Committee we had a range of passionate and compelling speeches including from many noble Lords who have spoken to this amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, and my noble friend Lord Framlingham all spoke then, and again today, about protecting these irreplaceable natural resources. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, so evocatively—almost hauntingly—described them as the “cathedrals of the natural world”. I do not know whether she has ever thought about taking up another career as a wordsmith, but there is a Daphne du Maurier role to be carved out there. For somebody such as me, who is particularly attracted to cathedrals, that haunting image certainly brings it to life.
We have responded positively and are now consulting on the housing White Paper. This is not part of the legislation but part of the housing White Paper; we have succeeded in getting it in there and are very much committed to this. At the end of the consultation the Government will, we hope, clarify the protections for ancient woodlands and aged and veteran trees along the lines we have been talking about in this debate. The proposed change would put policies on ancient woodland and aged and veteran trees alongside other national policies. I am pleased that the proposal was warmly welcomed by the Woodland Trust and I thank the Trust for its role in helping on this. I believe we are making massive progress.
A consultation on the White Paper is open until 2 May. I encourage noble Lords and, through them, other sympathetic organisations, to contribute to the consultation, so that we can achieve something along the lines that noble Lords have been discussing. We are holding engagement sessions with a variety of groups alongside the consultation, so that everyone has the opportunity to contribute their views. The consultation will enable us to work together with these parties on appropriate protection for these irreplaceable assets and habitats.
Baroness Young of Old Scone
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who spoke so helpfully and supportively in this debate. It is wonderful to have this degree of support for these cathedrals of the natural world. I have to make a terrible admission to the Minister: I discovered in my research that he is rather keen on cathedrals, so it seemed a good idea to call these the cathedrals of the natural world. I thank the Minister very much for his kind words about the case. They are irreplaceable; we do need equivalent protection. I thank noble Lords who pointed out the value of ancient woodland, the help recognition of this would give to both planners and developers to avoid conflict for the future, and the need to strengthen the NPPF further.
The Minister kindly pointed out that the consultation, which he cannot pre-empt, goes on until 2 May. I hope he realises that means there are three months of wall-to-wall pressure heading in his direction, as we gird the loins of many others to respond to the consultation along the lines of the support that has been given in this House. I hope this is another of the Minister’s nods and winks but, no doubt, we shall find out only at the end of the consultation period. So, with many thanks to all supporters and to the Minister for the help he has given so far, I look forward to the next three months of enunciating this case, until the point where, eventually we get the change that is needed to bring into effect the very real and welcome commitment that the Government have shown. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Local determination of the application of prior approval for conversion from office to residential use
(1) Notwithstanding—(a) any section of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, the Town and Country (General Permitted Development) (England) (Amendment) Order 2016, or(b) any section of any other order or regulation purporting to convey a right to developers to automatic prior approval of the conversion of an office (Class B1(a)) or retail premises to residential use (Class C3), or the demolition of such premises for such conversion,consent may be refused by the local planning authority for the conversion, or demolition for conversion, of any such office or retail space to residential use, if the local authority has, by a majority vote in Council, passed a formal resolution stating that the purported right to approval for such demolition or conversion without full planning consideration shall no longer apply within that local authority planning area, or in any part of it.(2) In reaching any decision on the conversion of offices to residential use the local planning authority shall be able to take account of all representations from the public or from local businesses, and of all aspects of an approved local plan, neighbourhood plan or supplementary planning document incorporated within an approved local plan, provided that it has previously passed a resolution under subsection (1).(3) A resolution under subsection (1) may only be adopted if the local planning authority has laid before the Council no less than a week prior to the vote under subsection (1) a report demonstrating that—(a) the operation of prior approval is damaging local businesses and the local economy and that planning control over the retention of office space is necessary for the future economic development of the area, or(b) active businesses within the area covered by the resolution are being expelled from office or retail space to enable its conversion to residential use.(4) No resolution may be adopted under subsection (1) if the local authority concerned has not met its housing targets in the preceding year, or cannot satisfactorily demonstrate in the report tabled under subsection (3) that it will exceed those targets in the year concerned.(5) A copy of the report laid under subsection (3) must be submitted to the Secretary of State no later than the day on which the agenda for the Council meeting concerned is published.(6) The Secretary of State may set aside, within three months of its passing, any resolution made by a local planning authority under subsection (1) if the Secretary of State does not consider that conditions under subsection (3)(a) and (b) are being met.”
Lord True
My Lords, I apologise for bringing new material before the House at this stage of the Bill, though I did give notice that I might do so at the previous stage. This Bill has been scheduled in a way that could not be more difficult for me. I declare an interest as the leader of a London borough and this evening is our annual budget council meeting, which begins at 7 pm. Looking at the clock, this will probably be the first council meeting in 20 years on the Front bench for which I have been late—I hope I will not miss it, as I hope your Lordships are not that prolix. But it is a testimony to the importance that I feel this matter deserves.
This is something that came up during the passage of the Housing and Planning Act last Session and I argued the point at some length. Ultimately it was stated that it was a red line for the then Chancellor of the Exchequer. I felt that his red lines were around trying to ensure it was possible to oust small businesses in the suburbs of London and that, had he found his red lines somewhere else, perhaps history might have evolved differently. But that is the past. I have since found, having been given some indication that there would be a readiness to discuss this matter, a willingness to discuss it, personified by my noble friend on the Front Bench. This is entirely distinct from the attitude that I encountered not so long ago and I am enormously grateful for that. I underline everything that so many noble Lords have said in the passage of the Bill about the open and thoughtful conduct of my noble friends on the Front Bench and indeed of Ministers. I met the Minister, Mr Barwell, this morning and I found the same open response there.
In a nutshell, this long amendment is about trying to close off some of the issues that were raised with me on the previous occasion. Under the system that was introduced in May 2013, permitted development rights allow office floor space—classified B1 in the technicalities —to be converted to residential space without planning permission. In some areas of the country that is fine. Indeed, these changes have made a great contribution to housing development, including in my own borough, where no one has an interest in defending redundant office space. At no stage have I wished to strike down the willingness of local authorities to go along with that power and use it.
The problem is that in some areas, including my own authority of Richmond, which is a conspicuous example, the difference in value between office property—or, for instance, a stables in my ward that has been affected—and residential property is so great, at 3:1 or 4:1, that the policy has acted as a magnet for unscrupulous developers. I have even traced one or two with offshore designations. They come in, buy properties and begin to expel working businesses. As a Conservative, this is absolutely contrary to everything I believe in and to what our party stands for—aspiring for people who work hard. Indeed, how often do we hear such things from all Benches in this House?
It is wrong that, to make profits for somebody else who has no interest in the community, offices and business premises can be closed. This should at least be subject to local determination. I do not wish to trouble the House at too great a length, as that would repeat some of what I said last year, but in Richmond, up to last autumn, we had 251 of these so-called prior approvals and we have lost more than 30% of our overall floor space. In more than half of the cases, the offices subject to prior approval were, in the jargon, either fully or partly occupied. That meant someone was trying to make a living or was employed there. The owner saw an opportunity to make a profit on this arbitrage between the two classes and pushed somebody out. I think that is wrong, as do all of us in local authorities and local government. There was a wonderful malapropism from my noble friend earlier when he said that the “interesting” parties would be consulted. I am not sure that most people find local government very interesting but we are certainly interested.
We come across many personal cases of people who are homeless, terribly sick, suffering from dementia or in poverty, but one of the most difficult things I have found has been having to explain the situation to constituents—in one case, the grandson of somebody who founded a business in the premises from which they were being ousted so that a developer could make a profit. Therefore, I have put forward some proposals for how this might be addressed, although I make no claim that my solution is necessarily the best one. I look forward with interest to hearing what my noble friend on the Front Bench has to say.
Article 4, which is often proposed as a solution, is not perfect. It is too slow. In the case of prior approval, the new buildings make no contribution to infrastructure —schools, transport or health—and are not required to meet space standards. There is no consideration of loss of business rates or council tax income and so on, and under Article 4 planning fees do not come to the local authority. The current provisions of Article 4 do not allow a planning authority to demand a fee for associated planning applications, so even the standard approval application charge of £80 is lost. Of greater concern is the loss of the planning application fee.
In my borough, according to the figures that I have been given, the 251 prior applications determined would previously have generated fees of in excess of £400,000 but rendered just £20,000 for the borough under the prior approval process. There is a massive gain for the arbitragers and a massive loss for the local authority. A much sharper process will have to be introduced swiftly into Article 4 if we are to address this matter. The problem shifts because the arbitragers move very fast from one place to another, so at the very least some reform is needed.
I also hope the Government will think again about extending the proposals—certainly in areas such as mine, which are already badly affected—to allow demolition and replacement without planning permission. Instead of going in the direction of amelioration, this is going in the wrong direction.
In my amendment, I have tried to accept two points that were legitimately put to me by the Government: first, that a local authority should be able to show that it is conforming with its housing duties and meeting its housing targets; and, secondly, that at some point the Government must have a stopping power if a local authority behaves unreasonably or if it can be shown that a local authority has no reason, in terms of lost employment or threat to the economy, to act. Again, I am not sure whether my formulation is right, but I hope that if my noble friend on the Front Bench—I anticipate that he might give me some hope—cannot accept that this is the way forward today, he will be prepared for there to be further considerations and discussions on this matter. I believe that that is the spirit that I am finding in the Government, but I beg him to understand that, in the spirit of localism, something which may be a boon in other parts of the country is a bane in ours. I hope we will find a way forward to resolve what I believe, in terms of the eviction of businesses, is a social evil.
Lord Tope
My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord True, and, once again, I find myself supporting him strongly on this issue. We went through the Housing and Planning Bill together, usually extremely late at night—I recall being worried about whether I would get away in time to catch my last train. It worried me at the time that Conservative Richmond and Liberal Democrat Sutton, which are almost neighbouring boroughs, were so much in agreement. Now, when I hear that tonight we might be keeping the noble Lord, Lord True, from his budget-making council meeting, I feel that I almost owe it to my Liberal Democrat colleagues in Richmond to speak for at least another three hours on this extremely important amendment. Maybe we will do that.
I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord True, on this issue. I was, for 13 years, leader of a council in an almost neighbouring south London borough—Sutton. As I have said many times in this Chamber, I was a town-centre councillor in that borough for 40 years. I should perhaps add that it is still Liberal Democrat run after more than 30 years, so we are clearly doing something right there. This is a serious issue. It has affected Sutton and many London boroughs, and no doubt other parts of the country but particularly London, where residential property values are much higher and property owners and developers can make much more money from residential development than from office development.
Like the noble Lord, Lord True, in spite of the temptation he offered me, I will not go through all that I have said in previous debates, both on the Housing and Planning Bill and in Committee on this Bill. This matter was discussed in Grand Committee. I know that the noble Lord, Lord True, was unable to be there but I raised the issue there as well. I repeat that, in the time it took us to get an Article 4 direction into the town centre in Sutton—in a little over a year, but I will come back to that in a minute—the town centre lost 28% of its office space in about 18 months. The noble Lord, Lord True, talked about the figures for Richmond. Similarly, the percentage of office space in Sutton that was occupied or partly occupied was 62%. So we are not talking about empty and redundant offices which are past their sell-by date or are in areas where they are no longer needed; we are talking about active employment zones where people have jobs or go to shop or eat in their lunch hours, and which are a very important part of the local community.
I mentioned the Article 4 direction, which eventually we got for the town-centre area. Initially, my council proposed to get an Article 4 direction for the borough as a whole. I see the noble Lord, Lord True, nodding in agreement. Perhaps that was also the case in Richmond—I know that it was in a number of other London boroughs. It was made very clear to us by the Government at the time that that was a non-starter—it would not happen. So in Sutton we attempted to get an Article 4 direction in rather more targeted areas. Again, it was made clear to us that that would not succeed, so we targeted solely the town-centre area, to which I have referred on a number of occasions.
If you introduce Article 4 immediately, you are liable for considerable compensation payments to potential owners. It is simply not a viable option, particularly in a valuable town-centre area, so it needs 12 months’ notice. That was probably a significant contributor to why we lost 28% of our office space in the notice period for the Article 4 direction. As I said in Grand Committee, since Article 4 has applied in the town centre, that process has slowed down considerably for a number of reasons, but what has happened now is that the same developments are happening in a number of the district centres, where Article 4 does not apply and where, frankly, to go through the lengthy and expensive process of introducing Article 4, even if it were likely to be successful, would be time-consuming, expensive and possibly not so effective.
Minister after Minister, including the noble Lord on the Front Bench today, has quoted Article 4 as the answer to this problem. Clearly, attitudes have changed, and perhaps the understanding of the problem is greater than it was. Are the Government any more minded now than they were 12 or 24 months ago to accept Article 4 directions for the whole of a local authority area, as distinct from a very targeted approach? If that were the case, it would be very useful to know that from the Minister and would at least be of some help—and a very refreshing and welcome change.
I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord True, that the proper answer to this issue is to allow local authorities to decide for themselves, knowing and recognising the local situations. Like the noble Lord, Lord True, and as I have said on other occasions, I have no problem with the issue in principle. I understand and entirely accept that in other parts of the country it has proved very successful. However, in our part of south London, and in other parts of London, exactly the opposite has been the effect; it has been disastrous.
I turn now to the reason for which this measure was introduced. The current Minister, Gavin Barwell, a former Croydon councillor—another south London councillor—has said that housing need and the need to meet the Government’s housing targets override any concerns about permitted development rights. As I said before, it is not just about housing numbers. It is about housing need and about actually getting the right sorts of homes—not necessarily houses—in the right places. It is about the homes that are needed in areas where there are jobs for people to work in and where they support the local economy and do not detract from it.
Above all, this should contribute towards affordable homes. I leave aside for the moment what is the definition of an “affordable home” in south London, but south London needs affordable homes, and this process is providing very few, if any, affordable homes at all. Indeed, London Councils gives some figures, stating that:
“Between May 2013 and April 2015 at least 16,000 new dwellings have avoided the full planning process through office-to-residential PDRs. Had these developments been required to seek full planning permission for their conversion, many of them could have been required to contribute to affordable housing provisions”,
and, indeed, to contribute in many other ways to the local infrastructure—all of which is avoided by permitted development rights. It is questionable to what extent these really contribute to housing need in parts of London, as distinct from housing numbers. We should remember that there is an important distinction there sometimes.
A final point, which I raised very late at night during the Housing and Planning Bill, is that I would understand this a bit better if it was felt that the councils concerned were failing to meet their housing targets. Almost a year ago, I quoted the figures from my own council, and no doubt the noble Lord, Lord True, could do the same for his council. For each of the previous 10 years, my council—of which I am no longer a member—has more than met its housing target. Taken over the 10 years as a whole, housing completions in our borough were 130% above target. What is the justification for imposing the permitted development rights when it means losing all other planning gain that comes from such developments and, most importantly, losing the opportunity to get more much-needed affordable housing?
For all those reasons, I am more than happy to support, once again, the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord True. Like him, I do not know whether they are precisely right or necessarily the right answer. For me, the right answer is to trust the local authorities to do what is best for their area. But if we still do not have a Government willing to do that—I accept that the coalition Government were no better; indeed, they were arguably worse—then at least let them allow some leeway in those areas where it is an extremely important and pressing issue. What is happening in London today will happen in other parts of the country very soon, if it has not happened already.
Lord Porter of Spalding
My Lords, I support the amendment and declare my interests in the register as chairman of the Local Government Association and leader of a small rural district council, which, thankfully, is not affected by this issue and I do not think will, at any point soon, be directly affected by this issue.
I apologise to the House because, having tabled a similar amendment for Grand Committee, I was unable to attend to move it because I had an important diary clash and was speaking elsewhere at a conference. I thank my noble friend Lady Cumberlege for moving the amendment, which by all accounts she did much more eloquently than I would have done, so noble Lords had the bonus of having a better speaker delivering it.
I will not say too much because I need my noble friend to get back to make sure his budget is safe. This is a problem in very few areas around the country. It would not take much to shift from the Government’s point to be able to meet at least some of the concerns that are being raised. I do not think that anybody has a problem where redundant office accommodation has been lost that then becomes a benefit and an asset to the community by being turned into residential. But when this policy is driving viable businesses out of their homes, it has probably gone a step too far. Having listened to the debate on the previous amendment, I wonder whether it would help the Minister if we started to refer to these offices as white-collar cathedrals.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I will speak very briefly because I want to ensure that the noble Lord, Lord True, can get off quickly to his budget meeting tonight. I certainly support the noble Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, in their amendment and I am sorry that I did not actually sign up to it; that was an omission on my part. I am also very glad to be part of this south London, all-party coming together, certainly on behalf of Labour-controlled Lewisham. We would be very much in support of the amendment in front of us here. The noble Lord has set out a compelling case, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, can respond positively to that. I know that he will certainly try his best and I look forward to his response.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have participated in the debate on this important amendment. I thank in particular my noble friend Lord True, who has been very committed to this issue. He has been a tireless advocate of change in relation to permitted development rights for office to residential and has been extremely generous with his time, both with me and with officials, particularly in sharing with us his experience in Richmond. There is no clearer indication of his commitment to his borough than that he is here this evening prior to going to the meeting on the all-important budget.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for giving his perspective from Sutton. I appreciate that this is largely a London issue. I do not know whether it is a particular issue in the borough of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, but it seems to be more focused on London than elsewhere—perhaps for understandable reasons.
Before turning to the detail of the amendment and what I am proposing, I will say a few words about why the Government see permitted development rights that support the delivery of new housing as an important tool in helping to address the current housing challenges the country faces. That is true of the Government, it is true of the department and it is true of the Minister, my honourable friend Gavin Barwell, although he does not believe that it comes without the need to act in particular instances. I do not think he sees this as a totally monochrome issue.
Lord True
That was a very gracious response. Obviously, I want to study carefully what my noble friend has said in Hansard, but it would be churlish not to accept his offer to look into ways of resolving the issue. I am extremely grateful to have that for the first time. This reflects what I described in my opening remarks today as this very constructive attitude from the Front Bench this time round. I could not be more grateful for that.
I sincerely thank the noble Lord, Lord Tope. It seems quite a long time ago but he was my noble friend when we started along this road in 2013. He has been staunch on the subject because, like me, he has seen it in real life. Good policy has to reflect real life and be flexible enough to accommodate the wrinkles of life. We are not machines. I am grateful to him for his strong speech this evening. I agreed with every word he said. I am obviously also extremely grateful for the brief words from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the chairman of the Local Government Association. I should have made reference to the amendment tabled in Grand Committee and I endorse what my noble friend Lord Porter said about my noble friend Lady Cumberlege who has, in a sense, been the conscience of the Committee and the House in the progress of this important legislation. Even though she did not speak on this occasion, I rather felt that the spirit was moving within her. I am extremely grateful. I hope that between now and Third Reading, we can find a way forward. On the basis of what my noble friend said, I am hopeful that that will be the case. I recognise the needs of the Government and of the country as much as anyone else.
With that, I guess I ought to be away to the council meeting. I hope that the House will not be offended if I go off to attend a meeting. The budget is not presented by the leader in my local authority but by my deputy, who is in his mid-80s and about to marry again in July. He is well able to see off a Liberal Democrat and Labour challenge should there be one. I will not break up the sense of unity that we have had around the House. I am grateful for the support from all sides and to the Front Bench, and specifically for my noble friend Lord Bourne’s role in all of this. I look forward to positive talks between now and Third Reading. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Young of Cookham
“(2) The temporary possession of the land must be authorised by the type of instrument (the “authorising instrument”) that would be required if the acquiring authority proposed to acquire that land compulsorily for the purposes for which it proposes to take temporary possession of that land.”
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, the co-pilot is back in charge and I am hoping for a smoother flight than the one I had on Thursday, when I encountered some turbulence as we flew over Clause 13. I listened with some interest to the debate we just had as a former councillor of the south London Borough of Lambeth; that was a very long time ago. We now move on to Part 2 of the Bill and amendments to the compulsory purchase provisions. Noble Lords will have noted that there are a large number of government amendments. These are mainly to ensure that the temporary possession provisions in the Bill work as intended and are fair to all, but they also respond positively to issues raised by noble Lords in Committee.
Amendments 41 to 43 amend Clause 16, which sets out the procedure for authorising temporary possession. In Grand Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, spoke eloquently to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, and herself about the need to ensure that land held inalienably by the National Trust is appropriately protected in the context of the new temporary possession power. As I indicated we would, the Government have considered the matter further, and I am happy to tell both noble Baronesses that we are now in agreement that the special interest of inalienable National Trust land, and its irreplaceable nature, requires particular protection.
Amendment 42 is the principal amendment in this group. It makes provision for any inalienable National Trust land which is required temporarily to be subject to the same additional protection as National Trust land which is to be acquired by compulsion. This means that where the National Trust sustains an objection to the taking of temporary possession of any of its inalienable land, the authorising instrument will be subject to special parliamentary procedure, in the same way as it would if the land was being acquired by compulsion.
The other amendments are technical and consequential. Amendment 41 clarifies that temporary possession must be authorised by the same type of instrument as would have been used if the land in question had been compulsorily acquired for the same purposes for which temporary possession is needed. Amendment 42 works by an exception to Clause 16(3)(c), which provides that where an authorising instrument authorises temporary possession then, for the purposes of the procedures for authorising and challenging it, temporary possession is treated in the same way as compulsory acquisition. Amendment 42 is therefore drafted so that it disapplies special parliamentary procedure for special kinds of land except for National Trust land held inalienably. As confirmed in the Government’s policy paper published in December 2016, special kinds of land other than National Trust land will be subject to the serious detriment test in the temporary possession regulations made under Clause 26. Amendment 43 clarifies Clause 16(3)(c) by removing a potential ambiguity allowing the clause to be interpreted in two different ways.
I now move to Clause 17 and Amendment 45. In Grand Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, raised the issue of whether there would be a time limit on acquiring authorities exercising their power of temporary possession after it had been authorised. This is an important matter and I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising it. Amendment 45 addresses the issue by providing that acquiring authorities must serve a notice of intended entry within three years from the date on which the compulsory purchase order authorising temporary possession becomes operative. Where temporary possession is authorised by a different type of authorising instrument—for example, a development consent order—the time limit for serving the notice of entry is within five years of it becoming operative. These limits are in line with those where land is being acquired by compulsion.
Amendments 47, 50, 50A, 50B, 50C, 51, 52 and 61A deal with the power to override easements and other third-party rights over land taken for temporary possession. Where land is taken by compulsion, acquiring authorities have this power, which is necessary to ensure that there are no impediments to the scheme going forward. These third-party interests are typically rights to allow underground services such as water, gas, electricity and telecommunication belonging to one property to pass beneath the land of neighbouring properties; there are also rights of light and of way and covenants restricting development to certain uses or density. Land needed for a temporary period may also be subject to easements or restrictive covenants, so to avoid problems such as those with insurance or litigation it is necessary for acquiring authorities to have the power to override these rights when they take temporary possession of land. That is what these amendments do. The provisions are modelled on the corresponding provisions for schemes where land is acquired by compulsion as set out in Sections 203 and 205 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016. Amendment 51 is the principal amendment, as it contains the power to override a relevant right or interest. Amendment 47 sets out the compensation provisions.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, this speech will be shorter than that given by the noble Lord, Lord Young, and this speaker is, of course, somewhat shorter than him. I congratulate him on incorporating the two amendments which I had intended to move, Amendments 59 and 60, although I note that there was no attribution in his speaking on the matters which substantially cover them. Nevertheless, I am grateful to him for his clear exposition of all these amendments, for the adoption of the two that I would have spoken to and for clearly listening to the comments, criticisms and suggestions from around the House. I am happy to endorse those matters and I will not move the amendments in my name.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I thank the Minister for all that he said about compulsory purchase, both temporary and non-temporary. I think that his comments demonstrate the role of scrutiny and the value of this Chamber. I had a great deal to say on compulsory purchase in Committee but now I have virtually nothing at all to say because the matter has been resolved. It demonstrates the importance of talking with expert practitioners. Perhaps I should also repeat what I said in Committee about the large number of government amendments regarding compulsory purchase although the Bill had come to us from the House of Commons as a finished Bill. In this respect at least—but also on the planning side, as we know—it did not merit the status of a finished Bill. However, I am grateful to the Minister and his colleagues in the department for all the work that they have done. As far as I am concerned, we now have a Bill—assuming that all the amendments are adopted—that will make the statutory position a great deal clearer. I shall say something further when we come on to the question of Henry VIII powers, because some powers will still apply to this part of the Bill. For the moment, however, I have nothing further to add.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, I was unfortunately unable to attend the Committee stage on the Bill because it clashed with other meetings. However, I want to use government Amendment 62 to raise an issue that, from what I have heard, was not dealt with in Committee.
I want to go back to the debate that took place on 17 March 2016, when the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, commented on this whole question of the no-scheme world. Perhaps I may read out what he said and then ask some questions about how we should interpret it. He said that the compensation code—which, as I understand it, is dealt with under Amendment 62—
“is underpinned by the principle of equivalence. This means that the owner should be paid neither less nor more than his loss. The code provides that land shall be purchased at its open market value, disregarding the effect of the scheme underlying the compulsory purchase”.
I think that that is what the noble Lord, Lord Young, was referring to, and it is a question of rules. The noble Viscount continued:
“The land is valued in a construct called the ‘no-scheme world’, whereby any increase or decrease in value which is due to the scheme is disregarded. Land will always have its existing use value but market value also takes into account the effect of any planning permissions that have already been granted, and also the prospect of future planning permissions”.
He goes on to talk about “hope value”, and then says:
“In some situations there will be no hope value, because the individual claimant could not have obtained planning permission for some more valuable use. For example, the land might be in an isolated rural location where permission for development would have been unlikely to be granted”.—[Official Report, 17/3/16; col. 2040-41.]
In other words, as I understand that, there is provision within the law whereby we can acquire land at a very low price, depending on what the ultimate use of the land will be.
What I cannot quite get my head around is why, if that is the case, we cannot buy land for housing on that basis. Why cannot we buy land for housing on the same basis as we buy land for airports, motorways, bypasses, railways, reservoirs and other utility uses, and then build housing developments on that land? It could be acquired at a very low price, probably something like £8,000 or £10,000 a plot on which to build, as against often spending £50,000, £100,000 or £200,000 for a plot of land.
On this sort of housing use, Section 226 of the land compensation Act 1965, as amended by Section 99 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, sets out conditions for applying for a compulsory purchase. It must aim for,
“the promotion or improvement of the economic well-being of their area”—
or,
“the promotion or improvement of the social well-being of their area”.
Therefore it is defined in the law that where there is an acquisition for improvements in social well-being, a CPO can be used. So why cannot we use that procedure for acquiring land at a low price to build the hundreds of thousands, if not potentially millions, of houses that are going to be needed here in the United Kingdom?
I go back again to the argument that I have used repeatedly in the House. I do not want to bore noble Lords, so I will put it simply: there is a difference in the cost of land in United Kingdom. You can buy land around the London area—agricultural land—at £20,000 to £25,000 an acre which, at a stroke of a planner’s pen, is worth £4 million or £5 million per hectare. If that is the case, it is the community that has increased the value of that land, not the landowner. Therefore, it is the community that should see the benefit of that land. If the community is to see the benefit of that land, it potentially means that we could create cheaper housing for thousands, or perhaps even millions, of people. We somehow do not do that, because we are always protecting the land value, which is only to the benefit of the people who own the land. I cannot understand why, if we have provisions in the law like this, which allow for the acquisition of land, we do not use them. We have a judgment from Lord Denning where he says that,
“Parliament only grants it, or should only grant it, when it is necessary in the public interest”.
It is in the public interest to acquire cheap land to provide housing for people in the United Kingdom. I have used this amendment as a peg, and I ask Ministers once again: why cannot we proceed on the basis that I keep advocating in this Chamber?
Baroness Parminter
My Lords, I sincerely thank the Minister for the consideration that he and the ministerial team have given to the comments and concerns that I raised in Committee. I offer those thanks on behalf of myself and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, who is no longer able to be in her place. In particular, I welcome Amendments 42 and 55, which specifically address the concerns that we had about the impact of the temporary possession proposals on the special land that the National Trust holds for the good of the nation. I am delighted with the way that the Minister has retained the status quo for the National Trust’s inalienable land. I thank him most sincerely.
Lord Young of Cookham
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, particularly to those who welcomed the amendments tabled by the Government to meet concerns expressed earlier on.
If I may respond briefly to the very important issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, no one is more anxious than I am to see more houses being built. In view of his interest, he might like to come along on Thursday, when we have a debate on the White Paper, which will be a broader debate about housing. I will make three quick points about the question that he raised. First, Clause 29, the no-scheme principle, makes no fundamental changes to the principle of compensation. It seeks to clarify where we are by looking at past cases and setting out some clear rules, Rules 1 to 5, so that we can, in future, fairly assess the compensation that people are entitled to if they are affected by a CPO.
The second point, which really arises from that, is that we have always paid the market value. For as long as I have been involved in this type of legislation, when somebody’s land or property has been acquired, we have always paid the market value. That is the right thing to do in a fair society; otherwise, one is verging towards confiscation. If you are going to take away something at less than its value from an individual who does not want to part with it, that is approaching what could be called confiscation.
Lord Campbell-Savours
The Minister talks about its value, but its value prior to the planner signing it off and designating it as land for housing is agricultural. That is what it is.
Lord Young of Cookham
The compensation is based on the existing use value. Sometimes that might have a hope value, and in some of the circumstances he has outlined, it might not be zoned for housing, but the market value might be slightly above agricultural value because of so-called hope value. That gets priced in. The important point is that we pay market value. What the noble Lord wants to do is to acquire it at below market value to facilitate the building of more houses. I understand that, but that is not the principle on which people have been compensated for the last 40 or 50 years; they have always had the market value.
Thirdly, the no-scheme principle says that if the value of your property has suddenly gone up because of something that the public sector is building—a station or whatever—then that is disregarded for the purpose of assessing its value. That is what we do: that is what the no-scheme principle implies, so you do not get the benefit of the public investment that has accelerated the value of your land. I hope that I have satisfied the noble Lord. Although he is smiling, I suspect that I might not have. On the rather slender hook of Amendment 62, he has hung a very substantial debate, perhaps more appropriate to the Second Reading of this Bill many months ago. Of course, however, I would be happy to have further discussions with him if he has any continuing concerns about how land is acquired compulsorily.
“( ) The acquiring authority may use land as described in subsection (1) even if this involves—(a) interfering with a relevant right or interest, or(b) breaching a restriction as to the user of land arising by virtue of a contract.”
“(4) Nothing in this section authorises an interference with—(a) a right of way on, under or over land that is a protected right, or(b) a right of laying down, erecting, continuing or maintaining apparatus on, under or over land if it is a protected right.(5) Nothing in this section authorises—(a) an interference with a relevant right or interest annexed to land belonging to the National Trust which is held by the National Trust inalienably, or(b) a breach of a restriction as to the user of land which does not belong to the National Trust—(i) arising by virtue of a contract to which the National Trust is a party, or(ii) benefiting land which does belong to the National Trust.(6) For the purposes of subsection (5)—(a) “the National Trust” means the National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty incorporated by the National Trust Act 1907, and(b) land is held by the National Trust “inalienably” if it is inalienable under section 21 of the National Trust Act 1907 or section 8 of the National Trust Act 1939.(7) In this section—“protected right” means—(a) a right vested in, or belonging to, a statutory undertaker for the purpose of carrying on its statutory undertaking, or(b) a right conferred by, or in accordance with, the electronic communications code on the operator of an electronic communications code network (and expressions used in this paragraph have the meaning given by paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 17 to the Communications Act 2003);“statutory undertaker” means a person who is, or who is deemed to be, a statutory undertaker for the purposes of any provision of Part 11 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990;“statutory undertaking” is to be read in accordance with section 262 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (meaning of “statutory undertakers”).”
“(A1) The appropriate national authority must by regulations make provision about— (a) the reinstatement of land subject to a period of temporary possession, and(b) the resolution by an independent person of disputes about reinstatement.”
“(A2) The Secretary of State may by regulations exclude the application of any provision of this Chapter in relation to a person who is an acquiring authority as a result of an authorisation by virtue of—(a) section 11, 12 or 12A of the Pipe-lines Act 1962 (compulsory purchase of land or rights over land in connection with pipe-lines),(b) section 12 or 13 of the Gas Act 1965 (compulsory purchase of rights in relation to storage of gas etc),(c) paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 to the Gas Act 1986 (compulsory purchase of land by gas transporter), or(d) paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 to the Electricity Act 1989 (compulsory purchase of land by licence holder).”
“( ) Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State or the Welsh Ministers, as the case may be, must carry out a public consultation.”
““relevant right or interest” has the meaning given by section 20(11).”
“CHAPTER 3CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONConsequential provision
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision in consequence of any provision of this Part.(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may amend, repeal or revoke any enactment.(3) In subsection (2)“enactment” includes—(a) an enactment contained in subordinate legislation within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978, and(b) an enactment contained in, or in an instrument made under, a Measure or Act of the National Assembly for Wales.”
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I will speak collectively to government Amendments 64, 72, 76, and 77. I listened carefully to the concerns raised during Grand Committee and am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. He is not in his place but was most generous with his time in meeting with me between Committee and Report to discuss the matter further. I know that other noble Lords have focused on this area: the noble Lords, Lord Pannick, Lord Kennedy and Lord Beecham, and my noble friend Lady Cumberlege have all raised concerns on this.
These government amendments narrow the scope of the consequential power in Clause 40 to apply it to only Part 2 of the Bill—the part related to compulsory purchase and not the part related strictly to neighbourhood plans. We expect it to be most needed in relation to compulsory purchase and therefore have responded to concerns raised in Grand Committee.
The Government have also ensured that the new consequential power which applies to Part 2 of the Bill allows provision “in consequence of this Bill”, rather than provision which the Secretary of State,
“considers appropriate, to be made in consequence of this Bill”.
This change of words may appeal to those who thought that the original language was too subjective.
I do not wish to pre-empt any points that noble Lords may wish to make on this but I do want to address the concerns raised. We have responded to those concerns and significantly narrowed the scope of this provision in the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest. As noble Lords are aware, I have a legal case pending. I took advice from the Clerk of the Parliaments and was told that the sub judice rule does not apply in my case. My other interests are in the Lords register.
I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Bourne for adding his name to my Amendment 68. As he explained, it will delete the Henry VIII clause pertinent to the compulsory purchase and compensation part of the Bill and will narrow the scope of this clause. We had a robust debate in Committee and I was extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, for speaking to the amendment there with such lucidity, force and wisdom. Again, he put his name to my amendment here but sends his apologies to the House because he has a long-standing engagement.
I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is here this evening and will support the amendment, as will the redoubtable noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. Best of all, my noble friend Lord Bourne, the Minister, put his name to the amendment as well. I am sure that, having reached this agreement, he put in a huge amount of time and energy in negotiating to achieve what we have achieved this evening.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I am pleased that the Minister has wisely responded to the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and others. I congratulate her on her efforts and successful attempts to draw attention to the mischief of Clause 40. In its original form, it was a manifestly unacceptable provision —indeed, a quite extraordinary clause. I remind your Lordships that it said that by regulations the Minister may “make such provision” as the Minister,
“considers appropriate in consequence of any provision of this Act”,
and that the provision that the Minister may make included amending, repealing or revoking any enactment —any primary or secondary legislation.
Your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, of which I am a member, has regularly drawn attention to the constitutional impropriety of such broad Henry VIII clauses. Clause 40 should never have been tabled in that form. I added my name to Amendment 68 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, which would leave out that clause, because of my concern at the constitutional impropriety. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, added his name for the same reason, as he explained in Grand Committee.
The wording in the amendment is much more acceptable. As the Minister indicated, it is confined to consequential regulations, not regulations that are, in the view of the Minister, appropriate in consequence of the Act. I have no doubt that a court would hold Ministers to that objective test. The new wording is also confined, as he said, to provisions consequential on this part of the Bill.
I am therefore grateful to the Minister for tempering the wish of the Executive to take broad powers to amend primary legislation. I hope he will communicate to his ministerial colleagues that noble Lords are focused on this subject and that if Ministers again bring forward broad Henry VIII clauses such as Clause 40, we will put down amendments and, if necessary, divide the House.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I add my thanks to the Minister for the proposed changes. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has said what I was going to say and I will not repeat it. The change of wording in the amendment is significant because, as he indicated, it is no longer the case that the Secretary of State has the power to consider something “appropriate”. Rather, he can make provision in consequence of any provision in this part of the Bill. This is much better. Henry VIII powers should never have been applied to the planning chapters of the Bill.
I said earlier that compulsory purchase is indeed complicated and I accept that consequential provision may be needed, which can be taken quickly if there is found to be a further flaw in the legislation that Parliament passes. That said, I seek the Minister’s confirmation that the wording now being used in relation to compulsory purchase is the standard wording used in other Bills. It has been said that there is a power in recent planning Acts for Ministers to make consequential provision. We need to be clear about that and that we are not doing something in the amendment that has not been in any other Bill or Act. I understand that to be the position but would be keen to hear the Minister confirm that there is nothing unusual in the wording of the amendment.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the Minister and, indeed, in congratulating him on these substantive changes, which are ultimately, I suppose, a concession to the powerful arguments advanced, in particular by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and other Members across the House.
It would have been good to see a similar approach from Ministers when we discussed the Housing and Planning Bill at great length last year. It is not a personal criticism of them; the Minister at that time, the noble Baroness, was not allowed to move in the direction in which Ministers on this Bill have been able to move, which I very much welcome.
For clarification, may I assume that my Amendments 71 and 75 are effectively covered by the welcome amendments that the Government have brought forward? That is right, and that is a repetition in the case of the previous amendments. However, I am not entirely clear about Amendment 67 in my name, which requires the Secretary of State to consult the Welsh Ministers before making regulations under Section 38. That proposal was dismissed on the previous occasion, although it had been a matter of strong concern to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, to which the Government’s official response was extremely negative. I do not know whether the Minister can offer any assurance that, whether or not is contained in the amendment, the Government will consult Welsh Ministers. There was rather a general statement that this happens automatically. The purpose of including it in the Bill was to make sure that more than just custom and practice would apply in this case. It would therefore be helpful if the Minister indicated whether the government amendments cover my amendment or, in the event that they do not, whether he will again confirm explicitly that there will be consultation with Welsh Ministers before making regulations under Section 38. It would be preferable to include that in the Bill but, at the very least, a ministerial assurance would carry some weight. In those circumstances, if that were the position, I would withdraw my amendment.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, perhaps I may respond, particularly to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, in relation to Wales. I will pick them up at the end of this part of the review of other noble Lords’ amendments. I once again thank those who have participated in the debate, including my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, who set out a horrifying “Yes Minister” position. I am sure that one or two officials in our department will be listening but it is not regarded there as a training manual—although it possibly is the case in other departments. However, I give fair warning to anybody who thinks it is that it is not. The point was well made.
I am grateful for the welcome given by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, to the position exhibited in the government amendments, as well as by the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Shipley. It was certainly the subject of my fruitful discussion with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who was instrumental in putting a strong case.
I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that the wording is the usual wording. I hope he is reassured by that.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
“Amendment to TfL powers
In Schedule 11 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (miscellaneous powers of Transport for London) after paragraph 12 insert—“12A_ Transport for London or any subsidiary of Transport for London may sell, exchange or lease its land for the purpose of providing housing of any description at such price, or for such consideration, or for such rent, as having regard to all the circumstances of the case is the best that can reasonably be obtained, notwithstanding that a higher price, consideration or rent might have been obtained if the land were sold, exchanged or leased for the purpose of providing housing of another description or for a purpose other than the provision of housing and for the purposes of paragraph 29 below Transport for London or any subsidiary of Transport for London shall not be required to act as if it were a company engaged in a commercial enterprise if undertaking any activities at paragraphs 15(2) or (3) below with a view to selling, exchanging or leasing its land under this paragraph.”
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, this is the last amendment on Report. We had a short debate in Grand Committee on 8 February. The amendments I tabled then and have tabled now are to help the discussion taking place between the department, the Government, Transport for London and the Greater London Authority in respect of the powers that those authorities think they need to dispose of land and help build more housing.
I am hoping the Minister will be able to respond to this and update us on where we have got to in discussions so far. I do not believe any agreement has been reached, as yet. I hope we are going to get somewhere and that we will not reach the end of this process with nothing having been agreed. That would be most disappointing. I got a fairly positive response from the Minister in Grand Committee. I will leave it there. I hope the Minister can respond positively and tell us that, although nothing has yet been agreed, the discussions are ongoing. We all hope that we will get some resolution before we reach the end of this process. I beg to move.
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for the bridge-building way in which he moved the amendment. Amendments 65 and 66 seek to make new provision in the Greater London Authority Act 1999 which would amend the powers of Transport for London and the Greater London Authority to dispose of land.
Amendment 65 seeks to give Transport for London the flexibility to dispose of land for housing, even if a higher value use was available, provided the best consideration reasonably obtainable for housing use had been achieved. To achieve this, Amendment 65 would disapply the requirement for TfL to,
“act as if it were a company engaged in a commercial enterprise”.
Amendment 66 would remove the requirement for the GLA to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State to the disposal of land for housing, even if a higher value use was available, provided the best consideration reasonably obtainable for housing use had been achieved.
In Grand Committee, I promised to facilitate a meeting between the Government, the GLA and TfL before Report to discuss how we should respond to the concerns the noble Lord had raised. I confirm that that meeting has taken place.
We have been working with TfL to assess the impact of making the proposed amendment, but unfortunately we remain concerned about the potential impact of Amendment 65 on TfL’s overall receipts targets and consequently on public finances more generally. Given these ongoing concerns, I cannot accept the noble Lord’s amendment, but I can assure him that the Government will continue to work with TfL to address those concerns and ensure that TfL is able to meet both its housing and its receipts targets.
On Amendment 66, the noble Lord will be aware that the Government made a commitment in the housing White Paper to consult on extending the ability of local authorities to dispose of land at less than best consideration without seeking consent to do so from the Secretary of State.
Land disposals by local authorities are governed by a separate regime from those undertaken by the GLA. I do not believe it would be right in this Bill to reduce the protections established by the current requirement for consent of the Secretary of State for disposals by the GLA at less than best consideration. The White Paper did not specifically reference this GLA consent requirement, but I reassure the noble Lord that the scope of the consultation announced in the White Paper will extend to the GLA consent regime.
With the reassurance that we will continue to work with TfL and the GLA to find appropriate solutions to the very real concerns the noble Lord has raised, I hope he will be prepared to withdraw the amendment so that we can end Report on a consensual note.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I am happy not to press my amendments at this stage, but will just say that I do not know whether these discussions are ongoing. Is the noble Lord suggesting that there may be some light and that this may come back at Third Reading or is he suggesting that it is more likely that this will be addressed in a White Paper? Or could it be either? Some clarification on that would be useful. Important points have been raised. The Mayor of London has specific targets for building homes in London, and we all want to see that happen—but if you want to get it done, these things need to be addressed. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Cumberlege
“( ) section (Consequential provision);”
Neighbourhood Planning Bill
Wednesday 15th March 2017
(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberNeighbourhood Planning Act 2017 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 106-I Marshalled list for Third Reading (PDF, 74KB) - (14 Mar 2017)
“Engagement by examiners with qualifying bodies etc
In Schedule 4B to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (process for making neighbourhood development orders), in paragraph 11 (regulations about independent examinations) after sub-paragraph (2) insert—“(3) The regulations may in particular impose duties on an examiner which are to be complied with by the examiner in considering the draft order under paragraph 8 and which require the examiner—(a) to provide prescribed information to each person within sub-paragraph (4);(b) to publish a draft report containing the recommendations which the examiner is minded to make in the examiner’s report under paragraph 10;(c) to invite each person within sub-paragraph (4) or representatives of such a person to one or more meetings at a prescribed stage or prescribed stages of the examination process;(d) to hold a meeting following the issuing of such invitations if such a person requests the examiner to do so.(4) Those persons are—(a) the qualifying body,(b) the local planning authority, and(c) such other persons as may be prescribed.(5) Where the regulations make provision by virtue of sub- paragraph (3)(c) or (d), they may make further provision about—(a) the procedure for a meeting;(b) the matters to be discussed at a meeting.””
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, before I speak to these important government amendments, I wanted to take the opportunity to express my thanks once again to noble Lords for their careful and thorough scrutiny of the Neighbourhood Planning Bill. The Government have listened carefully to the issues that have been raised throughout these debates and have brought forward amendments to address key issues.
The Bill that we now have before us is, I believe, a better Bill as a result of the scrutiny of this House and the wealth of experience that noble Lords have been kind enough to share. I thank noble Lords for their diligent and constructive approach at each stage. I am aware that a vast number of noble Lords has contributed to the debate during the Bill’s passage, but I particularly thank noble Lords on the Benches opposite, and certainly the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, Lord Beecham and Lord Shipley.
I thank my ministerial team in the department, my right honourable friend Sajid Javid, and particularly my honourable friend Gavin Barwell for their help and support. Furthermore, I thank my noble friend, co-pilot and Whip, Lord Young of Cookham, who adeptly led on the compulsory purchase elements of the Bill. Finally, I thank my officials, led by Simon Gallagher, Susan Lovelock, Darren McCreery and Robyn Skerratt, and the wider team, including my private office, and special thanks too to Grace Smith and Alanna Reid.
I now turn to the government amendments in this group. We had important discussions in Grand Committee and on Report about neighbourhood planning, and in particular the process for the examination of neighbourhood plans. My noble friend Lady Cumberlege led this discussion, and I am personally grateful for the way she did it. I should note that she was not the only participant making those arguments, and I thank my noble friends Lord Caithness and Lord Mawson and the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy, Lord Shipley and Lord Stunell, for their contributions. But I particularly thank my noble friend Lady Cumberlege for her continued generosity with her time, and for her commitment to working with my department constructively to ensure that the practice of neighbourhood planning continues to be in line with our collective aspiration to empower communities to develop neighbourhood plans. I am very conscious of the great pressure she has been under and the grace and generosity that has characterised her contribution to these important issues.
I want to set the amendment in the context of a number of important steps that the Government are taking to meet the concerns raised. I do so because the issues are too broad to be addressed through legislation alone. Noble Lords will recall that much of what needs to be done to address this important issue does not require legislative intervention.
First, we will amend planning guidance once we have taken into account the responses to the Housing White Paper consultation, to which I will return, to clarify our expectations of local planning authority engagement with neighbourhood planning groups before and during the examination process. Secondly, amendments to the Bill tabled in Grand Committee enable the Secretary of State, for example, to require authorities to set out in their statements of community involvement how they will provide advice or assistance to neighbourhood planning groups prior to examination. Thirdly, my noble friend Lady Cumberlege has raised the important role that local planning authorities play in supporting neighbourhood planning in their communities, so it is important that they have the necessary resources. This month, we have written to local planning authorities outlining the arrangements for our continued funding to them to support neighbourhood planning next year under the new burdens doctrine.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
My Lords, I again declare an interest. I have a planning application pending at the moment. I have taken advice from the Clerk of the Parliaments and have been assured by him that the sub judice rule does not apply in my case. My other interests are in the register. I thank my noble friend for his generous words towards me, but he is absolutely right that many other noble Lords contributed to the role of examiner. Their wise words also influenced the tabling of this amendment.
Before I address the amendment, I will say a few words. At Second Reading, which seems a very long time ago, I acknowledged to noble Lords that my centre of interest was really more health and family planning than town and country planning. Your Lordships may consider that family planning is more about denial, but my experience with this delightful Bill has been the reverse. Through the work of noble Lords right across the House, we have had a very creative exercise. It has been serious; it has been informed; it has been challenging, and in many respects it has been collegiate.
The tenor has been set by the Minister and, as he has referred to him, his co-pilot, my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. We could not have had a more courteous, more conscientious and more willing pair of Ministers on the Front Bench. My noble friend Lord Bourne has gone to great lengths to listen, to test our arguments and to assess their validity. Where possible, he has put down his amendments to improve the Bill. I have no doubt that it has taken considerable negotiation within the ministerial team, with the involvement of the department’s lawyers and others, to achieve these results. I thank him very much for it.
One of my noble friend’s amendments is before us now. It is an amendment that I wholeheartedly support. Throughout the passage of this Bill, I have banged on about the role of the examiner. Intelligent, well-informed men and women have taken on this difficult task while being trapped in a system which is rigid, excludes proper dialogue, is not inclusive and does no one any favours.
Understanding my misgivings about the current system, my noble friend has with great generosity given me considerable time to meet not only him but the department’s officials. Again, I thank him for that. His officials have been exemplary. They have been patient, have sought to understand my concerns, have been forensic and have put their considerable knowledge to finding a way through the examination of a neighbourhood plan so that we are all winners—the communities we seek to serve, the neighbourhood plan makers, the local planning authorities, the developers, the department and, not least, the examiners.
My noble friend’s talented officials have produced a flow chart which clearly sets out the procedures to be followed. It is a masterpiece. It is clear and concise, with no weasel words and no ambivalence. This is the path to follow when going about an examination of a neighbourhood plan.
The two amendments before us seek to put the flow chart into the required legislative language. Of course, that is necessary, but not all plan makers—especially neighbourhood plan makers, who are volunteers, after all—have expertise in this field, nor do they attempt to say so. The only expertise they really have is to know their communities inside out. They perhaps do not wish to pore over an Act of Parliament, trying to decipher quite what was meant. So this flow chart is an answer. I was going to ask my noble friend how he would make the chart available. Today, he has told me that he will put it on the web and make it accessible to all who need to see it. I thank him for that.
As so often with amendments, the weakness with this one is it depends on the making of regulations. When is that likely to be? When will we see those regulations? Am I right, as I believe I am, in thinking that all regulations throughout the Bill are in the negative form? Can the Minister think of some way in which he could give notice to those of us who have been involved in the Bill of when the regulations will be laid before the House? I know that it is very easy to miss them, and a trigger would be valued by many noble Lords.
In conclusion, I strongly support this amendment. It will give those embarking on a neighbourhood plan a tool of considerable worth.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, as we start Third Reading, I declare my vice-presidency of the Local Government Association. The Minister said that this was a better Bill for the work of this Chamber and I concur entirely. The value of the revising nature of this Chamber has been demonstrated in the work that took place in Committee and on Report. I pay tribute to the Minister and his officials for their willingness to meet and to listen, and for the courtesy they showed. The outcome is a much better and stronger Bill than when it came to this House. I learned from the debates we had that there is an appetite from all parts of this House to promote neighbourhood planning. There is a sense of common purpose about that which I strongly welcome.
I said at an earlier stage in the Bill that we need a plain English guide to the planning system which the general public could relate to. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, talked about the flow chart which will all be very helpful. Indeed, on the departmental website there is a plain English guide to the planning system in general terms. I am looking here for a plain English guide to the Bill which will become a practitioners’ guide as opposed simply to a plain English guide explaining what the Bill is about. It should go into much more detail than we currently have. I notice that the Minister talked about the plans of the RICS to create further briefing materials for the examiner of a neighbourhood plan. I welcome that but if we are seriously to promote neighbourhood planning and achieve many more areas, particularly urban ones, engaging with the process, a practitioners’ guide would be extremely helpful.
Amendments 1 and 5 are very helpful and reflect the discussions we had in Committee and on Report. I too pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for all her work in this area. The Minister talked about her generosity with her time and that is absolutely right. The amount of time and effort that went into convincing the Ministers, their colleagues and officials that this really is important has borne fruit. These two amendments bring the process of neighbourhood planning closer to those devising a neighbourhood plan. The noble Baroness talked about the planning system being rigid, and indeed it is. There are good reasons why that is the case in terms of challenges but, equally, it needs to be a system that is understood by all those trying to engage with the process. In Amendments 1 and 5 we have the publication of a draft report by the examiner and the potential for meetings to be held about that draft. This is a major step forward and I welcome it.
I have two further points. First, there is the timing of the regulations. The noble Baroness asked about that and it is very important that we get some sense of when it is likely to be. The Minister talked about the consultation on the White Paper and the outcome of that. The consultation on the White Paper is due to end at the beginning of May but we tend to find that there is then a long period—several months—before something happens. Of course, this will be going over the summer period as well so it could be even longer than that. I think I interpreted from the Minister’s words —which included the word “swiftly”—that it is going to be faster than that. I very much hope that it will be, because so many of the helpful things that are being proposed in the White Paper need to be got on with as soon as possible. I hope that there will be a timetable that will speed up the process.
We have not quite finished Third Reading, but I want to say that the process of examining this Bill and getting it to the point where it is in a strong form to pass Third Reading is down to a great deal of effort by a large number of people. I pay tribute in particular to the Ministers, the noble Lords, Lord Bourne and Lord Young, for their support for this process, which has been hugely appreciated.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I join the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, in paying tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for her very thoughtful and constructive—and somewhat exhaustive —approach to the deliberations on the Bill. It has been a pleasure to work with both the Ministers, but particularly, if I may say so, with the noble Lord, Lord Bourne. I make that point having discovered recently that he, like me, is a great fan of Leicester City; in my case, it is my second team. I rather hope we might be playing in the same league next season and I hope that will be the Premiership. In that event, perhaps the noble Lord would care to accompany me to a match, when naturally Newcastle will expect to beat my other team.
The substantive issue this afternoon is not the fate of either of those teams but the drawing to conclusion of the Bill. It has been a pleasure to work in such a constructive way with both Ministers, but principally, on the major part of the Bill, with the noble Lord, Lord Bourne. He has listened carefully and been very constructive in his approach. Indeed, the whole experience has been a vast improvement on the dreadful time we had with the Housing and Planning Act last year. That is no reflection at all on the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, who struggled mightily to retain her sanity and promote ours during the course of that legislation.
I have one or two questions about Amendment 1. Proposed new sub-paragraph (3)(d) says that a meeting should be held following the issuing of invitations, which are outlined in proposed new sub-paragraph (3)(c). Is that a meeting with an individual, or is it envisaged as a public meeting in which other interested parties would be involved? There might be a number of people who make submissions; there might be only one or two. Would that meeting be just with those who make the contact, or will it be on a broader basis? The definition of “persons” is slightly mysterious. It talks about,
“the qualifying body … the local planning authority”—
that is obvious—
“and ... such other persons as may be prescribed”.
Can the Minister indicate what is envisaged by that rather muffled description?
Then there is the question of the regulations. Will the regulations themselves be subject to consultation? The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, referred to consultation. Will the specific regulations in relation to this amendment be subject to consultation in the way that the Minister has described generally the consultation which will take place on other matters?
Having said that, and while I wait with anticipation to hear the Minister’s response, again I congratulate him and the noble Lord, Lord Young, on the way they have conducted this matter. I look forward to that degree of co-operation continuing over the secondary legislation that will follow. It is very important that the Bill should go forward into practice in a way that, frankly, we have not yet seen adequately with the Housing and Planning Act 2016. I hope that we can learn from that experience and carry the Bill forward in the constructive way that Members of all sides have sought to treat it.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated in the debate on these two amendments. First, I thank once again my noble friend Lady Cumberlege for the gracious way that she has approached this, and for her kind words in welcoming the amendment and the flow chart. I suspect that her kind words about the role of the officials in the flow chart will have its cost in terms of drinks and cakes; nevertheless, I thank her very much indeed for those kind comments. I can confirm to her and to other noble Lords that the regulations will be subject to the negative procedure which, given the weight of business we will have as a consequence of the EU withdrawal process, is welcome news.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, once again for his kind words and very much agree that this is a better Bill because of the scrutiny that has come from all parts of the House. I agree that there is support for the neighbourhood planning principle from all parts of the House and it is important that we see that to safe haven. Clearly, it is not just about the Bill. I very much agree with him on the plain English guide—I know that he made that point before very forcefully. We will certainly do what we can with the website and the flow chart. I would welcome participation and views from noble Lords as to how we can improve them. I will pass on the thanks that he gave to the RICS for the practitioners’ guide. I am sure we all hope that that will be in plain English, as it is extremely important.
I turn to a point raised by the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Beecham, and my noble friend Lady Cumberlege in relation to the timing of the regulations. Clearly, as the consultation ends on 2 May, I cannot anticipate how many responses we will have in relation to this matter. I hope that it will be quite a lot. We intend to move quickly and not to delay things, but we need to make sure that the system works well. I hope your Lordships will understand that we would want some time to take account of those views. In relation to the very fair point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, about continuing the process of consultation and getting it right by discussing it with others, I would anticipate discussing the shape of what we are going to do with my noble friend and with the noble Lords, Lord Beecham, Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy, and others, but that would not be to slow the process down. We have to get the balance right there, but I would be very happy to do that.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for his generous invitation to St James’. An invitation from me would be to the King Power Stadium, if we are indeed in the same league next year. As he may know, I am in Newcastle on Friday of this week and when I said that I am visiting the two cathedrals, many people told me that there are actually three cathedrals—the third being St James’. I do not think I have time for it on this occasion, but I look forward very much to locking horns over football for once, rather than over politics. I am sure that would be a game we would both enjoy.
In relation to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, about who is included under new sub-paragraph (3)(d) in Amendment 1, we want to make sure that there is an open, fair and transparent procedure. In relation to meetings, therefore, I do not think we would want to stipulate that a group should be of a particular size. It would not be just individuals, but if somebody wanted to come along from the neighbourhood group with a fair number of people, we would be looking to that. We are not prescribing anything; it is important that it is an open and transparent process. In relation to other bodies that may be prescribed, I think that other amenity groups might have an interest in the area—I will write to the noble Lord if I am wrong on this—and it could conceivably be the National Trust, if it had property there. I anticipate it would be that sort of thing.
I have dealt with the noble Lord’s point in relation to the consultation on the regulations, which will, as I say, have the negative procedure. I thank again those noble Lords who have participated in the debate on these amendments.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor
“Development of new towns by local authorities
(1) The New Towns Act 1981 is amended as follows.(2) After section 1 insert—“1A Local authority to oversee development of new town(1) This section applies where the Secretary of State is considering designating an area of land in England as the site of a proposed new town in an order under section 1.(2) The Secretary of State may, in an order under section 1, appoint one or more local authorities to oversee the development of the area as a new town.(3) But a local authority may only be appointed if the area of land mentioned in subsection (1) is wholly or partly within the area of the local authority. (4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about how a local authority is to oversee the development of an area as a new town.(5) Regulations under subsection (4) may, for example—(a) provide that a local authority is to exercise specified functions under this Act which would otherwise be exercisable by the Secretary of State, the appropriate Minister or the Treasury;(b) provide that a local authority is to exercise such functions subject to specified conditions or limitations;(c) provide that specified functions under this Act may be exercised only with the consent of a local authority;(d) make provision about the membership of a corporation established under section 3, including the proportion of the members of the corporation who may be members of or employed by a local authority;(e) modify provisions of this Act;(f) make different provision for different purposes;(g) make incidental, supplementary or consequential provision.(6) In subsection (5)(a) the reference to “functions” does not include a power to make regulations or other instruments of a legislative character.(7) Where two or more local authorities are appointed in an order containing provision by virtue of subsection (2), the Secretary of State may in that order provide—(a) that a specified function is to be exercised by a specified local authority, or(b) that a specified function is to be exercised by two or more specified local authorities jointly.(8) In this section—“local authority” means—(a) a district council,(b) a county council, or(c) a London borough council;“specified” means specified in—(a) an order containing provision by virtue of subsection (2), or(b) regulations under subsection (4).”(3) In section 77 (regulations and orders)—(a) in subsection (2), after “which” insert “, subject to subsection (2A),”, and(b) after subsection (2) insert—“(2A) A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 1A(4) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.””
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (LD)
My Lords, this amendment is tabled in my name and that of the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Lucas, who have given great support on this issue during the passage of the Bill, as have noble Lords on all sides of the House. On Report, there was a very welcome commitment from the Minister to return to this issue.
I should draw attention to my interests. I advise many projects, including new settlement projects. I am a visiting professor of planning at Plymouth University, and over the years I have worked with government bringing forward policy changes.
This amendment is aimed at empowering local government communities to bring forward settlements of the highest quality, ensuring that the value that comes from development taking place is captured to create great places and deliver wonderful facilities for those places and is not captured in excessive profits for landowners or developers, and ensuring that the Government’s objectives in bringing forward the garden villages, garden towns and garden cities programme are met in terms of the delivery of what comes forward, with opportunities for small builders, self-builders and contract builders to grow and deliver in new ways better quality, more affordable homes and all the facilities in these places to create sustainable and vibrant 21st century communities.
Why have I tabled this amendment? At the start of the passage of the Bill, I made the point that in the Neighbourhood Planning Bill the Government accepted proposals that I and other noble Lords brought to the House to simplify the process of using the New Towns Act. The New Towns Act is essentially from a period when central government was much more involved in local delivery and when that was accepted. We are now in an era of localism, yet the New Towns Act gives all the power to the Secretary of State who has no capacity to hand over the role of the corporations that will be set up to deliver these new settlements to the local councils that would bring them forward. In the modern world, it is not right that in seeking to deliver a new settlement through a new town corporation to ensure that it is delivered at quality and pace to meet local needs a local council would surrender all the powers to the Secretary of State.
I do not think that the Secretary of State would want to have power over every penny of expenditure, the power of planning, because these bodies would get planning powers, and the power of controlling the assets and, potentially, of future disposals of those assets. It is far more likely that local authorities and communities will be comfortable with this process if they have not simply identified the site and taken the decision that it should be brought forward. When it comes here and the necessary process is gone through in Parliament to approve it, they should be confident that those powers will be exercised locally and that in the long run the assets will be controlled locally for the benefit of the people who live there and the wider community.
When we first debated this, the Minister understandably said that the Government needed to think about this and work it through, but the White Paper made it clear that the Government agree with this process. I have been delighted that the Government have taken forward this policy, which I was very much involved in developing. On the back of the White Paper, we came back. I have to thank the Minister for his positive response on Report and for allowing me to talk to officials in working through something that might now work positively for the Government and that could be incorporated into this Bill.
I shall briefly speak to some of the detail. The principle of the amendment is to give the Secretary of State the power to appoint one or more local authorities in the designated area of the new town to oversee the delivery of the new town and the new development corporation. This is a localising measure. It hands really strong power to communities to ensure that new towns are delivered at quality.
The functions that would be transferred to local authorities for this purpose would be set out in secondary regulations subject to the affirmative procedure, so fully respecting parliamentary process. Since new towns may straddle the boundary of more than one authority, more than one authority could be appointed. This will make it much simpler in those circumstances to bring forward and deliver proposals. The Secretary of State would be able to set out how those powers would be transferred to those local authorities, for joint exercise or divided between them. Changes to the New Towns Act may be needed to allow this to work on subjects such as asset control. The purpose of the power to modify the Act would be to make the principle of local accountability work.
Therefore, this fits with the agenda that Members across the House have outlined, to bring many more homes forward to meet local needs and to capture the value of land in order to create supplements. In that way, we would not look to the taxpayer to fund the school, build the surgery, provide for shops or build a real community. The value of the land would be put into the process of making this work.
At the moment, where projects are approved, the risk is that they are sold on through the chain of speculators, developers and housebuilders. Then, by the time that they are delivered, on grounds of viability because of the price that has been paid for the land or because of the model of the housebuilder, none of the promises made at the start to the local community is delivered. The use of the development corporation as proposed would guarantee that what had been promised to people at the start would be delivered to people at the end.
This approach would open the opportunity to use compulsory purchase powers under the New Towns Act. These could be used where necessary, but normally purchase would be done by treaty in consultation with landowners. The point would be to reach a price that allows the delivery of the quality of place that has been promised. That promised quality would then be locked in through the development corporation process, rather than being at risk of never being delivered. I am afraid that I can take noble Lords to many places where much was promised and far too little of those promises was delivered. There are places where it has been done well, but only where there has been a landowner genuinely committed to it.
That partnership would, therefore, be available. Generally, I imagine that it would be done through joint venture and partnership and agreement but none the less locking in that quality. Where that did not happen, powers would be there to achieve the quality of place that is needed.
Above all, this is about three things. One is keeping it honest and delivering what is promised. That is essential if there is to be any credibility around the delivery, not just of housing but of communities and neighbourhoods, that this approach of garden villages and towns promises.
Secondly, it is critical if we are to move from a supply of new homes inadequate to meet people’s needs that results in ever-accelerating prices beyond what is affordable. If we are to create the 250,000 to 300,000 homes each year that we need, rather than 150,000, those extra homes need to be delivered to a higher quality in places that they do not ruin. Rather than encircling existing historic towns and villages with endless bland housing estates, we need to deliver something better in places where people can accept them and where the public will support the programme. If we try to raise the numbers but deliver inadequate quality, as too often happens currently, there will simply be a public revolt and we will not get the houses delivered.
Finally, it is also critical that we understand that the big housebuilder model does not allow big housebuilders greatly to increase the numbers being delivered. They will not do so even if they wish to because of the way in which they are financed and the way in which publicly assisted companies are priced. The only way to deliver the increased numbers—and the increased quality—is to build up new entrants, whether housing associations, growing SMEs, self-builders or overseas developers of the highest quality. They all need places to build without the current tortuous process of land options and land banking.
These are the mechanisms to deliver it. But it will happen only if we have a very clear understanding that this means delivering great places to go with the plots to build them on, not just handing this over to the people who build houses and expecting them somehow to create great places. We know they deliver housing estates, but they do not deliver the quality of places demanded by people, which is what will give public acceptability to the programme.
This amendment will be the critical factor in creating local empowerment to deliver what will be a genuine game-changer. I am very grateful for the support there has been on all sides of the House for this and to the Government for the positive way in which they have responded to the case. I beg to move.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to the amendment, to which I have attached my name. I commend the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Goss Moor, for following through on our earlier amendment and indeed for all his good work in promoting new garden villages and garden towns. This amendment is not as definitive as the one we discussed on Report, but it should achieve the same outcome, namely of placing local authorities centre stage in the creation and oversight of the new corporations that will be responsible for these major new settlements. This will greatly improve the prospects of these much-needed new communities getting off the ground.
I was delighted to hear today that the Local Government Association—I declare my interest as an LGA vice-president—is fully supportive of the amendment. If accepted, the amendment will mean it will be much more likely that a number of successful, well-designed, mixed-income new settlements will be developed over the years ahead. That would be of enormous benefit to many thousands of households, which will have great new places to bring up their families and live their lives, as well as to the nation as a whole in reducing acute housing shortages. I have every confidence that the Minister will find the amendment entirely acceptable, and if so, I congratulate the Government. Following the housing White Paper, and a number of the helpful measures in this Bill, I greatly welcome this further step in the Government’s creation of a much-improved set of national housing policies. I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I join the noble Lord in complimenting the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for his very thoughtful and constructive contributions to the Bill and on this amendment. However, I have one question to put to him about it. Proposed new subsection (8) defines a local authority as,
“a district council … a county council, or … a London borough council”.
Where do the new mayoral combined authorities sit within this framework? Perhaps the noble Lord could assist me with that, or perhaps the Minister could indicate what role is envisaged for a combined authority, which will presumably by its very nature include land for development which crosses what would previously have been boundaries but are now within the new framework. I suspect the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, would wish that combined authority to exercise a role, but perhaps the Minister could indicate what the Government’s attitude would be and whether any further step needs to be taken to ensure that that outcome is fulfilled.
Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)
My Lords, I speak in favour of the amendment as well, and declare my interest in the register as chairman of the Local Government Association. The noble Lord, Lord Best, is right that the association welcomes this. It is pleased to do so, even in a version that is slightly watered down from the original. The Secretary of State should be congratulated on being prepared to cede some power: it is not very often that a Secretary of State is happy to let somebody else get on with something unless it is going to be a bad news story. I honestly believe this will be a good news story, so I am pleased that he is prepared to do it.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, though, I also have an issue with proposed new subsection (8): its definition of councils does not appear to allow unitary councils where they are the council of choice for people to be the body that makes a decision. It is fine for the districts or the counties to do that, but unitary councils outside London appear to be excluded. I am sure Newcastle or Sheffield would also want some space in this conversation. I am not sure at the moment how that could be changed, but perhaps it could be changed to “local planning authorities and county councils”. That would capture all existing councils. I urge against including combined authorities at this stage until we are sure where the constituent members of those authorities see this power resting.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, I have just come out of a meeting this afternoon. I chair the regeneration and communities committee on the Olympic Park. I have been involved with the Olympic Park from the very beginning; I think this is year 18. We have been on a very long journey. Along with a colleague I wrote the document for Hazel Blears that eventually led to the setting up of the Olympic Park Legacy Company, which of course now is a corporation. So one has watched and been involved in all the detail of what is now happening in Stratford in east London, which is a very exciting cluster development. This afternoon we have seen a new school at Here East, businesses and housing all coming together.
There are one or two cautionary lessons. First, local authorities can be very good if you have the right leadership in place to drive them, but if you do not then very different things can go on. It is all about the people, not structures. I know from experience that local authorities, if they are not so good, can be warring factors and can play lots of politics around these things that do not deliver the best quality but sometimes undermine that.
Secondly, we have learned that it is important to have the right serious business partners on the board of the corporation who, together with public sector leaders and leaders in the social enterprise sector, buy into a narrative over a long period of time; and that getting the top, middle and bottom of these institutions to buy and act out that narrative is important as well.
Ultimately, it is all about people and relationships. Our experience suggests that giving local control is very important, but I suggest that it is not just about local authorities—it is about the relationships between people in business, the public sector and, particularly, the community sector. Sometimes local authorities can talk as though they represent and understand the local community, but I have found over the years that that might not actually be true. It is about the right relationships, the right people and the right experience around the table.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated in the debate on Amendment 2. I thank particularly the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Goss Moor, for moving it, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Best. I thank them both and indeed other noble Lords for their time and commitment on this issue and for the opportunity to discuss this matter. We have discussed it both in Committee and on Report, and I have been heartened to hear the support for the measure from across the Chamber.
This amendment seeks to support the creation of locally led garden towns and villages by enabling the responsibility for any development corporation created under the New Towns Act 1981 to be transferred to a local authority or authorities, covering all or part of the area designated for the new town or village. On the point made by my noble friend Lord Porter, I think the definition is broad enough to include unitary authorities; that is certainly the intention. On a different point about combined authorities that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, of course we can create mayoral development corporations in relation to the new combined authorities—we did so with Teesside a couple of weeks ago—so that could well be part of the deal with the new authority. However, along with other noble Lords, I would want to think carefully in conjunction with the combined authorities as to whether they wanted to take that power on. I think I am right in saying, although I may be wrong, that the designated garden towns and villages do not come within the purview of what at the moment is projected as a combined authority, but it is a point well made. Therefore, I would like to go away to ponder this and give a fuller response to the noble Lord, if I may, copying it to noble Lords who participated in the debate and putting a copy in the Library.
The aim of the amendment is entirely consistent with those of the Bill. The Government certainly support it and I thank in particular the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his pre-emptive congratulations on the Government’s support. The amendment is very consistent with the approach of the Government, the department and the recently published White Paper in relation to the importance of localism.
I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, about the importance of ensuring that all local authorities have the right attitude to these things. We hope that is accomplished through elections but the broad principle of it being done locally must be right. That has been echoed throughout the contributions on this legislation as it has gone through the House: local is better. We know that a number of local authorities—for example, those in north Essex—are interested in taking advantage of the new opportunity that the amendment would provide to support a new generation of locally led garden towns and villages, the 21st-century heirs to Letchworth and Welwyn.
I also welcome the support of the Local Government Association and the kind words of my noble friend Lord Porter for the principle behind the amendment. I am very pleased that it commands wide support throughout the House. This is a simple principle; making it work in practice will require detailed modifications to the New Towns Act, which my department will develop. We will want to keep in close contact with the noble Lords, Lord Taylor and Lord Best, both of whom I thank very much for the impetus and enthusiasm they have given this and the expertise they bring to the table. I pause at this stage to pay tribute to their work as effective champions of this issue throughout discussions on the Bill.
In conclusion, I am very pleased to support the noble Lord’s amendment, which will help to fulfil an important White Paper commitment.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor
My Lords, I shall respond very briefly. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for all his support and encouragement, not only on this Bill but previously. I should also thank my noble friend Lady Parminter, who was in the Chamber but has had to go, for moving an amendment for me on Report that enabled this matter to be brought forward.
We have had a promise from the Minister to come back on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. I should make it clear that the intention is absolutely that more than one local authority can be involved. We need to explore the mechanism for that and hear what the Minister has to say, but the ability for more than one authority to come together is here. I therefore imagine that in practice nothing would stand in the way of the point that was raised.
On the point of the noble Lord, Lord Porter, about unitary authorities, the intention is that they should be covered. Indeed, having worked very hard to support the creation of a unitary authority in Cornwall, I would be horrified if I had managed in any way to get the drafting wrong on that point, but I believe it is covered.
I absolutely take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, and thank him for his support. In my comments, I talked about the fact that although the mechanism is here for local authorities to take a leadership role, the expectation is absolutely for a partnership approach. I thought quite hard about how one might look at the structures of a corporation. It is very important that this is not a 1950s or 1960s view, whereby a local authority chief executive is appointed and gets on with the job. The world has moved on since then. My view has always been that you need, as we see in Europe and in the States, a master developer and a master planner; you need expertise and business experience.
I chair a joint strategic board for the Carclaze garden village, which has been many years in gestation. The key thing has been to bring together the local authority, the private sector-led development body and the landowner in a partnership. That partnership has been incredibly successful. It took the development through the recession after 2008. The developer is Egyptian-owned, so the partnership took it through the storms of the Arab spring in terms of its financing. It is now in front of planning, and I think will be delivered. That has been possible only because we have built a really strong partnership between all parties, including the private sector, so there is a very deep experience of people creating fantastic places for business reasons, as well as the very important experience of the council representing people and understanding the processes of local government. There has been a great partnership with the HCA as well.
I could not agree more with the noble Lord’s comments. That is why, although this provision uses the powers of the New Towns Act, it is very much in a 21st century setting—and that is not just about localism; it is about partnership between all the stakeholders. I also make the point that it is about holding people to promises, because too often people see wonderful designs at the stage when something is proposed, but the moment when it is allocated or an outline is commissioned, it is traded and traded and, somehow, it gets watered down and not delivered. That experience is important for business, too.
Lord Mawson
I welcome that, and I absolutely agree with the noble Lord. The Civil Service finds it very hard to understand—and I think that the noble Lord is saying the same thing—that what really matters is having people around the table from different sectors who care about the place and are going to stay on this journey a very long time. It takes a long time to deliver these things and it is very difficult, but it is all about having the right people—people who care.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor
In every case when I have advised on new settlements coming forward, I have advised local authorities, councillors and communities but also those promoting the project to establish the basis of the joint venture and partnership for delivery of the original objectives and to hold people to it. It is only by getting everyone around the table jointly to discuss that—again, that is the case at Carclaze—at every key stage, whether in looking at the master plan and working out how to deliver affordable housing and quality, wherever the ultimate power may lie to take the decision, that we have all been jointly involved in coming to the right conclusion. That is what these bodies achieve; they are, ultimately, about keeping it honest, but they are also about getting it delivered. The noble Lord clearly has that experience in the Olympic context, and we need that experience in each of these initiatives.
The last thing that we want is to create bland housing estates in the countryside, not great communities. If we do the former, the project will die very quickly, and public enthusiasm will disappear; if we get it right, people will clamour for what are actually the intentions of the 1947 planning Act, when people talked about stopping suburban sprawl, rejuvenating cities and towns and building new communities to meet the needs of those who could not be housed. This is about returning to those objectives and putting back under control the suburban sprawl that we see once again too often around our historic towns and cities. It is a new option and a better one.
I thank the Minister very much for his supportive comments. We have worked very closely on getting this right.
“Local authorities meeting housing targets to be permitted to override prior approval
(1) Where a local planning authority can show that—(a) the exercise of prior approvals for the conversion of offices to residential is having a detrimental effect on the local economy, including the expulsion of, or non-renewal of leases to, businesses to make way for residential development, and(b) the relevant local authority is meeting its housing targets and can show reasonable evidence that it will continue to do so,the local authority concerned may, notwithstanding any regulation or provision to the contrary, require any future application in any part of, or the whole of, the local authority area to seek full planning permission and may bring any part of the adopted local plan, or relevant neighbourhood plan, into consideration in determining that application.(2) A local authority may recover all permitted planning fees and costs in relation to any application for a development determination by prior approval, as if the application concerned were subject to all procedures of a normal planning application.”
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, this is Third Reading and there is other business before the House, so I shall endeavour to be brief on this matter. However, it is important. I shall seek not to repeat points that I made on Report and on previous Bills. The subject that I have been trying to deal with is the problem in parts of London in particular, but also in other high-value areas, where there is arbitraging under the current very free prior approval system and where you can switch without planning permission from office to residential, taking a very large profit—threefold or fourfold—and in so doing throwing out of premises businesses that in some cases have been established there for a very long time. I have argued for many years that this was an abuse. In our case, in my authority of Richmond—I declare an interest as leader—we have lost 30% of our office space. As I explained to the House before, in half of those cases the offices were partly or wholly occupied by businesses.
Lord Tope (LD)
My Lords, I find myself once again in tandem with the noble Lord, Lord True. He said correctly that we have been pedalling together on this issue for, I think, about four years now—mostly against a very strong headwind, it has to be said, both under the coalition Government and the present Government. I join him in welcoming, shall we say, a slightly less strong wind, a gentler breeze, on this occasion.
I still have the view that the question of the conversion of offices to residential—which is in many cases entirely desirable, where there are redundant offices, and so on—should be a matter for the local planning authority to determine in the light of local circumstances and to get such planning benefit as may be appropriate and possible. I understand that the breeze is still too strong for us to go quite that far, but when the Minister replied to our debate on this on Report—indeed, we have debated it at every stage of this Bill—he made some sympathetic and encouraging noises to encourage us to withdraw our amendment, which we of course intended to do anyway.
I would like the Minister to clarify two particular points for me, both of which I mentioned on Report—I will not go over all the ground again. I made the point that Article 4 is usually cited as the answer to all questions on this matter, and I related the experience of my own borough. Incidentally, I should once again declare that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. The following is no longer a declarable interest, but I was for many years a town centre councillor, and indeed leader of the council, in a south London borough not too far from the borough of the noble Lord, Lord True, and I have seen the effect of this measure on the ground there. When my then authority applied to introduce Article 4, the Government of the day made it extremely clear that they would certainly not counsel an Article 4 direction for the entire borough. They said that to a number of other London boroughs, and no doubt other authorities too. Indeed, they would not even allow it to cover a wider area within the borough and insisted on it being very tightly drawn around the town centre. That provision has had inevitable effects since it came into operation in our town centre area. It has now spread to the district centres, where Article 4 does not apply, and where we have seen an alarming spread of offices being converted to residential use. These are not empty, redundant offices. The figures I have cited several times in this debate applied to our town centre. While we waited for Article 4 to take effect, 28% of the office space in the town centre was lost. That was not redundant space; two-thirds of the offices lost were in active use at the time and the businesses in them had to move.
I hope the Minister will tell us what the Government’s attitude now is towards local authorities that wish to introduce Article 4 over a wider area, or indeed over the whole local authority area, particularly where local authorities like mine have achieved, and indeed exceeded, the housing targets for many years. We are more than meeting government and London government requirements on housing targets. Will we now be allowed more leniency in the areas in which Article 4 may apply?
Secondly, as I have already mentioned, in the period we had to wait to implement Article 4, we lost 28% of the town centre office space. There was a reason for that. If Article 4 is introduced immediately, the local authority is liable to pay compensation, which could run to very considerable sums. Therefore my authority, and most, if not all, authorities, give 12 months’ notice of the intention to apply Article 4. It is inevitable that if you give 12 months’ notice of the intention to apply restrictions, landlords and developers with a mind to convert offices to residential use are bound to go ahead in the period before Article 4 takes effect, especially if that is as long as 12 months, as it has to be. I hope that when he replies the Minister will say something about this long period. If local authorities are still to be required to give 12 months’ notice, can he say anything about their liability for compensation to those who feel they may have a case for that compensation?
I conclude, as did the noble Lord—my noble friend—Lord True, by thanking the Minister in this place and the Minister in another place for taking a very much more sensible and realistic attitude to this issue and for listening to actual experience on the ground. I hope they will be willing to adopt measures to improve this situation. I thank the noble Lord, Lord True, for his very considerable persistence and perseverance on this issue throughout the previous four years.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I support the amendment and I hope the Government will react sympathetically to the objectives that noble Lords outlined. We certainly are at one with them. I speak from my experience in Newcastle. It is important that the Government should see the logic of the case that is made in the amendment, and I hope they will treat it accordingly.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated in the debate on Amendment 3 in relation to office-to-residential conversion. I particularly thank my noble friend Lord True and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for bringing before us again the issue of permitted development rights for change of use. This enables me to set out in more detail the proposal that I put before noble Lords on Report in a very sketchy form, and to which I promised to return. At the time, I spoke about the potential benefit of allowing greater flexibility over whether the permitted development right for the change of use from office to residential should apply to those areas that are delivering the homes that their communities need. I am sure noble Lords will agree that it is in everybody’s interest to ensure that we do not put future housing delivery at risk. In fairness, that point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope.
The housing White Paper sets out compelling evidence of why it is crucial that we fix our broken housing market—one of the greatest barriers to progress in Britain today. Noble Lords will know that in the year to March 2016, over 12,800 homes came from the change of use from offices to residential alone. However, as I said on Report, I recognise that while the national picture is positive in terms of the contribution of permitted development rights to housing delivery, in some places there have been concerns about the local impact.
We can all agree that some authorities are high performers in delivering new housing. I am therefore pleased to confirm our future approach to Article 4 directions to remove the permitted development right for the change of use from office to residential where the local planning authority is delivering 100% or more of its housing requirement. As we have set out in our recent housing White Paper, we will introduce a new housing delivery test which will measure an area’s local housing delivery against its housing requirement. It is proposed that the housing delivery test will be measured as an average over a three-year rolling period and data will be published alongside the net additions statistics in November each year. We propose that housing delivery will be assessed against an up-to-date local plan, London Plan or statutory spatial development strategy—or in their absence, published household projections—and that the first housing delivery data will be published in November this year. This will indicate to local authorities whether this additional Article 4 flexibility would apply to directions they brought forward after this date.
We are committing today that, following the publication of the housing delivery data, where an authority is meeting 100% of its housing delivery requirement and can continue to do so after removal of the right, and where it is able to demonstrate that it is necessary to remove the right to protect the amenity and well-being of a particular area—that might address the point that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, raised; there is still that continuing obligation although it may conceivably be a larger area than at present, but there is not the necessity to satisfy that test—the Secretary of State will not seek to limit a direction applying to that area.
When considering whether to bring forward an Article 4 direction regarding office-to-residential conversion, the local planning authority must demonstrate that it can continue to meet its housing requirement when the right is removed. This provides an important safeguard to ensure that local areas will continue to deliver the homes that communities need. For instance, we know that in the year to March 2016, the homes delivered under the right made a significant contribution to housing delivery in some areas.
Importantly, the Article 4 direction must continue to meet the test set out in the National Planning Policy Framework. As I say, the local planning authority must still provide robust evidence to demonstrate that removing the permitted development right is necessary to protect the amenity and well-being of the area where the right is to be removed. This could include impact from the loss of office space. I hope that is helpful to the noble Lord and to other noble Lords who have participated in the debate on the Bill. Where these tests are met, we would look more generously at the area across which the direction would apply and not seek to limit the direction. Of course, housing delivery changes over time. Therefore, local planning authorities should review their housing delivery annually and, if it falls below 100% in subsequent years, we would expect them to review the direction and cancel or modify it as necessary. The local authority may then be able to bring forward a further direction at a later date on the back of improved delivery where it had dipped below the housing delivery test.
This approach reflects the intent of the noble Lords’ amendment. It allows areas that are meeting their housing requirements local flexibility in having a greater say over where the right will apply as long as they can demonstrate that removal of the right is necessary and that they will continue to meet their housing need. It enables local planning authorities to determine such cases in accordance with their local plan, any neighbourhood plan and other material considerations. At the same time, it provides safeguards should housing delivery decline. Moreover, it does so within the existing Article 4 processes, with which local planning authorities are familiar.
Lord True
My Lords, I am extremely grateful for what my noble friend has said. My great-grandfather was a baker. I am told that my grandmother once said to him, “Some of these loaves don’t look very good”, to which he replied, “Well, it’s the food they want, m’duck, not the fancy”. The fact is that of course one could quibble about the issue of compensation and the crux between the 12 months’ notice and so on. There are issues there and there will be continuing discussion between local authorities and the Government. However, it would be churlish not to concentrate on the substantial steps that have been taken. I am very grateful for those, particularly obviously in relation to the fees but also—we will study the details—for the very clear indication that some of the difficulties in using Article 4 will be removed.
As well as thanking my noble friends on the Front Bench, I thank the Housing Minister, Mr Barwell, who intervened in this matter very effectively and courteously. I do not want to destroy his career but at a meeting of some of the London council leaders earlier this week at which all three parties were represented, the change that the Minister had made was commented on, and this is one small token of it.
I particularly thank my noble friends on the Front Bench and colleagues on the Benches opposite, who have been very supportive over a long period. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, in moving to this last amendment to be debated, I should note that this is a minor and technical amendment to correct a drafting inconsistency between Clauses 27(2) and 42(3).
In Clause 27, the Secretary of State has the power to make regulations concerning the temporary possession of land under subsections (1), (2) and (3). The Welsh Ministers, however, have the power to make regulations only under subsections (1) and (3) because none of the legislation referenced in subsection (2) is devolved. Therefore, Clause 42(3) specifies that regulations made by the Welsh Ministers under Clause 27 must follow the affirmative resolution procedure. Amendment 4 thus removes the redundant reference to Clause 27(2). I beg to move.
“(3) The regulations may in particular impose duties on an examiner which are to be complied with by the examiner in considering the draft plan under paragraphs 10 and 11 and which require the examiner—(a) to provide prescribed information to each person within sub- paragraph (4);(b) to publish a draft report containing the recommendations which the examiner is minded to make in the examiner’s report under paragraph 13;(c) to invite each person within sub-paragraph (4) or representatives of such a person to one or more meetings at a prescribed stage or prescribed stages of the examination process;(d) to hold a meeting following the issuing of such invitations if such a person requests the examiner to do so.(4) Those persons are—(a) the qualifying body,(b) the local planning authority, and(c) such other persons as may be prescribed.(5) Where the regulations make provision by virtue of sub-paragraph (3)(c) or (d), they may make further provision about—(a) the procedure for a meeting;(b) the matters to be discussed at a meeting.”
Neighbourhood Planning Bill
Tuesday 28th March 2017
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberNeighbourhood Planning Act 2017 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 28 March 2017 - (28 Mar 2017)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 4, 5, 23, 40, 44, 48 to 50 and 84. I also remind the House that certain motions relating to the Lords amendments will be certified as relating exclusively to England, or to England and Wales, as set out on the selection list. If the House divides on any certified motion, a double majority will be required for the motion to be passed.
After Clause 12
Change of use of drinking establishments
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 22.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendment 22.
Gavin Barwell
Before I get into the detail of the amendments, I would like to put on record my thanks to my noble Friend and ministerial colleague Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, who ably steered the Bill through the Lords. I would also like to thank one of my distinguished predecessors as Housing Minister, Lord Young of Cookham, who led on the compulsory purchase provisions, which we will touch on in the third of the three groups we are discussing this afternoon. Finally, I thank all peers who contributed positively to the debate in the other place. The Bill has benefited from their constructive challenge and scrutiny. For my part, I am pleased that the Bill received a warmer reception than the Housing and Planning Bill did a year ago.
I wish to turn to permitted development rights for the change of use or demolition of pubs, and to update the House on the steps we are taking in respect of the permitted development rights for the change of use from office to residential. First, I will speak to the Government amendment in respect of permitted development rights for the change of use or demolition of pubs. Let me start by assuring hon. Members that we have listened to both Houses and to the support that Members have expressed for valued community pubs. They will see that we have accepted the principle of the amendment introduced into the Bill in the other place. Our amendments in lieu therefore set out the detail of how we will take that principle forward.
The amendment commits us to update the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 to remove the permitted development rights for the change of use or demolition of drinking establishments, including pubs. In tabling the amendments in lieu, I reassure hon. Members that we have continued to engage through the passage of the Bill with interested Members and bodies, such as the Campaign for Real Ale and the British Beer and Pub Association. I can confirm that we will remove the permitted development rights to change to a restaurant or cafe, financial or professional service, or a shop. We will also remove the permitted development rights to change to an office for up to two years and to a school for a single academic year.
In making these changes, the Government are keen to avoid any potential unintended consequences. As such, we are clear that the best way to support pubs is to retain the A4 “drinking establishments” use class for pubs, wine bars and other types of bars. Doing so will allow pubs to innovate and intensify their use, for example by opening a pub garden or starting to provide live music, without facing a risk that this will be a change of use that requires a full planning application. Our intention in retaining the A4 use class is to allow pubs to develop within this use class without having to seek planning permission, thus avoiding unintended consequences, and unnecessary cost and bureaucracy.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
CAMRA campaigners in my constituency have campaigned for the removal of permitted development rights for 10 years, so I welcome the Government’s new clause that will implement Labour’s amendment in the other place. However, the question of timing is crucial. If the time window before the regulations come in is too large, developers will simply bring forward their plans and pubs will continue to become car parks, retail or housing. Will the Minister make clear when the regulations will be implemented?
Gavin Barwell
If the hon. Lady bears with me for a few minutes, I will make that crystal clear and, I hope, provide the reassurance she is looking for.
The changes in respect of permitted development rights for the change of use or demolition of pubs mean that in future a planning application will be required in all cases. This will also be the case for premises in mixed use, for example as a pub and a restaurant. This addresses the long-standing call that there should be local consideration and an opportunity for the community to comment on the future of their local pub. It is important that local planning authorities have relevant planning policies in place to support this decision taking. Once we have made the changes, the current provisions, which remove permitted development rights for the change of use or demolition of pubs that are listed as assets of community value, are no longer necessary and will fall away.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Will there be any provision or requirement with regard to the viability of the pub in that premise, so there will be some kind of case that those who wish to change could mount?
Gavin Barwell
Clearly, those are arguments that could be made by an applicant in respect of a particular planning application, but the Government are not proposing to allow any permitted development rights in that regard. It would require the local authority to consider the planning application and to reach a decision. I am sure that in respect of what my right hon. Friend and others have said, those arguments will be considered when planning applications are being made.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and to the Government for listening to the powerful case that was made by CAMRA and many other organisations. The new mixed A3/A4 class is an elegant solution to the issue raised in respect of the amendment in the other place. Will the Minister nevertheless clarify on the record that, in keeping with his proposals, the same removal of permitted development rights that is now going to operate in the A3 and A4 classes will also operate in the mixed use A3/A4 class, which has not been specifically clarified?
Gavin Barwell
If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I think he will get exactly the clarification that he is looking for—but the simple answer is yes. I shall come on to it again later in my speech. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. The Government’s intent is very much to honour the principle behind the Lords amendment, but we believe we have a better solution that will provide pubs with more flexibility and do a better job of ensuring their viability in the long term.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I congratulate the Minister on his flexible approach to the Bill. Given that he has previously agreed to visit my Bassetlaw constituency, will he offer a date very soon, so that I can consider whether to include a pub in his itinerary?
Gavin Barwell
That has got to be one of the kindest invitations that I have received so far in my ministerial career. I have already given an undertaking and I very much look forward to visiting the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. I am trying to combine it with an event in the Sheffield city region, looking at housing. The hon. Gentleman served on the Public Bill Committee and he is a passionate advocate of neighbourhood planning. I know that he has worked hard in own constituency to encourage neighbourhood planning. I am very much looking forward to meeting some of the community groups with him. Members of my private office are in the Box and will have heard that commitment. I hope that we can get the hon. Gentleman a date as soon as possible—with or without the benefit of a visit to a local pub.
At the same time as making these changes, we also want to protect local planning authorities from any compensation liability arising from the removal of national permitted development rights. We will do this by amending the compensation regulations to limit to 12 months the period of any potential liability on local planning authorities when the rights are removed.
Let me now take the opportunity to update hon. Members on the outcome of the debate in the other place in respect of the permitted development right for the change of use from office to residential. This was an issue debated at some length in Committee, and I know that there are differences of opinion in the House. Hon. Members will know that the permitted development right is making an important contribution to housing delivery, with over 12,800 homes delivered—thanks to this right—in the year ending March 2016. The Government have always recognised that in certain areas there have been concerns about the local impact of this right, so we have outlined an approach that provides flexibility for those areas that are meeting their housing requirements to have a greater say over where the permitted development right for the change of use from office to residential should apply.
For those areas that are delivering 100% or more of their housing requirement—the figure identified in their local plan—that can continue to do so after removal of the right, and that are able to demonstrate that it is necessary to remove the right to protect the amenity and wellbeing of their area, the Secretary of State will not seek to limit article 4 directions applying to that area. We intend to publish the first housing delivery test data in November. For those who are not familiar with it, this was one of the key reforms set out in the housing White Paper. We will now hold local authorities to account not just for producing a glossy plan, but for delivering the houses set out in the plan on an annual basis. This will indicate to local authorities in November whether this additional article 4 flexibility would apply to directions brought forward after that date. For those interested in further information about this change, it can be found in House of Lords Library in a letter from my ministerial colleague Lord Bourne, dated 18 March. We shall provide detailed guidance before November.
We are making a further change by bringing forward regulation to enable local planning authorities to charge planning application fees when permitted development rights have been removed by an article 4 direction. This recognises the resource commitments in those areas that have removed the permitted development right for sound policy reasons. The Government’s position remains that although the permitted development right makes an important contribution to delivering the homes that we desperately need, we have with these two small changes demonstrated a degree of flexibility to allow those local authorities that are delivering the homes that are needed in their area to apply an article 4 direction if they wish, and then to be able to charge planning application fees in the relevant areas.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
St Albans has lost 157,000 square feet of office space recently, a lot of that because demand in St Albans is so high. Does the Minister share my concern that this may provide a perverse incentive not to deliver on housing? If the area does not mind losing office space—I am not saying that this is the case—it seems a quick and easy win to allow offices to shrivel on the vine. I am very concerned to ensure that that does not happen in St Albans.
Gavin Barwell
I think my hon. Friend shares my concern that we need to ensure that St Albans gets an up-to-date local plan in place as quickly as possible to provide the housing that is so desperately needed in that part of the world. My hon. Friend has spoken to me about it several times, and I know that other Members who represent the local authority area share her concern. We need to avoid perverse incentives, and my reassurance to my hon. Friend is that the Government will be doing plenty of other things to make sure that local authorities deliver the housing that is required in their areas. Where people have legitimate concerns about the impact of permitted development rights on the level of office space in their area—my hon. Friend is clearly one of them—provided that the council is delivering the required housing, we want to allow some flexibility. I know that she will work closely with me to try to make sure that St Albans makes progress on that issue.
To conclude, and returning to planning for pubs, I hope that hon. Members will accept the assurances I have given today—indeed, that seems to be the case—and agree that we have reflected the will of Parliament. I have met the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) who is in his place, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie), who is not in her place but who has lobbied me extensively on this issue. Indeed, Members of both Houses have spoken with great passion about the need to allow for local consideration of the change of use or demolition of all pubs. Our amendments in lieu set out how we will ensure the successful delivery of these changes, and I can commit today to laying the secondary regulation by July—essentially as soon as we can after the Bill hopefully receives Royal Assent. On that basis, I hope that all hon. Members will support this amendment.
Toby Perkins
I am pleased to speak in support of Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendment 22. I think they will make a material difference to the fortunes of many of Britain’s 48,000 pubs; give certainty to investors in the pub trade; and, crucially, put communities back in control of decisions that have a real bearing on their community. I speak as chairman of the renamed all-party parliamentary pub group, and as a real pub enthusiast.
I would like to record my appreciation of many people and groups in securing this important victory, including Lord Kennedy who tabled the amendment in the House of Lords and was very successful in ensuring such overwhelming cross-party support that the Government were persuaded to adopt the amendment in lieu. I also thank the pub-supporting campaign groups such as CAMRA and the British Pub Confederation, and my fellow members of the all-party parliamentary group on pubs, who held a really informative round table last week on the many different approaches across the country to using the planning system to save pubs.
I would also like to acknowledge, as did the Minister, the important work done by my predecessor as chair of the APPG, the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland), who proposed the motion in Committee that was subsequently supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon).
I also think it right to acknowledge that the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) originated the process with an amendment to a different Bill. Although the case she made was unsuccessful, it has proved important in bringing about this change.
As I said a moment ago, I am grateful to the Government for broadly adopting a motion to which there had been some hostility. It takes courage to change one’s mind. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), came to the CAMRA reception and assured us that the Government were listening, and the Government’s actions on this occasion suggest that he was as good as his word. All due credit should be paid to him.
There is nothing quite like the first visit to any British pub. I know that I am not alone in feeling that little frisson of excitement when I step through the door of a pub for the first time—pushing open that creaking door, and wondering what will be waiting for me behind it. It is, one might say, an adult and real-life version of an Advent calendar: behind every door is a different surprise.
As one of those doors creaks open, we wonder how the pub will be laid out. Will we be able to get a table? Who will be in there, and how many people will be in there? What will be on the walls, and what will the bar look like? Each pub is different. Will the bar steward’s face be a picture of welcoming joy—or maybe not? Will there be a log fire in the winter? Will there be a garden in the summer? Will there be a dartboard, a pool table, a pub dog or cat? Will a loudmouth be propping up the bar, commenting on topics on which he has assumed a level of expertise from a programme that he once saw on television? Will someone be commenting on the performance of his Member of Parliament and asking, inevitably, whether that Member of Parliament will be claiming his pint back on expenses? That one never really grows old.
Finally, of course, there is the question of what the pub will be serving. There is so much more to visiting a pub than having a drink, and that is the magic of it. I know my own favourite beers, and I can pop into Morrisons just down the road and buy as much as I like, far more cheaply than I can in many pubs. However, the drinks are just a fraction of the experience; the magic comes from the entire ensemble. Just as there is a magic to visiting any pub for the first time, there is a joy in having a local where you really feel at home, and where the characters, the beers, the landlord or landlady and the décor seem almost as familiar as if you were indeed in your own home.
We live in different times, and—let us be candid—in difficult times for the pub trade. The days when a single publican, running a single pub for decades at a time, was a staple of every high street are long gone. The long-standing publican is now becoming a rarity, and our communities are the poorer for it. However, many of those communities still have long-standing connections and relationships with their local pubs. Whether they are regular attenders or occasional visitors, the pub is a part of their community—one that we all too often take for granted, and a feature that is only really missed when it is under threat or gone.
Let me assure the House that none of us is suggesting that unpopular or poorly run pubs have a right to exist. Communities that do not back their local pub cannot assume that it will always be there. When I bought my house back in 1998 the Terminus was my local, but after a string of landlords within just a few years, it is gone. The only reminders of it are a plaque on the wall that reminds us where it once stood and the local bowling green, which is still called the Terminus Bowling Club although the pub from which it took its name is long gone.
In a small town like Chesterfield, I have to walk a mile to reach what you would call my local, and that, I think, is a comment on the times in which we live. If we do not get out and support our pubs, it is no good complaining when they are gone. Similarly, the industry knows that it is living in an ever more competitive world. The competition for the leisure pound has never been fiercer. From satellite television and a bottle at home to an array of takeaways and restaurants to suit every palate, the alternatives to a pint in the local are multitudinous.
Pubs will continue to close on occasion, but I think that it really sticks in the craw of communities when popular and well-used pubs—or even pubs that play a central role in a community—which may well be under poor management at a particular time are lost for good without the community having any say. The tenant in a pub is not just a business owner but the guardian of something precious in that community, and the duty of the pub-owning business to ensure that the guardians it appoints have the wherewithal to protect the precious assets that they are responsible for running is very important.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words earlier. The main purpose of the amendment that we are all supporting today is to tackle the scourge of predatory purchasing, especially by supermarkets. The Co-op is the worst in that regard. Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is time for CAMRA to look again at its agreement with the Co-op, and to say, “This must stop, because it has not worked”—as, hopefully, the amendment will?
Toby Perkins
I certainly support the amendment, and I agree that it is necessary because previous measures were not working. I met representatives of the Co-op recently, and their approach was pretty constructive. They said that they would be making a planning application in every case.
Greg Mulholland
It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman met those Co-op representatives recently. As he knows, last year the Save the Pub group was misled by the Co-op, which gave a clear assurance that it would not take pubcos’ view of viability as fact, but, as has been made clear by local CAMRA branches and the British Pub Confederation, it has continued to do so. The Co-op speaks with forked tongue, as the Save the Pub group has proved before, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will stick with holding it to account.
Toby Perkins
We certainly will stick with holding it to account. If the hon. Gentleman has evidence that, since those reassurances were given, the Co-op is going down that road without seeking planning permission, I will definitely support him in what he has said.
In Chesterfield, we organised a huge public campaign which, although it does not relate specifically to the Co-op, is relevant to the issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised. We campaigned to save the Crispin Inn in Ashgate Road when EI Group, previously known as Enterprise Inns, wanted to sell it to Tesco. The campaign was won and Tesco pulled out, only for a new developer to come along and demolish the pub, and then start consulting on what should happen on the land where it had stood. Eventually, housing was built there.
In my previous role as shadow pubs Minister, I met so many groups all over the country who were fighting so hard to save the pubs that they loved and on which communities depended. It was wrong that a developer could turn a pub into a supermarket without planning permission, but could not do it the other way round. It was wrong that a building that was potentially a precious community asset could be knocked down before the community was even able to have a say. The coalition Government did take steps to reinforce the right of communities to have a say, but, although well intentioned, their efforts were a bit like trying to catch a flood in a cup.
The great attribute of the amendment proposed by Lord Kennedy and subsequently adopted, with further amendments, by the Government is that it gives certainty to everyone involved in the industry. We must never forget that Britain’s pubs are a business, an industry with investors who need certainty. The danger of going too far down the localism route was that when a business was considering an investment decision, it was faced with potentially dozens of different legislative approaches and hurdles across its portfolio. That approach also left councils at the mercy of aggressive legislation, and they were expected to incur the legal expense of defending the measures that they had introduced to protect their pubs.
The “asset of community value” approach has given some communities a precious opportunity to fight for the pub that they love, but it did mean that often the only way to save a pub was to agree to become its owner. There is some value in that sort of community activism, but it should not be necessary to be willing to buy a pub in order to have a view on it.
Last week, the APPG heard from the community team that had successfully bought the Antwerp Arms in Tottenham, having used the ACV legislation to save their pub. We also heard from Wandsworth Council, which had placed a requirement for article 4 directions on about 220 of its locals. It deserves credit for its efforts, but the danger of using article 4 directions is that the landscape is different in each local authority. That led to some publicans having to obtain planning permission just to paint or decorate their pubs, which is a positive disincentive to improving or investing in the pub estate. The approach that is being advocated today will bring the certainty and clarity that everyone connected with the industry needs, and it will not prevent the owners of buildings from adopting the needs of their buildings to maximise new opportunities.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
While we commend local authorities for taking the trouble to exercise the procedure that my hon. Friend has outlined, it was difficult for a number of authorities in other parts of the country that did not have the necessary capacity or the ability to meet the potential costs that would have enabled them to build up the case for doing so. This measure will be enormously helpful in ensuring that local authorities need not embark on that potentially expensive route.
Toby Perkins
I could not agree more; it meant that different authorities with different priorities brought forward measures at different times, and some of them never regarded this as a priority, even though they might have had sympathy with the intentions of the legislation. What this measure does is ensure that, rather than local authorities having in effect to use legislation for an entirely different purpose than intended and place blanket conditions on all their pubs, there is a simple and clear method whereby developers will know that, quite simply, if they want to make a change to the use of a pub, they will have to get planning permission.
We know that pubs will open and pubs will close, and this Bill will ensure that all the evidence is considered before such decisions are made. As I have said, it is sensible of the Government to create the new A3/A4 mixed use class, and I am glad they have made it clear that it is their intention that the mixed use class should enjoy the same protections as the A3 and A4 classes.
I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to the question of what might happen until the Bill is passed. He has set out the Government’s wish to have secondary legislation in place by July, which is a sensible timescale. However, there is a worry that this is going to lead to a rush of businesses or developers buying pubs and levelling them before the regulations are in place, so everyone must take all the steps they can to prevent a rush of conversions or demolitions. I shall be interested to hear the Minister suggest steps that the Government or local authorities and communities may take to prevent that from coming to pass.
I am very pleased to have been able to take a few moments to reflect on the value of the 48,000 British pubs to our communities. When visitors come to the United Kingdom, one of the first things they want to do is have their first pint in a British pub. The British pub is a tremendously important asset to our country, and I will be very pleased to welcome the Government’s adoption of this amendment. I am pleased that this important step will be taken to help communities save and preserve the great British pub for many, many years to come.
Mrs Main
It is a delight to speak at this point in the debate, because I want to say to the Minister that the whole point of the other place is to make us think again, and he has thought again and he has listened. This is a wonderful solution that will protect areas such as mine.
I have the most beautiful constituency, and it is rumoured that I have the most pubs per square mile, although other areas dispute that. St Albans is an historical pilgrimage city and a coaching town, and we have pubs on just about every corner—if you can’t find a pub in St Albans, you’re not trying.
We have many historical pubs that have found it incredibly difficult to make their living in today’s hard times. I went to see the Chancellor about the effect of business rates on pubs. I am hugely glad that he listened, because many of the pubs in my constituency are incredibly small—almost the size of people’s front rooms—as they came along in a different era, and many are listed as well, which adds another dimension to the problem of making them viable. The owner of The Boot pub spent five years working with the planning system to try to get various alterations to his kitchen, because the pub’s listing made it very difficult for him to get that work done. I therefore welcome enormously anything that can make our pubs more viable and give them a sounder footing for the future.
The headquarters of CAMRA is in Hatfield road in St Albans, and it has been wonderful in this matter. I pay tribute to CAMRA and all those who have worked with it to ensure that the Minister listened to the thoughts expressed in the Lords and the representations of Members of Parliament, and came up with a solution that is pragmatic and elegant, as I think the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) described it. It now builds on the intentions expressed in the Lords, which is hugely important.
May I point out to any Members who have not visited my constituency that we are having a big tourism week from 31 March? One of my jobs that day will be to visit Ye Olde Fighting Cocks, an immensely historical pub. It is one of the pubs that claims to be the oldest pub, and they all contribute to the tourism offering. Not knowing that this elegant solution was going to come through today—which I am pleased to welcome and support—I wanted to make sure I went along and gave all my support to my pubs, which contribute enormously to our tourism offering. One of the pubs in St Albans, the White Hart immediately opposite the entrance to the cathedral, featured on “Most Haunted Live!”; another part of our tourism offering is that we have a very good ghost run, as St Albans is so historical.
I encourage people to go and visit their pubs. As the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) said, they are so much more than a place to buy a particular beer; they offer a huge historical pattern, and if they were removed it would in some regards be the death of my constituency. I can honestly say that people come to my constituency and say they cannot get over what a marvellous impression the pubs give, and I pay tribute to the many operating in St Albans to the highest possible standards.
I also want to make a few comments on what the Minister said about the permitted development rights on office space. I am concerned that we are losing so much office space. In an area such as mine, where the average house price is £550,000, there is nothing more lucrative than turning pubs—which we are now protecting—and offices into housing, and there was a rush to do so under the permitted development rights. I acknowledge that there were lots of areas of the country where offices were lying idle and it was difficult to convert them, but I do not have that problem in St Albans. We have lost 150,000 square feet of office space already, with another 50,000 or 60,000 square feet of office space in the offing to go, and businesses are telling me that they cannot find alternative premises. When businesses’ leases are running out, they find that they cannot have certainty about renewing them, and there is a worry that offices will disappear.
We in St Albans do have a lot of work being done online, and I also have a lot of small businesses, but AECOM in Victoria street has 70,000 square feet of office space with the lease coming up for renewal, and if such companies cannot secure an article 4 direction because they in any way become rationed, that will be a worry to me. I understand why the Minister says a local authority needs to show that it has its housing allocation sorted before it can put on an article 4 direction, but, sadly, we in St Albans, with a 1994 district plan, have the worst of all possible worlds: I do not have my housing allocation sorted and I have offices disappearing. When I addressed the chamber of commerce about two months ago, business after business told me that they would have to consider their future position in St Albans if this hollowing out and selling off of the family silver, as it were, continued.
I therefore make a plea to the Minister. In areas such as St Albans, the most lucrative thing anyone can ever do is close a business and make it into a house or a block of flats. I do not want to have a city that is devoid of the vibrancy of businesses or office space. I have made representations to the Minister about this before, and I thank him for listening about the pubs, and I thank the Chancellor for giving an additional £300 million to help support pubs, but I do not want my constituency to fall in the gap between the new thought processes under the article 4 direction and the permitted development rights removal on offices.
I welcome the new drift from the Government towards supporting pubs. Too often they have been seen as not important parts of our heritage, but they are vital to places such as St Albans. I am delighted that the Government have been listening all around—well done to the Minister for that.
Greg Mulholland
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main). She does indeed represent one of the great pub cities—I think it is a city, not a town. It is a wonderful area for pubs—I live in another one, in Otley in Yorkshire—and this is a wonderful piece of good news to have so near the beginning of English tourism week, when we will celebrate all that England has to offer, including our wonderful pubs. I believe I have visited every pub in the town centre of her constituency—she might like to test me later to see if that is indeed the case. I have certainly been to The Farriers Arms, where those wonderful pioneers set up CAMRA all those years ago. I have also had a pint with Roger Protz, a real hero, who has supported this campaign.
Greg Mulholland
I did not see the hon. Lady in any of the pubs when I visited, but I assure her that those visits were partly personal and partly due to the work of my all-party group. None of them were political or part of my work as an MP. However, it is great to have support from Government Members. Many Members on both sides of the House have campaigned and persuaded the Minister in this case.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his campaign—he has been trying to get this measure through for years—and the Minister on accepting the amendment. My only concern is that the new business rates system could affect pubs and must be looked into. We also cannot forget working men’s clubs.
Greg Mulholland
I warmly thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He is quite right. Rates have been mentioned, and while we have had some positive news, more needs to be done about some of the extraordinary and damaging rises. Indeed, we need another system of taxing pubs altogether.
I thank the Minister for allowing us to get there in the end. Finally, we have been listened to. He has shown what an excellent Minister and gentleman he is. I thank him for his approach. He has engaged consistently on this issue, as has his colleague the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy)—the community pubs Minister and a good Yorkshire MP. He genuinely listened to me and—I have to call her an hon. Lady, but I can also call her a friend—the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie). There is something about MPs with “North West” in their constituencies when it comes to this issue. Her campaigning has been dogged over many years and also deserves commendation.
Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)
While we are having this cross-party pubs love-in, I want to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland), who has been a staunch campaigner on this measure for many years. Back in January 2015, I made what I thought at the time was a distinctly career-limiting decision to table a similar amendment with him, and I want to put on the record my thanks for his work. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), who has been an outstanding Minister. Many pints will be raised in his name and in the name of his colleague the community pubs Minister this weekend.
Greg Mulholland
I thank the hon. Lady for her support and echo her comments. The Minister has genuinely listened and was interested in looking for solutions when the hon. Lady and I met him on 30 January. He offered that meeting and we were delighted to have it. He actually went to the trouble of inviting me into his office last Thursday to hand me a copy of the amendment and to say exactly what the Government were going to do. That is an example of how Ministers can work with MPs from across the House to achieve things, and I warmly thank him for that.
Following my tabling of a similar amendment on 7 December, I thank Lord Kennedy of Southwark for taking up the baton excellently, ably and enthusiastically, and for showing his support by taking it through the House of Lords, which presented us with this great opportunity. I thank Protect Pubs, which is now the pre-eminent organisation campaigning for better protection for this country’s pubs. It is a member of the British Pub Confederation, which I also congratulate. I must declare an interest as I am the chair of the British Pub Confederation, and I am delighted to continue to work with all publicans and pub representative organisations within the confederation. I also thank the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams), because he introduced a private Member’s Bill with the same aim back in 2010. That is sometimes forgotten, but I told him that I would mention him and thank him in the Chamber today.
Although I tabled a similar amendment back in December, it was also tabled during the passage of the Localism Act 2011. My point then was that localism is phony if we continue to allow valued pubs to be demolished or turned into supermarkets or offices without the community having any say. That is all that we are changing today—no more, no less. We are not getting into pub protection in great detail. The amendment simply gives communities the right to have a say through a planning process, just as with anything else. It should have happened a long time ago—it is common sense—but I am delighted that it is happening now.
Echoing the comments of another pubs campaigner—the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey)—I thank the brave pro-pub councils that have brought forward article 4 directions and other pub-protection policies. They have shown that they can do certain things, but we needed this change from the Government. I also thank the Otley Pub Club from my constituency. Again, I have to declare an interest in that I am the club’s honorary president. When Ministers wrongly rejected this change back in 2015 by not accepting the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Bristol North West, the club took Ministers at their word when they said, “If you value your local pubs and if you want protection against predatory purchasing by supermarkets, list them as assets of community value,” and listed all 19 pubs in the centre of Otley to show that that was the only way communities could protect them. Communities no longer have to list all their pubs simply to remove permitted development rights. If Otley Pub Club had not had the courage to go ahead and do that, and prove that Ministers were wrong in rejecting that amendment, we may not have been here discussing this today. Asset of community value status remains important, but it no longer needs to be used in all cases for all pubs simply to end permitted development rights.
I thank the wonderful CAMRA branches and members that have engaged in the campaign over many years. It was disappointing that CAMRA headquarters did not support the amendment in December. The reasons for doing so were rather strange—perhaps there had been a particularly good Christmas party—but we are delighted that the change has finally come through after many years of campaigning. It was slightly bizarre that CAMRA was still sending messages yesterday to its members, myself included, urging us to contact our MP about a vote when there was no vote. Several MPs have said to me, “Don’t worry. We’re going to vote with you,” but I have had to tell them not to. I even had one MP say that they were going to vote against me because of the email from CAMRA, so luckily there will be no vote. However, it is rather odd that CAMRA carried on lobbying after the event. I have mentioned the Co-op issue, but CAMRA really needs to look at the failed agreement with the Co-op, which has been an appalling predatory purchaser and destroyer of pubs up and down the country. CAMRA needs to disassociate itself from the Co-op in the interests of its members and of pubs.
I must put on the record and draw attention to a significant and brave decision by the Minister. When my amendment was considered in December, a false briefing was circulated by the representatives of the large pub companies. The reason they were lobbying so hard to stop communities having the simple right to have a say was that they wanted their large pubco members to continue to be able to sell pubs to supermarkets, who can demolish them without the community having a say. People have been losing viable pubs as a result. I raised that matter on the Floor of the House and wrote to the Minister, and that was when I realised the kind of Minister he was. Rather than the usual response from civil servants, he wrote back to me, and I want to quote from the letter because it was so nice and refreshing to have an acknowledgment from a Minister. It said:
“I recognise that in doing so I referenced briefing that was made available more generally by the British Beer and Pub Association in relation to existing permitted development rights for pubs. You are right to point out that their briefing contained inaccuracies, and therefore I am pleased to confirm for the record that it is the case that the removal of permitted development rights for the change of use or demolition of pubs, as a result of the nomination or listing as an Asset of Community Value, has no effect on a pub’s ability to make internal changes.”
It was great to have that confirmation, but it is a serious matter that a clearly interested party was sending false information to hon. Members, misleading them about something that was extremely simple.
The Government have clearly decided not to accept my original amendment of 7 December, nor Lord Kennedy’s of 28 February, but I understand their reasons for doing so and have made it clear to the Minister that he has my full support for the new amendment and that I am delighted with the outcome.
The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) raised the concern that the Government decided to include the mixed use category of A3/A4 because they did not want to stop publicans serving food. In actual fact, there is no need for the category because we know that food is served in many pubs in category A4 but not in others, and sometimes that changes from week to week. There is no need for the change, but the first concern that has been raised is whether the same permitted development rights will be in place for the mixed category. The Minister has made it clear that that will be the case, which is fairly clear in the Bill.
However, I flag up the genuine and very serious concern about article 4 directions because, to use the Minister’s words, there is an unintended consequence whereby many councils have decided to introduce important and impressive article 4 directions to bring in strong protections for pubs—stronger than will be offered by the amendment, as he knows—including stopping the predatory developers that the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) mentioned, but those protections apply only to A4. There is a real danger that it could create a loophole whereby unscrupulous owners or developers can seek a mixed use designation to get out of the strong pub protection that exists in some areas.
Now that is on the public record, and now it is understood in a way that perhaps it has not been by some organisations, I urge the Minister to consider introducing a statutory instrument, in addition to this amendment, to ensure that the new mixed use A4/A3 category, which is for pub restaurants that should clearly have the same protection, does not fall foul of another loophole by no longer being covered by existing pub protection policies. That should be easy to address with a statutory instrument, and then everyone will be happy with the amendment as a whole. In a sense, he has done something remarkable because, despite their opposition and misleading briefings, both the British Beer and Pub Association and one of its large pubco members, Punch Taverns, have said that they are perfectly happy with the amendment. He has done something significant but, now that it has been spotted, he needs to plug the potential loophole with a statutory instrument to ensure that it does not become a problem.
Finally, I thank the Minister and all hon. and right hon. Members who have taken part in this campaign over many years. I raised the issue as far back as 2008, and it was one of the key aims when we set up the all-party Save the Pub group. It has taken longer than expected and hoped for, but we have got there now, with the caveat of closing the loophole that has been identified.
Greg Mulholland
The hon. Gentleman is kind, and it is nice of him to say so. It has been a pleasure working with him, and with Members on both sides of the House, because that is how, as parliamentarians with an interest and a zeal for campaigning, we can change things. We can all do it in different ways, and I look forward to doing so in the future. The changes we have had, including on pub companies, show that we can succeed and that all-party groups and campaigning in this place, when done well, can be successful. I have been nearly 20,000 feet up a mountain with the hon. Gentleman, but I have never been to a pub in Bassetlaw with him, which we might have to put right. If he would like to do that, I would be delighted to join him.
There is a real threat from unscrupulous developers, owners, pub companies and supermarkets that seek to offload pubs, demolish them and get supermarkets in place before planning permission is needed, and I remind the House of the utter absurdity that communities currently have no right to object to the imposition of a supermarket and the loss of a viable pub, but have the right in the planning process to complain about the supermarket’s signage. The amendment is finally reversing that nonsense, but it will continue to happen until the amendment is enacted. Now that the Government have made clear their intent, which has the full support of both Houses—that is very unusual—and of all major parties, the Minister should seriously consider a moratorium on any demolitions or conversions. A moratorium would be extremely useful in stopping the continued loss of pubs.
Toby Perkins
Will the hon. Gentleman expand on his suggestion? Many of us share the concern, which I raised a moment ago, about a rush towards demolition. He proposes a moratorium, but is he proposing that the industry commits to such a thing or that the House passes something to bring it about?
Greg Mulholland
I am asking the Minister and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. The Secretary of State’s name is on the amendment, so I take this opportunity to thank him because he has clearly listened and accepted the proposal. As he knows, I also go to pubs in his constituency because I have family in Bromsgrove.
It is for the experts in the Department to consider the possibility of introducing a moratorium, because there is no possibility of it being done externally. This is not a matter simply for the industry. The Co-op is probably the worst pub killer of all the supermarket chains, others of which have been pretty bad. The supermarket chains are not part of the pub sector, and they see pubs as fodder for imposing their unwanted stores on communities. The supermarket chains will clearly not jump to do this, and nor will developers that are seeking to exploit high land values in London, St Albans and other parts of the country. From that point of view, it would be great if the Minister said that there should be a moratorium and, in the spirit of this change, called on people not to pursue such conversions now that they are deemed by Parliament to be wrong.
This is not the end of the matter. Ultimately, it has not been about securing great protection for pubs; that is one of the things that has been rather misunderstood and misrepresented, sometimes by both sides of the argument. It is simply about giving communities a say and about removing absurd permitted development rights that created a loophole that has been exploited by large pub-owning companies and large supermarkets for too long. There will still be predatory developers, and pub companies will still seek to undermine pubs to secure development or to go through the planning process for building a supermarket.
As I have said, the assets of community value scheme remains important, but it is now time to consider strengthening it. Giving communities a genuine right to buy, as communities in Scotland have, is long overdue and would represent genuine localism. I have had a conversation with the Minister, and it is now time to consider a separate category in the planning and tax system for community pubs, which are the ones that we really care about. They are the ones that have the community value, which many Members have mentioned, in a way that other licensed drinking establishments do not.
CAMRA has so far said that it does not want to engage in this, but it is now time to crack the nut of defining a genuine community pub that does the things we have talked about and that has value to the community. The British Pub Confederation and Protect Pubs certainly wish to do so. If we do that, in addition to creating the extra layer of genuine planning protection for those pubs, and only those pubs, against predatory development, and only when the pubs are viable, we can crack the nut of having a different system of taxation, and we will never again see the disastrous headlines for the Treasury such as of one pub in York facing a 600% increase in its rateable value. I was in that very small pub, the wonderful Slip Inn, a couple of weeks ago during the Liberal Democrat conference. As I did at the meeting with the hon. Member for Bristol North West, I offer to work with the Minister to find a way of doing that, which could offer the security we need for our hugely important, viable community pubs.
This wonderful news is the start of a conversation, and I thank the Minister and all those involved. This is a hugely significant day in pub campaigning. As this is English Tourism Week, I know that every Member here today, and many more who are not, will want to raise a glass to this win for pubs and to the Minister for listening to all the campaigners who have helped to make it happen. They will want to toast this victory and the importance of the great English and great British pub.
John Redwood
I, too, am happy to support the Minister on his amendments. Like other Members, I have been lobbied by constituents who think that they should have the right to intervene, with a proper planning process, in the unique case of a pub. It will be a great pleasure to write back to them to say that we have a listening Minister who has heard their representations and the strong lobbying by colleagues here who have been campaigning on this issue for a long time. However, when we make this legislative change, we must also remind people that it does not save every pub. As the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) made clear, those who are keenest to save their local pub need to make sure that enough people use it. The only ultimate guarantee that it can continue to serve is that people like and support it, or that they in a friendly way influence the owner or manager so that it provides the service and range that they wish and it will thereby attract sufficient community support. This is a welcome legislative change but we need to remind people that local government will be no more able to save a pub than national Government if there is not that strong body of support in the local community and an offer that people want.
The Minister is right to give the pubs the maximum flexibility to change what they do. If pubs are to serve the evolving communities of our country, they sometimes need to move on what they offer by way of the balance between food and drinks, the ambience and the surroundings, because people’s tastes and people change, community by community. I therefore welcome the extra flexibility he is giving.
The main point I wish to make relates to the wider issue of changes from offices to homes and other changes of use class. The Minister is right to say that he needs to preserve flexibility. Any Member visiting a high street or centre in their own or another community knows that an avalanche of change is taking place. The internet, digitisation, robotics and automation are making a huge difference to the way business is conducted and services are delivered. A lot of change to the shape of the high street and the adjacent streets, and some of the office areas, will be required to make sure that the property there is updated and flexible so that it can meet the requirements of these evolving businesses.
We need flexibility, as in some cases we will have too many shops or offices, and it would be much better if they were converted to housing, because there is considerable need in town and city centres, as well as elsewhere, for additional housing. If some of that could be at prices that young people can afford, that would be an excellent bonus, as we still face a huge problem, with a new generation of potential homeowners priced out of many parts of the country by the very high prices. We need to understand that many of the new businesses and the new service offers will be internet-based and will come from new service centres that do not have to be in the town centres, and that the kind of things that people do need physical property for in the town or city centre will be different from the more traditional uses to which we have been accustomed.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend think that the transformation of shops and offices into homes can regenerate town centres?
John Redwood
Yes, it can, with the right mixture. Some offices may need to be transformed into homes and a broader retail offer, with a higher proportion of coffee shops, restaurants and so on, may need to be made. If more people are living in flats or smaller properties that they can afford in the town centre, they may well then make more use of the town in the evening, and the range of services and the life of the town is thus extended beyond the traditional shopping hours during the day. I am sure the Minister understands all that. I hope he will see how he can develop other ways to ensure that our planning system for commercial property is sufficiently flexible to allow residential use where that is the best answer and to ensure flexible use patterns in the commercial property that we have, as massive change will be needed.
The planning system of course has to protect the things that the community legitimately wants to protect, so we do not want non-conforming uses in certain areas and we certainly do not want bad or noisy neighbours, who may be regulated by planning or by other general laws on nuisance. Within that, we need maximum flexibility so that commercial owners and managers can adapt or change the use of their premises, or swap them for a more appropriate property for their use. If the planning system can facilitate that, it will greatly improve our flexibility as an economy, meaning that we can modernise more rapidly and move on to a more productive world, which is the main feature of the Chancellor’s policies for our economy.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
First, may I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a shareholder of a small family business which for the past 40 years has included a single pub? Today, there has been a huge amount of agreement on the appropriateness of the Government’s amendments to Lords amendment 22, and I pay tribute to a lot of people who have been involved in that process. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland), who is also, in effect, the Member for CAMRA in this House. I know how seriously he takes his duties in that respect. He rightly highlighted English Tourism Week, but even more importantly this weekend we have the Gloucester beer festival. It runs from 31 March to 1 April, which, appropriately, some may say, happens to be my wedding anniversary, and takes place in the historic setting of Blackfriars, the world’s best-preserved Dominican priory. So I invite all Members to come to Gloucester this weekend, as there will be 100 beers, 30 ciders and perries, and an unbelievable atmosphere, in a great and noble old setting.
That deals with the preamble, so I come on to what I really want to say. I seek to strike a slightly different note, mild caution, and ask the Minister whether he has thought carefully about the possible unintended consequences of his amendment—I am sure he has. It would be a cruel irony if, in trying to protect pubs, this addition to the Bill triggered sales of pubs by small owners and increased the stranglehold on pubs of the large pubcos and very large brewers.
The Minister will know that there is a long history of unintended consequences in the brewing and pub sector. If we go back in time, we find that this House legislated against individual brewers owning more than 2,000 pubs, which inadvertently created large pubcos. The wheel has now almost come full circle, with Heineken proposing to buy back 2,000 pubs from a pubco. So there are times when, by trying to manage too finely what happens to our pubs, we end up with unintended consequences.
My concern, which I have also heard expressed by one or two small owners of pubs in my constituency, is that this sort of change could threaten the covenant with the banks that finance them. Lenders may lend more willingly on the understanding that in the unfortunate event of the pub failing there will always be value in the buildings for other uses, as that then underpins the security on which they lend to small owners. As in our pub, it is the small owners of pubs who tend to develop their own brewhouse and produce the real ale that CAMRA is all about. On the whole, the large pubcos and large brewers, who have their own entirely tied arrangements, are not going to produce the creative, small beers and the brewhouses which have regenerated this whole sector so effectively over the past 10 or 15 years.
Therefore, my question to the Minister is: has he thought carefully about the possible unintended consequences? Has he had any discussions with some of the individual owners of pubs or with their bankers and lenders? Will he reassure us that he believes that these changes are a compromise that do give enough flexibility to retain the support of those who lend to small owners of pubs and to provide that variety—what the hon. Member for Leeds North West was calling the “community pubs”? That is hard to define, but it is often when a pub is family-owned.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
This is a topic very close to my heart, as it evidently is for Members from both sides of the Chamber. We know how important pubs are to the fabric of our communities. They are more than just a place that sells alcohol; they are a meeting place and a community heart. In many areas, they are the one bit of heritage of historical value in the local area in terms of architecture. In my own town, Oldham, where terraced streets were thrown up to house the millworkers, very little attention was paid to the architectural quality of the buildings. The architectural quality generally stands out in the local church and the local pub.
I sometimes drive round my town with a very heavy heart as I see some really inappropriate conversions, not only in terms of use but because the fact that they do not require planning permission often means that the important conversation about retaining heritage value in a building just has not taken place. Quite often, beautiful stained glass windows will be completely ripped out in favour of cheap, white, UPVC plastic windows. That might seem like a minor issue, but if that is the focal point of a community and it has had its heart ripped out, it affects how people feel about the place where they live.
I am pleased that the Government are acknowledging the role that pubs play in the local community, not only in the way I just described but through their economic value. Pubs are worth £22 billion a year to the economy, and £13 billion is raised from them in taxes and duties which, of course, funds our vital public services. They support nearly 1 million jobs. Just in the time I have been on this planet, since 1980, 21,000 pubs have closed, and 21 pubs close every week. It is urgent that we get the changes we are discussing, and quickly, because we do not want developers to try to move fast and aggressively in the knowledge that change is coming, looking to demolish or change use in the meantime. While we are having this debate, three pubs will close—every day, three pubs close in this country—so there is a sense of urgency about ensuring that community rights are protected.
I listened with great interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins). I give him credit for the work he has done on the all-party parliamentary pub group to expose the importance of local pubs in giving a community a voice. I must admit that I had a smile on my face listening to his romantic description of that first experience of walking through a pub door. Depending on the pub’s proprietor, we do not always get a welcome—sometimes we feel as though we have walked into somebody’s living room—but at their best pubs are open and welcoming and they make us feel like part of the family, even if we are perfect strangers. That is why it is so important that they are maintained. We live in a time when people are becoming more socially disconnected and when families spend very little time together, so places where people come together are important.
This Friday and Saturday, I am sure Members will have the time on their hands to come up to Oldham, where we will be celebrating the Oldham beer festival, at which more than 60 real ales and ciders, many from the north-west, will be on display for people to test. There will be a fantastic example of local British produce. That is one way the community comes together.
The debate has been very positive, but if I may be slightly critical—though this probably goes beyond the current Government—we have not seen a compelling vision of what the British pub will be for this country and how the Government will offer support to the pub industry across different policy areas.
Greg Mulholland
The hon. Gentleman made an enormously important point about architecture and heritage. On the point that he has just made, I could not agree with him more. He has considerable expertise in local government, which he showed in a recent meeting on business rates, so we need him to contribute to this debate and it is great that he is doing so. Will he consider seriously the idea put forward by me, the British Pub Confederation and Protect Pubs, which is that we should find a way to identify genuine community pubs, separate from bars, so that we can give them extra planning protection? We need to be clear that these changes to the Bill will not give them that protection. We should also look for a better way to tax pubs appropriately with regard to their community function. I would love to work with the hon. Gentleman and everyone to try to do that.
Jim McMahon
That is an important point. In the debates on the Local Government Finance Bill and business rates revaluation, Labour was clear in pressing for the need to recognise properly the role and value of community pubs and how they are often affected by a range of taxation, whether that is duties, business rates or rises in national insurance contributions, or by the increase in the national living wage. All those will affect a pub’s viability. It is important that we have one review to look to protect pubs. In many places, quite often when a pub provides that essential community facility, it is the only facility left in the area. Perhaps the church, post office and butcher have closed, along with other facilities, so it may well be that the pub is the only place where the community can come together. Residents will be rightly fearful that the response so far does not go across the whole of Government and they will want to see a plan.
We heard an announcement about permitted development rights and the change from office use to residential. The Opposition have been forceful in our view that the extension of permitted development rights should be reversed. There have been some extremely inappropriate developments, often against local community interests and against what the local community says it wants for the area. Developers are often looking for short-term gain at the expense of a community’s long-term sustainability. Will the Minister look seriously at the genuine impact of the policy change? There is no doubt that it has increased the number of units brought to market, but I would question the quality of those units, not only in terms of their size—many of them are very small indeed—but in terms of the attention to detail, the finish and the quality of life for people who live in converted office accommodation. Developers will quite often squeeze as many units into a premises as possible, bypassing the planning regime that any residential development would have to follow. The loophole needs to be closed at some point.
Mrs Main
The other matter that I am concerned about in areas such as mine is the lack of outside amenity space associated with offices. Like London, there are many families with children living in flats in St Albans, and there is very limited access to family friendly facilities in city centres.
Jim McMahon
That is a very important point. We recognise that many town and city centres have suffered from a decline in office accommodation, but as those towns and cities look to the future and to regenerate their centres, they will want to know that they can have a basic level of office provision in a redeveloped town centre. It is essential for footfall, which then means support for a range of ancillary services such as coffee shops, sandwich shops and retail units as well.
John Redwood
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the most prosperous and dynamic town and city centres in our country have a phenomenal rate of change, with constant re-use, modernisation and updating of the properties.
Jim McMahon
I entirely accept that point, but I have a rather simplistic view—perhaps it is a naive view—that local communities should have a voice in that development. It is really important that local people have some sense of ownership and direction over their town, village or city. Many people feel completely excluded from that process. There is an issue with the extension of permitted development rights to cover office conversions. It could be that the local community has decided that such a move is right for their area and that it should therefore be supported, but that can be dealt with through a normal planning application. If the community is supportive of it and if the right accommodation has been chosen for the outdoor play area, for waste collection, for parking and for all the other amenities that are required, that will be facilitated through the normal planning process. I shall press the Minister to look again at that matter.
A compelling vision of what the British pub can be, and of what it can expect from our Government would be welcomed not just by the pub industry but, more broadly, by the whole community. I say to the Minister that, rather than waiting for someone else to come forward with such a vision or for Cabinet approval, he could pull the whole thing together himself. There are plenty of all-party groups that would absolutely be willing to contribute to that conversation. On the Labour Benches, I and others would want to play our part in doing that, because it is so important. When these pubs are gone, they are gone forever and they will never come back. For many areas, once that happens, it is development that has gone too far.
It would be remiss of me not to reflect on the fact that we are considering this amendment because of the fantastic work of Lord Kennedy in the other place in recognising how important this matter is and in bringing it forward. I am pleased with the Government’s approach to this amendment, but of course the amendment would not be here for debate had it not been for the work of the Members in the other place. I thank Lord Kennedy and the others who contributed to that debate for the work that they have done. Members who are involved in all-party groups should continue with their work. From the Labour Benches I say to the Minister that if there is anything we can do in policy development terms to support this work that is so critical to the fabric of our communities, he has our time, support and energy in seeing it through.
Gavin Barwell
This has been a very positive and productive debate. Let me respond briefly to a few of the points that have been mentioned. I must pay tribute to the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) for the role that he plays in leading the pubs all-party group and for the lobbying that he has done on this issue. In referring to his numerous visits to pubs, he said that behind every door is a different surprise. That rather put me in mind of inspecting my children’s bedrooms after they have been told to clear them up.
The hon. Gentleman rightly paid tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), for the work that he has done on pubs. In particular, he expressed concern about the time between this announcement and the regulations being put in place. I will just reiterate what I said, which is that we intend to get them in place before July. We will do it as soon as possible. Clearly, it depends on when this Bill gets Royal Assent and when the regulations are drafted. We recognise the importance of moving quickly here. In the interim, there is the option of using assets of community value as a means of protection, and I will certainly look at whether we can make any other transitional arrangements. Clearly, those arrangements may have the same problem in terms of the time involved in drafting secondary legislation.
Toby Perkins
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is right that there are existing protections available. The hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) suggested some kind of moratorium. I am not clear how, legislatively, that might be performed. May I invite the Minister to join me in calling on all the organisations that might be tempted to show the worst of values and rush things through in advance of legislation instead to show the best of values and treat this as legislation that already exists, and to go through the proper planning processes for any decisions that they make between now and July?
Gavin Barwell
I am happy to say that it is quite clear, both from the debate in the other place and this debate today, that Parliament has expressed a very clear will on this issue. Obviously, I hope that everybody in the industry will, in the intervening period, respect that the clear will of Parliament has been expressed in this debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) made the very important point that the Government have listened not just on this issue, but on the issue of business rates in the Budget. I note that she was one of those who was lobbying in that regard. She raised some concerns in relation to offices and residential permitted development rights. I cannot add a great deal more than what I said in my speech, but I can clarify one point, which is that her council is free now to look at an article 4 direction for a specific area of the city if there is a problem. What we are looking at here is our willingness to allow an article 4 direction over the whole of a local authority area. It is right that we allow that only where local authorities are delivering the housing that their communities need.
The hon. Member for Leeds North West tweeted me shortly after we tabled the amendment saying that everyone knows that he is uncompromising and robust, but that he is also fair. He demonstrated that in his kind words today. Obviously, I am the Minister standing at the Dispatch Box, but he was right to pay tribute to the Secretary of State, who played an important role in agreeing this policy change. It was good of the hon. Gentleman to put that on the record. I was going to do so myself. I also pay tribute to the excellent officials who have worked on the Bill team and in the relevant policy areas. The “elegance of the solution”—if I can use the hon. Gentleman’s phrase—is all theirs and not mine.
The hon. Gentleman raised two specific issues. The first was whether we can look over time at extra protection for community pubs. We can certainly discuss that with those who are interested. Some of those issues may be to do with planning, but they may spill over into other areas of Government policy. He also raised particular concerns about some of the planning policies of authorities that have put protections in place. Clearly, if there are local plan policies that explicitly refer to A4 drinking establishments, they can be updated to reflect the policy change that we are making today to cover the mixed A4-A3 use.
The hon. Gentleman raised a particular point about A4, which I did not entirely understand. He might want to explain that now, but it might be better if he wrote to me, because I can write back to him and give him the assurance that he needs.
Greg Mulholland
This is a really important point. As the Minister knows, he has had a letter about it from a leading pubs planning consultant. It is about article 4 directions. The concern is that the only way that article 4 will be anything but worthless for the new mixed use category is for the council to come up with an entire new article 4. The Minister says that local planning policies can be updated, but article 4 directions have to go through a certain process, so he will have to take responsibility for drawing up a statutory instrument in which, clearly, the intention is to protect all developments within the category which is now A4 and some A4/A3. They all need to be covered. He will need to look at that.
Gavin Barwell
I will certainly look at that issue and come back to the hon. Gentleman, as he raises a fair point.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), perhaps predictably for those who know him well, made the very important point that, ultimately, the way in which we protect pubs in the country is through customers—through people using and supporting those local facilities. I was very grateful to him for his support on the issue of office to residential conversion. He is quite right to say that we need to ensure that our planning system is sufficiently flexible to ensure that local economies can adapt quickly to the changes that we are seeing in our society and in economic activity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) issued a warning about the potential downsides to this policy. He asked me whether we have considered them, and we certainly have. One reason why the Government initially resisted this change was the view that, clearly, where institutions have a permitted development right, it is reflected in the value of those institutions and that will affect decisions that lenders make. It will also reflect the values that people have on their books. There seems to be a clear will in both Houses of Parliament that, given the value of pubs as community institutions, we do not want people to be able to convert pubs for other uses or to demolish them without going through the planning process. We take this decision knowing that there is always another side to these issues, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, but the Government have looked at the matter and come to the view that there is a clear will in Parliament to take a different approach to the issue.
The hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton made a good point about the low quality over the years of some conversions or replacement buildings after demolitions. I can think of examples in my constituency. We lost the Blacksmith’s Arms, which has been replaced by an unsightly building in a key district centre. Conversely, the Swan and Sugarloaf, which was a very recognisable building right on the edge of my constituency in south Croydon, has been converted to a Tesco Express. There was actually a renovation of the building’s architecture, significantly improving its appearance. Those examples can work either way, but the hon. Gentleman raised a valid point.
The hon. Gentleman talked more generally about the need for a vision for pubs. That vision has to come primarily from the industry, although the Government can clearly play a supporting role. He invited me to come forward, but I think that is the responsibility of the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole. I know that he has engaged extensively with the all-party parliamentary group and with others in the House who have a passion for those issues. There is clearly a real wish on both sides of the House to see these vital community assets thrive and succeed in the modern economy. The Government have shown willing to look at these issues and see what we can do to support them.
The two sides of the House differ on the issue of office to residential conversion. I have been very clear since the Prime Minister gave me this job that there is a desperate need for more housing. Therefore, it is incumbent on the Government to support policies that drive a step change in housing supply. There is clear evidence, for anyone who wants to look at the statistics that are published in November each year on net additions, that this policy is adding about 13,000 extra units of housing. I accept that it is a blunt tool, and that not all of those homes are of the quality we would want. I would not necessarily agree with the hon. Gentleman’s view that they are universally of poor quality. There are some very good schemes in my constituency that have come about through permitted development conversions. None the less, in the situation we face—which was 30 or 40 years in the making, with Governments not ensuring that we built sufficient homes—the main focus has to be on getting supply up.
With the changes that we have announced in the other place and that I have run through today, we have sought to say that where local authorities are delivering the required level of housing and can prove that they can do so without this permitted development right, the Secretary of State will look kindly on authority-wide article 4 directions and will not seek to block them. For those who do not like this policy, there is a very clear message: if they have other policies through which they can deliver the housing that their local area needs, the Government are quite willing to be flexible. What we will not do is rescind this policy nationally when so many parts of the country are failing to build the homes we need.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the noble Lord Kennedy and the role he has played in bringing forward this amendment. I also pay tribute to him. In the past couple of months of doing this job, the response from the Labour Front Bench in the other House, and from Labour local authority leaders around the country, to the strategy set out in the Government’s housing White Paper has been noticeably encouraging. I am grateful for the constructive way in which the other place looked at the measures in the Bill.
Lords amendment 22 disagreed to.
Government amendments (a) and (b) made in lieu of Lords amendment 22.
Clause 12
Restrictions On Power To Impose Planning Conditions
Gavin Barwell
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 12.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Lords amendments 10 and 11, 13 50 21 and 85 to 90.
Gavin Barwell
In contrast to the debate on pubs, which was really an issue that arose on Report thanks to the hon. Member for Leeds North West tabling his amendment, there have been extensive debates on the planning conditions clause during the passage of the Bill through both Houses. The Government have tabled a number of amendments seeking to address the concerns that have been raised in both Houses and in response to our consultation on the measures.
In particular, the Government have tabled two amendments to clause 12 that take forward recommendations in the 15th report of the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The first of these is Lords amendment 21, which would apply the affirmative parliamentary procedure to any regulations made under subsection (1). The Government accept the Committee’s view that the negative procedure is not an adequate level of parliamentary scrutiny for the exercise of the power, and have amended the Bill accordingly.
The second is amendment 14, which also responds to a recommendation from the Committee—namely, that the Secretary of State should be required to consult before making regulations under subsection (6). Provided this requirement to consult is put into place, the Committee said that it would regard the negative procedure as an adequate level of parliamentary scrutiny for this particular power. The Government agree with this recommendation, as it is important that consideration is given to the views of developers, local planning authorities and other interested parties before making regulations under subsection (6). Amendment 14 therefore places a duty on the Secretary of State to carry out such consultation before making regulations.
Lords amendment 18 responds to views expressed in response to the Government’s consultation on improving the use of planning conditions. A number of respondents across a range of sectors, including local authorities, developers and interest groups, called for guidance. They asked that, if the Government’s proposed powers under this clause come into force, updated planning guidance should be issued on the operation of the provisions. The Government agree with that view. We made a commitment in our response to the consultation to publish updated guidance to support the changes, if they are brought forward. In order to give assurance to all parties, amendment 18 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to issue guidance to planning authorities on the operation of this clause, and any regulations made under it. This guidance will set out advice that may be useful and of interest to applicants, local authorities and other interested parties.
Amendment 12, which is not a Government amendment, seeks further to constrain the use of the proposed power in subsection (1). It is right that the Government do not intend to use the power to prevent local authorities from imposing planning conditions that accord with the national planning policy framework. However, section 100ZA already has this effect. Any regulations made under subsection (1) must be consistent with the test for planning conditions in the national planning policy framework. Subsection (2) provides that the Secretary of State must make provision under subsection (1) only if it is appropriate to ensure that conditions meet the policy tests in paragraph 206 of the national planning policy framework. For the benefit of the House, those are that planning conditions should be imposed only when they are necessary; when they are relevant to planning and to the development being permitted; when they are enforceable and precise; and when they are reasonable in all other respects.
The Government’s case is very simple: Lords amendment 12 is unnecessary. More than that, by placing the policy test on the face of the Bill as we have done, rather than referring to the framework by name, the Government are making it clear in the legislation that the purpose of the power is to ensure compliance with those tests. Further constraints on the Secretary of State’s power in subsection (1) will be applied by Lords amendments 14 and 21, which I have covered—they require public consultation and the affirmative parliamentary procedure to any regulations made under the power.
On Lords amendments 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19 and 20, and 85 to 90, clause 12 provides the Secretary of State with a power to make regulations about what kind of conditions may or may not be imposed on a grant of planning permission, and in what circumstances. The proposed power will apply in respect of any grant of planning permission. It had included permission granted by order of the Secretary of State, the Mayor of London, local authorities or neighbourhood planning groups. In the light of the responses we received to the consultation on the proposed new power, we have decided that it is not appropriate to apply the power to the making of orders, as opposed to applying it to the granting of planning permission. We have therefore sought to amend the clause to that effect.
Gavin Barwell
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendments 2 and 3.
Lords amendment 4, and amendment (a) thereto.
Lords amendments 5 to 9.
Lords amendment 23, and amendment (a) thereto.
Lords amendment 24 to 84.
Gavin Barwell
The shadow Minister has caused confusion by not objecting to proposals that some anticipated he might object to. That is fine by the Government, and I will happily proceed. I am probably also right in saying that Members who wish to speak on this group of amendments might have anticipated the debate on the second group lasting longer. I will try to talk at a little more length to give my hon. Friends time to arrive in the Chamber to take part.
This is the third group of amendments and I want to provide the House with an update on the other amendments made to the Bill in the House of Lords—[Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) is here. There we are.
First, on the amendments relating to neighbourhood planning, I thank all hon. Members and peers who contributed to the debate as the Bill has progressed through Parliament. It is clear that there is strong cross-party support for this important reform, which was introduced by the coalition Government. I very much welcome the positive and constructive debate we have had on the clauses. We are all seeking to ensure that neighbourhood planning—the quiet revolution, as described by my ministerial colleague Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth —continues to go from strength to strength. In that regard, I point the House not only to the important clauses in the Bill, but to my written ministerial statement, which we talked about on Report, and the further clarification provided by the housing White Paper.
The definition of a post-examination neighbourhood plan in clause 1 is clarified by Lords amendments 1, 2 and 3 to ensure that decision makers are in no doubt as to when they must have regard to them.
On Lords amendment 4, I committed on Report in the Commons to return to an important issue raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs and others on the voice of communities in planning decisions. The Government have therefore brought forward Lords amendment 4, which will require local planning authorities automatically to notify parish councils and designated neighbourhood forums of any future planning applications in the relevant neighbourhood area. Automatic notification would apply once parish councils and designated neighbourhood forums had in place a post-examination neighbourhood plan, as defined by clause 1. Parish councils and designated neighbourhood forums will be able to opt out of automatic notification or request that they are notified only of applications of a particular type. However, they will have the automatic right to be notified, exactly as requested by my right hon. Friend, and that is now on the face of the Bill. Rather than respond at this stage to the amendment that he has tabled, I might allow him to speak, if he intends to do so, and respond at that point.
Lords amendment 5 will allow the Secretary of State, through regulations, to prescribe further requirements that an examiner of a neighbourhood plan or a neighbourhood development order must follow in engaging with those with an interest in the examination. Subject to consideration of the outcome of the housing White Paper, which is still out for consultation, the amendment will allow the Secretary of State to make regulations that place a duty on the person appointed to examine a neighbourhood plan or a neighbourhood development order to provide information to, and hold meetings with, parish councils, designated neighbourhood forums, local planning authorities and others, and to publish their draft recommendations.
I thank all hon. Members and peers who have helped to shape these amendments, and I particularly thank Baroness Cumberlege, who was heavily involved in shaping this amendment in the other place. The concern is that people often put a huge amount of work into producing a neighbourhood plan, which is then examined and the examiner requires amendments to be made without people having any opportunity to discuss those proposals or to understand the logic behind them. That is why we have introduced these amendments. We want to ensure that this process helps people who give up their spare time and put effort into producing neighbourhood plans to get the result they want in terms of how their local community develops. As I said, I am really grateful to Baroness Cumberlege and others in the other place for the time and effort they have put into these amendments and for the meetings they have had with me and my ministerial colleague Lord Bourne to try to get the detail right.
On Report in the Commons, my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen), who is not in her place, raised the vital issue of planning for the housing needs of older people and the disabled. All hon. Members will appreciate the importance of this issue not only in ensuring that this group of people, which will grow over the coming years, has a range of housing provision suitable to its needs—many of us will have seen in our constituencies that that range of provision is not there at the moment—but in helping with some of the wider housing problems I am trying to deal with. Clearly, if greater alternative provision is made available, and people can downsize from their existing accommodation, that releases vital family housing on to the market. This is therefore a really important issue, and I made it clear that I was grateful to my hon. Friend for raising it. I committed to look at it carefully, and the Government subsequently brought forward amendment 6 in Committee in the Lords.
There was considerable cross-party support for the amendment in the other place. It amends section 34 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to require the Secretary of State to produce guidance for local planning authorities about how their local development documents, taken as a whole, should address the housing needs of older and disabled people. Page 62 of the housing White Paper sets out some of our key ambitions for this new guidance. In essence, without going into all the detail, the White Paper has two main areas that are focused in this direction. First, we are looking at our planning policies and how we can make sure that our local authorities are planning for a suitable range of alternative provision. There is definitely a partial solution to this problem in relation to planning reform. Secondly, we are asking whether people have thoughts or ideas about whether other measures are needed to incentivise people to downsize. In other words, is the problem just a lack of suitable provision in the area, or are there other barriers that we need to try to find a way to overcome to enable people to access accommodation that is more suitable to their needs? We are very much looking forward to seeing the responses to the White Paper as they come in so that we can consider these issues in more depth.
It is probably worth touching briefly on supported housing, which is clearly crucial in this regard. Hon. Members will be aware that we recently consulted on the new funding model that we have in mind for supported housing. We received a huge response to that consultation. We are analysing that at the moment, and we will come forward with a Green Paper later this year. Again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire, whose initiative ultimately lies behind Lords amendment 6.
Lords amendments 7, 8 and 9 to clause 11 will encourage early conversations between the local planning authority and its community about the future local growth and development needs of their area by allowing the Secretary of State to make regulations that set out the matters that local planning authorities must address in their statements of community involvement. We talked about this in Committee. For example, the regulations might require local planning authorities to set out the advice they would provide on the relationship between their local plan and neighbourhood plans in the area, and ensure that communities, including parishes and designated neighbourhood forums, are left in no doubt about when and how they will be able to get involved in the planning of their area.
Jim McMahon
On community involvement, there can be a conflict when mayoral plans—the strategic development plans for combined areas—are being developed in areas where no neighbourhood plan is in place, and local people at times feel that their voice is not being heard. In my area of Greater Manchester, there is a significant tension because the combined authority is proposing to build on green-belt land without an accurate or full brownfield register being in place. Where areas do not have a neighbourhood plan in place, and the local plan has been stalled pending the strategic plan, people feel frustrated that they do not have a voice in the process. Will the Minister give a bit of detail on how they might have a voice?
Gavin Barwell
I am obviously aware of the Greater Manchester spatial strategy. I need to be a little careful, for reasons I am sure the hon. Gentleman will understand, not to comment on the detail of that, because it may well end up on my desk. However, he raises a really important point. The Government are very interested in the wider application of the process that is happening in Greater Manchester. As he says, a number of individual local authorities have decided that rather than produce their own plans they will produce a strategy for the wider area. There is much to commend that in principle. However, if that plan is slightly more distant from individual local communities, it is important that there are mechanisms by which people can engage in the process and do not feel that planning is being done to them rather than their having an involvement.
Gavin Barwell
I will in a second, because I suspect that my hon. Friend has a very similar issue—potentially —in his area.
I will certainly reflect, in any regulations that we might bring forward, on what the issues might be when there is a wider strategic plan. If the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) wishes to talk to me informally about some of the things he has experienced, I would be very happy to have that conversation.
Mr Jackson
For once my hon. Friend is wrong, because I do not have a problem with my own devolution settlement. In fact, I am a sinner repenting: I was quite hostile to it, but now I think it is going to work out for my constituents in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough.
May I take the Minister back to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen)? Will he ensure that any guidance on the neighbourhood planning regime also takes into account strategic housing issues relating to projections of housing need and the strategic housing market assessment to which local authorities have to refer before they put together their own local plan? That is an important document and it needs to be robust.
Gavin Barwell
The Government and the Whips Office in particular always welcome a sinner who repenteth. My hon. Friend makes two very good points. The White Paper proposes moving to a standard methodology for the assessment of need, and we will incentivise all local authorities to use it. None the less, it remains the case that that methodology will provide a number of the total amount of housing need, but local authorities will still need to think about the mix of housing and of tenures relevant to their local community, and the demographic profile of the need for housing in their area. He makes a very important point and we will certainly ensure that the guidance covers those issues.
John Mann
If a local authority is making progress with its local development plan but waiting for the Secretary of State’s approval, and if a new city region or combined authority that it joins during that period decides to take a different overall strategic approach to housing, what effect would all that work and decision making have on that scenario? Will that be part of the guidance, to ensure that communities that have been fully consulted and that have made decisions are not sent back to the drawing board, which would delay rather than promote future housing, because of that possible crossover?
Gavin Barwell
That is not an easy question to answer in the abstract. Generally speaking—I am not an expert on this; I am sure the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—in most of the devolution agreements that have set up a requirement to produce a spatial strategy, each of the individual constituent authorities in the combined authority has a veto. That is certainly the case in Greater Manchester, and I believe it is the case everywhere other than in relation to the London plan, the key difference being that that plan cannot allocate specific sites in the same way as the Greater Manchester spatial strategy. In that situation, I believe that the hon. Gentleman’s own local authority would have a veto over any wider strategic plan.
I think that the hon. Gentleman was also driving at the issue of transitional arrangements. In other words, if an authority is nearing completion of its own plan and work is about to get under way on a wider strategic plan, would that authority still be able to complete its work on its own plan? I am happy to reflect on that, but my instinct is that it should be able to do that, because there are clear advantages in getting a plan in place, in terms of protection from speculative development.
Gavin Barwell
If I allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene, that will give me more time to think, so I will happily take another intervention.
John Mann
The Minister’s instinct is very good, in my judgment. I hope that he will think through, perhaps not at this very moment, a scenario whereby a district council that is on the verge of getting its development plan agreed and endorsed in law is not put in the position of having to use its veto against a wider authority that it has joined, because that veto might undo the work that has already been done. In other words, is there potential for hybrids that allow housing developments to proceed, rather than an absurd structure that, in essence, allows different processes to collide? It strikes me that that may be a possibility somewhat near to my home in future.
Gavin Barwell
I will find out from my officials when I leave the Chamber whether my instincts about that were good. I will happily discuss the matter further with the hon. Gentleman, perhaps when I have the opportunity to visit his constituency.
We have been thinking about the question of transition in relation to the new standard methodology, and we will consult on that shortly. I have no doubt that, when it comes into place, a number of authorities at various stages of their plan making will ask whether the Government are suggesting that they should stop and start again using the new methodology, or whether they should complete the plan they have nearly finished and do a fairly quick review. We have given thought to that question. The hon. Gentleman has just asked a related question about the situation in which a strategic plan is in the early stages of preparation and a local plan is nearly complete. I will reflect on that, and perhaps we can have a discussion about it outside the Chamber when I have had a chance to talk to my officials, but I have given him a steer on my instincts.
We have digressed a bit—with your forbearance, Madam Deputy Speaker—but we were discussing Lords amendments 7, 8 and 9, which, as I said, are about giving the Secretary of State the power to produce regulations about the matters that local authorities should cover in their statements of community involvement. Hon. Members will recall that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell)—I do not believe he is in his place today—highlighted this matter on Report. I am pleased that, as I promised, we have been able to table an amendment that reflects the intention behind his amendments.
I turn to Lords amendment 23. The White Paper highlighted the Government’s commitment to legislating to enable the creation of locally accountable new town development corporations. The existing institutions report to the Secretary of State, but there is a strong desire for locally accountable institutions. Lords amendment 23, which was tabled by Lord Taylor of Goss Moor and Lord Best, was entirely consistent with the White Paper and the Bill’s aim of further empowering local areas, and I am pleased that the Government were able to accept it. Several pieces of planning legislation have been introduced in recent years, and the White Paper left open the possibility for further legislation to follow. It is good that, by accepting Lord Taylor’s amendment to the Bill, we have been able to get into statute one of the measures that we set out in the White Paper.
In summary, the amendment would support the creation of locally led garden towns and villages by allowing the responsibility for any development corporation created under the New Towns Act 1981 to be transferred to a local authority or authorities covering all or part of the area designated for the new town. My right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs has tabled amendments on the issue, and I think it might be best if I allow him to speak to his amendments before I tell him how the Government intend to respond to them, to give him the opportunity to persuade me of his case.
I turn to compulsory purchase. In the other place, the Government tabled a number of primarily technical amendments based on further engagement with expert practitioners to ensure that the compulsory purchase provisions will make the process clearer, faster and fairer. Lords amendments 24 to 62, together with amendments 76 and 78, deal with temporary possession to refine the new system so that it will work as intended.
Gavin Barwell
I was just looking around to see whether my near neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), was there, and he is. I will happily give way to him.
Robert Neill
On behalf of those who have engaged with the Minister on this matter, may I say how much we appreciate his time and courtesy? The expert practitioners in the sector whom he and I have talked to regard the amendments as valuable. They are not necessarily the sexiest amendments we will ever see, but they clarify a number of important pieces of procedure. I hope that, in that spirit, those of us who take an interest in such matters may be able to come back to the Minister in due course with further refinements, which may not require primary legislation. I am grateful to him for the way in which he has approached this aspect of the Bill.
Gavin Barwell
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words, and I have tried to approach the entire Bill in the same spirit. It is fair to say that the Housing and Planning Act 2016 had a rather difficult passage through Parliament, and with this Bill we wanted to build the broadest possible coalition behind the changes that the Government are making to try to drive up the amount of housing that we build. It has been pleasing to see, both in the other place and here today, the fairly widespread support for the way in which the Government are trying to take forward this agenda.
I will briefly describe, for those who do not have my hon. Friend’s expertise in such matters, Lords amendments 63 to 68. They deal with the no-scheme principle; that is the key principle that defines the world in which compensation is assessed when compulsory purchase powers are used. The amendments basically refine the provisions so that they will work as intended.
Lords amendments 69 to 73 extend the ability of the Greater London Authority and Transport for London to make a joint compulsory purchase order for a combined housing or regeneration and transport project. I think I am right in saying that both the GLA and TfL have these powers at the moment, but they are not allowed to use them together on a combined project, which is what we are seeking to allow. In particular, Lords amendment 72 would allow TfL to work with a mayoral development corporation as an alternative to the Greater London Authority.
I thank the experts at the Compulsory Purchase Association and Transport for London for their advice, and Members of this House and of the other place for their constructive contributions to the debate on a very technical area of law. As I said on the first group of amendments, when not so many Members were in the House, I thank one of my most distinguished predecessors as Housing Minister, Lord Young of Cookham, who ably steered these provisions through the other place.
Responding to concerns raised in the other place, the Government tabled Lords amendments 74, 75, 77, 79, 80 and 83, which replace the power within the consequential clause of the Bill so that the Secretary of State’s power to make consequential changes—in essence, when something is spotted after the legislation has gone through that has a knock-on effect on other legislation—is limited to part 2, or in other words only to the CPO provisions. We made those changes because of concerns in the other place about the broad scope of the consequential provisions. The possibility of things being spotted really arises in relation only to the CPO provisions, which is why we have limited this power to part 2.
Lords amendment 81 commences the regulation-making power in Lords amendment 4, and Lords amendment 82 commences the regulation-making power in Lords amendment 9. Lords amendment 84 will apply the same changes proposed by Lords amendment 5 to examinations that take place under the new streamlined procedure to modify a neighbourhood plan that is in force, as introduced by clause 3 and schedule 1.
I commend the Lords amendments in this group, and I will come back in later when I have had a chance to listen to the arguments of my right hon. Friend—and my very good friend—the Member for Arundel and South Downs.
John Mann
I will comment on three aspects of the amendments in this group and what the Minister has said on them. The first, briefly, is about changes to housing for the elderly. It is a question of whether a local community or a local council can actually designate specific pieces of land explicitly for accommodation for the elderly, which would open up the potential for planning gain, particularly on service sites. For example, saying that a specific piece of land within a larger development should be allocated for a few bungalows would precisely address rental need and possibly purchase need.
The other added key value that arises from the Minister’s comments about having an effective approach to accommodation for the elderly is equity release. There would be a boost to the local economy from large numbers of people wanting to downsize—both those who want to purchase smaller accommodation and those who want to move to social renting but are in essence excluded from doing so at the moment—by releasing the modest equity in the house they have spent their lifetime purchasing. They want to do so to be able to live in more comfort and more cheaply, but also to be able to assist their grandchildren to get on to the housing ladder. Spending that equity would be a huge boost to the economy in a community such as mine. Is the possibility of creating zones that could be serviced or, through planning gain, developed, a greater option as a result of the amendments?
Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I am grateful to Madam Deputy Speaker and to my hon. Friend the Minister for giving me the opportunity to speak to two amendments that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have tabled: an amendment to Lords amendment 4 on neighbourhood plan notification, and an amendment to Lords amendment 23 in relation to the powers that may be given to local authorities to set up new towns. I have two sets of concerns in relation to those amendments.
First, on neighbourhood plans, may I echo what the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) just said about the value of neighbourhood plans in often producing more housing than anticipated? That is the case nationally and that was recognised in the Government’s White Paper. In my constituency, neighbourhood plans have, quite often unexpectedly, produced more houses than local villages were required to produce, because the incentives are turned around and people start to ask themselves what they want in their villages rather than what they do not want. The development of neighbourhood plans, giving local communities control over their own area, has been a very important and welcome localist reform introduced under this Government.
However, the last time we debated the Bill, I said, as I have on many previous occasions, that it is important for the neighbourhood planning process not to be undermined by speculative development applications which are then upheld either by the local authority or on appeal by the planning inspector. That has the effect of demoralising those who subscribe to the neighbourhood plan: those who are either in the process of drawing up plans but are at a late stage, or those whose plans have actually been made and are subjected to a referendum. There is then real local anger when it turns out that a neighbourhood plan which they thought would give protection to certain areas of their local community while allowing for housing in others does not give that protection at all when, because there is not a five-year land supply or for some other reasons, the development application is allowed. There is a real danger—I stress this to the Minister—of confidence in neighbourhood planning being undermined if the widespread perception is that the plans are not worth the paper they are written on. I believe that this is an important issue that the Government still need to address.
I recognise the considerable steps forward taken when the Minister agreed in Committee to measures that would give protection to made neighbourhood plans in relation to the five-year land supply issue. I was very grateful, but he will understand that I was utterly dismayed when, last Friday, I received a letter from the planning inspector informing me that a speculative application in the village of Hassocks in my constituency had been upheld against the wishes of the emerging neighbourhood plan. For whatever reason—the Minister might be able to explain why this happened—the welcome measures that he announced when we last debated this issue were of no help in that situation.
The parish council, which has worked very hard on its neighbourhood plan, is now demoralised and is seriously considering whether to bother going ahead with its neighbourhood plan. Why should it bother if this plan can simply be wrecked by developers and, worse, those speculative applications are then actually upheld by the planning inspector, who of course sits in the Minister’s shoes? I take at face value and accept the Minister’s assurance that the Government are serious about protecting neighbourhood plans, but I tell him that the measures that he has announced so far do not go far enough to achieve that. Villages all over my constituency are now saying that they wonder whether the neighbourhood planning process is one they wish to continue with. We must stop that message getting abroad.
Greg Mulholland
I praise the right hon. Gentleman for the work and leadership he has provided to many right hon. and hon. Members who have had exactly the same experience as in Aireborough, for example, on this issue. We hear this nonsense that we are not even allowed to go through the neighbourhood planning process unless we entirely agree with the decisions that we have campaigned on and objected to for many years. Does he agree that, working with organisations such as Community Voice on Planning and others, the Minister and his officials now need to sit down and do this properly so that we get the kind of localism that we all thought we were voting for and that he and I supported in 2011?
Nick Herbert
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I know that the Government have to square the circle in that they want to see a considerable increase in housing, which is the right ambition so that we can spread opportunity in a country in which house prices are out of the reach of so many young people now and rents are correspondingly high. As I say, the Government are right to seek to address that, but the whole point about neighbourhood planning is that it delivers more houses than was expected. This is not a measure to stop house building; it is a way to ensure that we have a system that is planning-led and not developer-led, so that we do not have a return to the unwelcome days of planning by appeal.
I tabled my amendment with the support of many right hon. and hon. Friends who are equally concerned about this issue, as the Minister will know. It states not just that the neighbourhood forum is entitled to give its views to the planning authority about a planning permission that will have an impact on its emerging or actual neighbourhood plan, but—this is the crucial wording—that the authority must “take into account” the views of the neighbourhood forum. It is very important that that happens.
Frankly, I would personally rather go much further. It is not within the scope of the amendment or the Bill to do so at this point, but I would give much more weight to emerging neighbourhood plans and I would make it very hard for neighbourhood plans to be overturned. The Minister will find that unless that happens in the future, the neighbourhood planning policy will start to be eroded. I hope that the Minister will nevertheless go as far as he can at this point to give the required reassurance to local communities that it is worth pursuing a neighbourhood planning process, that neighbourhood plans will be respected and that speculative developments will not normally be allowed. I would like to understand what I should say to the people of Hassocks about the decision that the Minister made, which has so dismayed them.
Let me deal with the proposed delegation of powers to local authorities to create new towns. I have no objection in principle, speaking as someone who has always advocated localism, to the delegation of these powers, but I want to talk about one possible practical effect that this House should consider when it comes to the making of the future regulations that would allow this to happen.
At the moment, the powers of compulsory purchase that are needed for the creation of new towns under the New Towns Act 1981 rest with the Minister, which I think is right because the compulsory purchase of land is a serious step. Essentially, the state is confiscating land from private ownership, and I think that that should be authorised by Ministers, after very careful consideration. If the power is handed to local authorities, we will risk the creation of serious blight all over the country when authorities, working with developers, consider that they may have designs on land that was previously not available for development or where developers have no options.
In my constituency, a proposal for a new town has been strongly rejected by the two district councils concerned, Horsham and Mid Sussex. Both councils are planning for the right number of houses to be built elsewhere in their districts, but this is an inappropriate location for a new town. The developer, Mayfield, owns very little of the land concerned, and has options on very little of it. A huge number of landowners, responsible for some 4,000 acres of the area, are saying that they do not want their land to be developed. The new town, therefore, could only be built in future in the event of compulsory purchase of the land.
The developer has sought to disrupt the planning process at every stage, arguing against the plans of Horsham and Mid Sussex district councils in an attempt to get its own way. I should point out that an adviser—a paid adviser—to this new town promoter is Lord Taylor of Goss Moor, who was the promoter of the amendment. He declared his interest properly, but it is nevertheless important for us to understand that. Lord Taylor gave the game away when he moved his amendment. He said that what he wanted was a device whereby it would be possible
“to capture the value of land in order to create supplements.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 March 2017; Vol. 779, c. 1894.]
I want the House to understand what Lord Taylor meant. He meant that he wanted to give powers of compulsory purchase to local authorities so that local authorities could purchase land at below the market rate.
Huge blight has already been created in that part of my constituency because of the predatory activities of a developer that does not have sufficient options on the land for a new town in an area where it will never be built. Can the House imagine what would happen were we to give these powers to local authorities which, all over the country, could start to consider where, using powers of compulsory purchase, they might acquire at below the market rate land on which they simply had designs to build?
John Mann
Under the code of conduct on standards in public life, someone who has declared an interest—certainly in this House—is prohibited from moving an amendment in which that person has a pecuniary interest in relation to any organisation, as has been the case ever since the Nolan Committee reported in 1996. Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the House should reflect on that?
Nick Herbert
I should emphasise that Lord Taylor made his interest clear when he moved the amendment. As for the rules in the other place, I am not aware of them, but it is the case that Lord Taylor has had in the past, if not currently, a commercial interest with one of the developers that would stand to gain from the transfer of powers that may be effected by the permissive legislation that the Government wish the House to accept.
I believe that this raises a question of principle, namely whether the powers of, specifically, compulsory purchase should ever be delegated to local authorities. I suggest to Members on both sides of the House that we should not allow that. While it might be appropriate to delegate other powers to make it easier for new towns to be established by local consent, I think it would be a grave mistake to delegate powers of compulsory purchase in a way that would cause Ministers to lose control altogether of the process whereby land may be compulsorily purchased. It would have the effects I have described in this area all across the country. The amendment would forbid such a transfer of power in this specific instance in relation to powers of compulsory purchase, and I seek reassurance from my hon. Friend the Minister that the Government have no intention of allowing such a transfer of powers of compulsory purchase. He will know that this is also of huge concern to my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames), who is unable to be here today but shares my concern about the impact of the Mayfields new town, which crosses both our constituencies.
Gavin Barwell
Let me briefly respond to the points made by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert).
The hon. Gentleman asked whether a council can designate particular sites for housing for the elderly, and the simple answer is yes, it can. They have powers to do that already, and in the guidance we issue we might want to look at the extent to which we allow that to be a matter for local decision making, or whether it is something we wish to promote.
The hon. Gentleman made two vital points in relation to neighbourhood planning. First, neighbourhood planning is not just for affluent rural communities. This is an opportunity for communities right across the country to have more of a say about how they develop in the future and how we make the tough and difficult choices that must be made in order to provide the housing we so desperately need and the land for employment and other community uses. The Government are very much committed to ensuring that neighbourhood planning is not just for affluent communities and that we see it adopted right across the country. I have said before that I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the role he personally has played as an advocate of this policy. He will know that we make additional financial support available to groups in deprived areas, recognising that they need capacity support to produce the plans, and we recently confirmed that that support will be going forward over the next few years. He made a crucial point, however.
The hon. Gentleman’s second point was picked up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs, but it is worth reiterating from the Dispatch Box. Although at the moment the sample size is relatively small, there is clear evidence that neighbourhood plans that allocate sites for housing have actually provided for more housing than their relevant local authority was going to propose. I do not wish to make a party political point, because I am trying to encourage consensus, but I believe in passing power down to people, and it is a very powerful argument for doing so when we trust people to make decisions about their area and they respond in exactly the way we would want.
Gavin Barwell
Both sides of the House can lay claim to that good localist principle. The evidence is clear, and that is why the Government are keen to see neighbourhood planning turbocharged around the country. I will say a little more about that shortly, but first I want to respond to the points my right hon. Friend made, because the overall argument is relevant to both aspects.
I will deal with my right hon. Friend’s two amendments first, and then come on to the particular planning application he refers to. On amendment (a) to Lords amendment 4, the Government absolutely agree with him about the importance of neighbourhood forums and parish councils having sufficient time to consider planning applications when notified by local planning authorities, and, crucially, about the importance of their views being taken into account when local planning authorities make decisions. I can assure him and the House as a whole that we intend to update the secondary legislation to provide requirements for where forums and parish councils are automatically notified of planning applications under the new provisions.
The provisions will be consistent with the existing provisions in the development management procedure order relating to consultation on planning applications. They will include providing that a local planning authority must not determine any planning application where a parish council or designated neighbourhood forum has been notified and wishes to make representations before a minimum of 21 days has elapsed. It is already the case that a local planning authority must consider the representations received and whether considerations are raised that may be material to the application, but detailed requirements relating to the operation of the planning application process best sit in secondary rather than primary legislation, to ensure that we have the flexibility to keep procedures up to date. It would not surprise me if my right hon. Friend wanted to come back with further suggestions, and it is much easier to make suggestions if the matters are in secondary legislation. Having provided him with all the reassurances he wanted, I respectfully request that he does not press his amendment.
It is not necessarily for me to defend amendment (a) to Lords amendment 23, but let me say what I think Lord Taylor was driving at and then reassure my right hon. Friend on his particular points. At the moment, when somebody owns a piece of land that is not designated as suitable for housing or any other use and then, through a local plan process, the council changes that designation, the landowner sees a significant uplift in value. If a company or individual then acquires rights over that land and secures planning permission, there is a further uplift, and that planning permission may be traded several times. At the end of the process, several organisations or individuals have made a great deal of money and there is not a great deal of value in the land for providing the infrastructure that all our constituents tell us is vital to go along with housing. I think Lord Taylor is considering the extent to which, when changing the designation of land, the public sector can try to secure that land early in the process, avoiding the long chain I described and ensuring that more value is available to provide the required infrastructure.
Having said that, it is important that I provide my right hon. Friend with clarification about the regulations that will be made. I reassure him that the functions that could be transferred would not include functions that are the prerogative of the Secretary of State. Under the New Towns Act 1981, any compulsory purchase order sought by a new town development corporation must be submitted to and confirmed by the Secretary of State. That is the case for compulsory purchase orders sought by all bodies, and there will be no change to that position. That will be clear from the regulations, which will, subject to the enactment of this Bill, come to this House for approval. On that basis, I hope that my right hon. Friend will withdraw amendment (a) to Lords amendment 23.
Jim McMahon
An important point that needs addressing relates to the conflict of interest of the Member in the other place. It is perhaps not something for now if the Minister does not have the information, but we need a commitment that it will be looked into seriously.
Gavin Barwell
It is not an easy question for me to answer, because I am not aware of the nature of Lord Taylor’s interest in this matter, so I cannot really respond to it at the Dispatch Box. However, I am sure that his attention will be drawn to the concerns raised on the Floor of the House and that he will make the record clear.
I want to say a few words about neighbourhood planning in general and address the specific point about the application mentioned by my right hon. Friend. He will understand that I must be careful about not saying too much about particular applications, even after a decision has been made, because the decision letter is the record of the decision, but the key point to draw the House’s attention to was that a relevant neighbourhood plan was not in place. Work was under way to prepare one, but that work was at a sufficiently early place to mean that I was unable to give the plan a great deal of weight in making my decision.
A clear lesson for when such decisions have to be made—if it is possible to spread this out to the generality—is the importance of two things. The first is that the relevant local council has a five-year land supply in place so that the presumption does not apply. The second is ensuring that the processes for producing neighbourhood plans are as streamlined as possible from the point at which people start work on them to when they receive examination. It is worth putting on the record that the Bill will give plans weight at an earlier stage in the process—as soon as they have gone through examination. We want to make that process as quick as possible, so that planning decisions that undermine what a community is trying to achieve are not being made during the preparation of plans.
I have a couple of general observations that will allow me to give my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs the clear assurance he wants. I am a real advocate of neighbourhood planning, in which I strongly believe. There are tensions in public policy, and it is important that Ministers are honest about that. If the Government were to give complete protection to all neighbourhood plans in all circumstances, there would be a danger that in areas with a large level of neighbourhood plan coverage but where a local authority does not have an adequate five-year land supply in place and is not delivering homes, we would have no mechanism for getting homes delivered. There has to be a balance, and I tried to strike the right balance in the written ministerial statement we published before Christmas, but the Bill will bring plans into force quicker, will make it easier to simplify plans and to change the areas covered by plans, and will put more pressure on councils to engage with neighbourhoods that want to produce a plan. We are taking a significant step forward from the written ministerial statement.
More widely, my main reflection having been in the job for eight or nine months is that it is a great privilege to serve in this position, but the thing I like least about my job is having to take decisions on planning applications for places I do not know. One of my main objectives is therefore to ensure that, across the country, we get local plans in place that are up to date, that have a five-year land supply and that are delivered by local authorities. I say clearly and categorically to my right hon. Friend from the Dispatch Box that if a council has an up-to-date plan, has a five-year land supply and is delivering the required number of homes each year, I do not expect my inspectors to be overturning the planning decisions of local communities in anything other than the most exceptional circumstances—I have to add that last caveat because all Members will know that sometimes councils take decisions on individual applications that are contrary to their plan because in a particular case there are pressing reasons for it being the right thing to do. If councils are doing the right things, the Government should generally leave the decisions to local authorities. That is where I am trying to get housing and planning policy to, and I know the Secretary of State shares that view.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
I share the Minister’s view that decisions should be taken locally. It is costing Lancashire constabulary an absolute fortune to police the fracking protests in Lancashire. Can he explain why that decision was taken by Lancashire County Council and then overturned by the Secretary of State, who approved the planning application, which is now costing £14,000 a day to police? If local people know best, why was it not the case then?
Gavin Barwell
There are exceptions to every rule. Although I cannot get drawn into discussing that case, perhaps I can give some hypothetical examples. Certain types of application raise issues of key pieces of national infrastructure that have relevance beyond an individual local community. I invite hon. Members to imagine that a neighbouring local authority to their own were considering an application for a large out-of-town retail centre, which would clearly have implications for local high streets not just in that authority’s area but in neighbouring areas, too. There might therefore be an interest in ensuring that all those wider communities have a say, rather than in the decision being taken by a specific local authority.
Gavin Barwell
I will happily talk to the hon. Gentleman outside the Chamber, but there is a difficulty. I cannot discuss individual applications, so I will not take a further intervention. I am happy to have a separate discussion.
There have been no votes on the two areas on which the Government disagree with the Lords amendments, which I hope sends a clear message to the other place about the unanimity in this House on pubs and planning conditions. I hope this will be the last time I speak on this Bill.
I shall end my contribution by saying that the Bill, on its own, is not the answer to the housing problems we face in this country, but it makes an important contribution: by supporting neighbourhood planning, which is delivering more housing in those communities that adopt it; by speeding up our system, through the reform of planning conditions and compulsory purchase; and, vitally, by ensuring that we do a better job of getting up-to-date planning policies in place right across this country.
Finally, on my behalf and that of the Secretary of State, I wish to thank the outstanding officials in our Department for their work on this legislation. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), one of the stars of the Government Whips Office—given my background, that is a very high compliment —and my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) for their support during these proceedings.
Lords amendment 1 agreed to.
Lords amendments 2 to 9, and 23 to 84 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 4, 5, 23,40, 44, 48 to 50 and 84.
Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to draw up a Reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment 12.
That Gavin Barwell, Jackie Doyle-Price, Vicky Foxcroft, Chris Green, Jim McMahon and Rebecca Pow be members of the Committee;
That Gavin Barwell be the Chair of the Committee;
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Steve Brine.)
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.
Neighbourhood Planning Bill
Tuesday 25th April 2017
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberNeighbourhood Planning Act 2017 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 121-I Marshalled list for consideration of Commons reason and amendments (PDF, 67KB) - (24 Apr 2017)
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 12 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 12A.
Commons Reason
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, I wish to update the House following the consideration of the Lords amendments to the Neighbourhood Planning Bill in the other place on 28 March. There are two matters before your Lordships’ House that will be discussed today: pubs and planning conditions. I shall be brief in relation to those two areas.
I turn first to planning conditions. As highlighted during the Bill’s passage, the power to make regulations prescribing what kind of conditions may or may not be imposed and in which circumstances is already constrained in the clause. To reiterate, new Section 100ZA(2) already provides that the Secretary of State may make regulations under subsection (1) only if he considers that these regulations are appropriate to ensure that conditions imposed on a grant of planning permission meet the policy tests in paragraph 206 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which states:
“Planning conditions should only be imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects”.
The amendment originally proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, sought to restrict the Secretary of State from using this power under subsection (1) to prevent a local planning authority imposing a condition that would otherwise conform to the National Planning Policy Framework. At the heart of the amendment sits a test of whether the regulations prevent a local planning authority imposing a condition that meets the National Planning Policy Framework and, in particular, those policy tests in paragraph 206.
It is right that the Government do not intend to use the power to prevent local authorities imposing planning conditions that accord with the National Planning Policy Framework. However, the specific amendment is unnecessary, as subsection (2) has the effect already that any regulations made under these powers must be consistent with the long-standing policy tests for conditions. Indeed, the subsection makes it clear to those reading the legislation that the power seeks to ensure conformity with those tests. The position of the other place during the consideration of the amendment was that it agreed with the Government that the amendment was unnecessary, and there was no Division on this point. Therefore, I ask noble Lords not to insist on the amendment.
On consideration of the other matter, planning protection for pubs, I am sure I need not remind noble Lords of the amendment introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark. I thank him and others who have worked so constructively with me on this issue, in particular, my noble friends Lord Framlingham, Lady Cumberlege and Lord Hodgson and the noble Lords, Lord Shipley, Lord Tope, Lord Scriven, Lord Berkeley and Lord Cameron of Dillington, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York. The Government have carefully reflected on the points raised during the Bill’s passage about the importance local communities place on valued community pubs. I hope noble Lords will agree that we have reflected the will of this House in bringing forward our amendment in lieu, which sets out the detail of the changes we will make to protect and support pubs.
We will amend the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development (England) Order 2015 to remove all existing permitted development rights for the change of use or demolition of A4 drinking establishments, including pubs. This will include the rights to change to a restaurant or café, financial or professional service, a shop or a temporary office or school. We believe that this is best achieved by retaining the A4 drinking establishments use class for pubs, wine bars and other types of bar. Our intention in doing so is to allow pubs to develop within this use class—for example by opening the pub garden—without facing uncertainty about whether planning permission is required. I hope noble Lords will recognise the benefit of the Government’s approach.
Separately, we have listened to points made in this House about the need for pubs to be able to expand their food offer to meet changing market needs and support their continued viability. Therefore, as part of our support for pubs, we will introduce a new permitted development right to provide them with an additional flexibility. The right will allow the pub to expand its food offer beyond what is ancillary to the pub business without planning permission being required but, importantly, it will not allow the pub to become a restaurant with only a token or ancillary bar.
The changes we are bringing forward address the long-standing call that proposed development which would result in the local pub ceasing to operate should be considered locally, allowing the community to comment on the future of its local pub. It is important that local planning authorities have relevant planning policies in place to support their decision-taking. Noble Lords will be reassured to know that both the Campaign for Real Ale and the British Beer and Pub Association have welcomed our proposed approach and personal commitment to helping our pubs survive and prosper. Noble Lords will be keen to see regulation as soon as possible, to prevent any further loss of pubs without local consideration. I can therefore commit to laying secondary regulation immediately after Royal Assent, to come into force before the end of May.
Noble Lords will be reassured to know that the regulations will contain provision to guard against opportunistic use of the permitted development rights before they are withdrawn. Under the current regulations, a developer must first make a request to confirm whether the pub is nominated or listed as an asset of community value. Where a request has been made fewer than eight weeks before the order comes into force, the order will not allow development to take place. I therefore ask noble Lords not to insist on Amendment 22 and to agree with our amendment in lieu. On that basis, I ask the noble Lords to withdraw the points they made earlier in relation to these two matters and to agree with the two Motions put forward by the Government.
Lord Stunell (LD)
I thank the Minister for what he has said. I remind the House that the matters in Clause 12 have been debated at each stage of the Bill. There is widespread understanding that this is a good Bill and it has a lot of support, but to many noble Lords Clause 12 seemed out of place. It either gives new powers to the Secretary of State to regulate, as he sees fit, the decisions of local planning authorities—which it is feared could be at the expense of the National Planning Policy Framework—or it is of nil effect because the NPPF already provides the boundaries and constraints. The critics have tended to the first view and the Government to the second. The critics, including me, feared that this Government, or a future one, might use this regulatory power in a way that undermined the capacity of local planning authorities to use the NPPF as it was intended. The Government have, quite understandably, taken the contrary view, which the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, has just put.
This House accepted my amendments limiting the Secretary of State’s ability to regulate. That came not just from this quarter of the House—it had widespread cross-party support. Indeed, beyond cross-party, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York also contributed to the debate on Report and supported us in the Lobby. Therefore, this is not in any way a party political or partisan issue; rather, it is about firmly entrenching the right of local planning authorities to set planning conditions in accordance with the NPPF and without fear of being second-guessed or overruled by the Secretary of State’s regulatory power. Putting it another way round, it establishes, or was intended to establish, the primacy of the NPPF as the touchstone of legitimacy in judging planning conditions rather than the latest fad of the spads in the DCLG. That is what my amendment did. The Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Young—was very helpful on Report, as far as his brief would allow, but not sufficiently eloquent to persuade your Lordships of the Government’s point of view, and the amendment was passed.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, for the work he put in subsequent to that and the discussions that we had. We clearly did not have a full meeting of minds, which was probably as much my fault as his. However, gradually, the essence of the argument made across parties at each previous stage of the Bill has seeped into our proceedings and on to the record.
The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, referred to the letter that he circulated, and we see it in the reasons before us for rejecting your Lordships’ original view on this matter. It is extremely important that it is clear that it will always remain lawful and legitimate for conditions to be imposed by local planning authorities provided they conform to the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework. Indeed, that is the reason before us for the Commons rejecting the amendment. I remind your Lordships that the reason states:
“Because section 100ZA already has the effect that the regulations must be consistent with the tests for planning conditions in the National Planning Policy Framework”.
That is clearly the Government’s view and the view of the other place. I hope it will turn out to be the view of all future Governments and Ministers and, in the case of dispute, that the courts will share that benign view and interpretation of Clause 12. I believe that the Government’s declared intentions would be far clearer with the amendment that was originally proposed. However, on this occasion, with grateful thanks to those around the House who supported the original amendment on Report and valiantly joined me in fighting the fight, I will not press the matter any further.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I rise to say a word or two on the drinking establishments —pubs—amendment. I was very concerned about the direction of the debate in your Lordships’ House because this sector is under pressure and the more legislative restrictions that are placed on it, the less likely it is that people will invest in it. I accept that the will of the House was not with me. However, I am grateful to my noble friend for considering the matter further. We have reached a reasonable compromise that will provide a way forward. It is obviously a very good thing that both CAMRA and the BBPA have accepted and supported it. It is important that we find a point at which those who own and operate pubs can draw a line under the further changes that may be made to the regulatory environment, given that there is already talk of needing to change the Pubs Code regulator as it is not satisfactory. That came in a couple of years ago. For the moment, however, this is a good compromise that will enable both sides to emerge from the discussions with honour.
Lord Framlingham (Con)
My Lords, pubs are a vital part of our nation’s life. I am delighted that the Government have decided to take this action, as I am sure are both CAMRA and the British Beer and Pub Association. The Minister has been the essence of competence and courtesy throughout the whole of this debate and I am extremely grateful to him. I trust that in due course glasses will be raised in pubs up and down the land to both the Minister and the Government.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend Lord Stunell for his work on the amendments in relation to the National Planning Policy Framework and for his contribution today. We shall see in the months ahead whether the solution proposed by the Minister manages to hold up against any challenge.
As we have heard, as the Bill progressed we had several lengthy debates in this Chamber on pubs and permitted development for alternative uses. I, too, am grateful to the Minister and to the Government for listening so carefully to the views from across this House and for this revised amendment from the other place, which will help greatly with the protection of pubs at risk. It has the advantage of introducing a permitted development right where the proposal is to extend the range of food to be offered while maintaining the pub itself. Beyond that, planning permission will be required before a pub can be demolished or face a change of use. That puts powers into the hands of local people and local planning authorities—here, I remind the House of my vice-presidency of the Local Government Association—and that has to be beneficial.
I pay tribute to all those who have campaigned on this issue, including the Campaign for Real Ale and the British Beer and Pub Association, and to those from all parties—including my colleague in the other place, Greg Mulholland—who have spoken and campaigned in support of it. I am very pleased to commend the Commons amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, as this is my first contribution on these matters, I refer Members to my declaration of interests in the register. I declare that I am an elected councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham, a vice-president of the Local Government Association and the vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Beer Group.
In respect of Motion A, I am disappointed that the other place did not accept the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, although I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, that the other House did not divide on the issue. I hope that the noble Lord, with his colleagues in the department, will keep this matter under review so that, if it turns out that the provision needs to be strengthened, we can return to it at a later date. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, made a very important point about the primacy of the NPPF.
In respect of Motion B, I am delighted that the Government have listened to the campaign both inside and outside Parliament. I pay tribute to two Members of the other place—Charlotte Leslie, the Conservative Member of Parliament for Bristol North West, and Greg Mulholland, the Liberal Democrat Member for Leeds North West—for their campaigning over a number of years to bring about this change.
I also thank all the Members of your Lordships’ House who supported me in the debate and in the Division Lobbies. I particularly want to thank those Conservative Members who voted with me and those who kindly abstained, as that played an important part in getting a large majority when I tested the opinion of the House. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, for his generous support in the debate, as well as others, such as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York. I am also grateful for the support that I received from the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Scriven, and others.
The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, corrects a loophole that was of great harm to successful pubs, and it protects and helps them. In the previous debate I was very clear that the intention behind what I proposed was never to keep open a pub that was not a successful business but to support successful businesses.
I like pubs and I like a pint. Like the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, I probably should have bought a few shares in the odd pub or brewery; I have certainly spent enough money on beer over the years.
I also pay tribute to the fantastic work done by Tim Page, the chief executive of CAMRA, Amy O’Callaghan, its senior campaigns officer, and all the members of CAMRA in branches across the country who emailed and phoned us and Members of the other place.
This amendment is important, and I am grateful to the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, for listening. It is an example of the House of Lords doing its job well. By winning the argument on the original amendment, we created the conditions for the Government to think again and we have a great solution today that I am delighted to support.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who participated in this debate on Motions A and B; I will not detain the House long. I genuinely thank all noble Lords who participated in the discussion on this important piece of legislation. I also thank my right honourable friend in the other place, Sajid Javid, and my honourable friend Gavin Barwell, the Minister for Housing, who have been very supportive and helpful.
Turning first to Motion A, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, for his generosity of spirit. I agree that there is a difference between us on the way that this is to be interpreted. I believe that the National Planning Policy Framework provides the necessary security, but I am most grateful for his generous words and the very fair summary that he gave.
Turning to Motion B, I first raise a metaphorical glass to my noble friend Lord Hodgson on his birthday. Perhaps there will be an opportunity for people to exhibit support for this new position after the debate. I thank him for what he said about our having harnessed the support of both CAMRA and the British Beer & Pub Association, as well as this House. I also thank my noble friend Lord Framlingham for his extremely kind words and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his support of this amendment. He has been a pleasure to work with throughout this legislation—always fair and always with good advice.
I join the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in thanking Charlotte Leslie and Greg Mulholland in the other place for their help, and I thank the noble Lord for what he has done in this legislation and what he does for pubs on a continuing basis; it has not gone unnoticed and has certainly helped the sector greatly. I thank all noble Lords very genuinely, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said, for having demonstrated the House of Lords at its best in looking at and amending this legislation, and in moving forward very sensibly, not least in respect of matters raised by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege. On that note, I commend Motion A.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 22 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 22A and 22B in lieu.
Commons Amendments in lieu
“Permitted development rights relating to drinking establishments
(1) As soon as reasonably practicable after the coming into force of this section, the Secretary of State must make a development order under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which—
(a) removes any planning permission which is granted by a development order for development consisting of a change in the use of any building or land in England from a use within Class A4 to a use of a kind specified in the order (subject to paragraph (c)),
(b) removes any planning permission which is granted by a development order for a building operation consisting of the demolition of a building in England which is used, or was last used, for a purpose within Class A4 or for a purpose including use within that class, and
(c) grants planning permission for development consisting of a change in the use of a building in England and any land within its curtilage from a use within Class A4 to a mixed use consisting of a use within that Class and a use within Class A3.
(2) Subsection (1) does not require the development order to remove planning permission for development which has been carried out before the coming into force of the order.
(3) Subsection (1) does not prevent—
(a) the inclusion of transitional, transitory or saving provision in the development order, or
(b) the subsequent exercise of the Secretary of State’s powers by development order to grant, remove or otherwise make provision about planning permission for the development of buildings or land used, or last used, for a purpose within Class A4 or for a purpose including use within that class.
(4) A reference in this section to Class A3 or Class A4 is to the class of use of that name listed in the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (SI 1987/764).
(5) Expressions used in this section that are defined in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 have the same meaning as in that Act.”
“( ) section (Permitted development rights relating to drinking establishments);”
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I omitted to thank my noble friend and co-pilot, who has more air miles than most, for his support on this. I beg to move.
Royal Assent
Thursday 27th April 2017
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 3 February 2017 - (3 Feb 2017)