Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) for, and congratulate her on, securing this debate on an issue that is clearly important to her, her constituents, and the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) and many other Members up and down the country. I know that she has tabled an early-day motion on the subject. I assure her from the beginning that I am sympathetic to her concerns. I know that the issue has resonance with other Members; the last time I checked, her early-day motion had secured the support of 15 Members from both sides of the House, and perhaps that figure has now increased. As she knows, the debate that my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering secured recently was his second such debate in recent months, and I was pleased to be able to respond to it.
It is right to acknowledge at the outset that many developers routinely build roads in new developments to a high standard and in good time, and in many cases they are ready for adoption by the local highways authority. Where developers take the right approach, home owners should have little cause for concern. However, I am only too aware that that is not always the case. Some developers drag their feet in bringing the roads up to an adoptable standard, and as a result, even many years after a development has been completed, some home owners find that the roads remain unfinished and unsuitable for adoption by the highways authority. That is not acceptable.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans spoke eloquently about the problems that can arise in such cases. The obvious point is that poor road quality is a daily frustration for residents, but I am aware that in more extreme cases, there are concerns about damage to vehicles, the ability to enforce speed limits, and the removal of abandoned vehicles. Such problems can and do occur on unadopted roads. The issue of access for emergency vehicles has also rightly been raised with us.
I am aware that the concerns are not confined to my hon. Friend’s constituency. As she mentioned, it was estimated that there were around 40,000 unadopted roads across the country in 1972. Since then, some roads will have been adopted, while new roads will have been built but not yet adopted. As a result, there have been calls for the Government to conduct a national survey of private roads to bring the estimate up to date—something to which she referred.
While I am sympathetic to the problem, I am not convinced about the value of such a survey. First, any survey of private streets would reveal a large number of streets that are never likely to be suitable for adoption, and in which my hon. Friend is not interested—farm tracks, service roads, back alleys and suchlike. Secondly, any survey would reveal some private residential streets where the residents bought their properties in the full knowledge that they would retain responsibility for ongoing maintenance, and probably—or perhaps—benefited from that being reflected in the purchase price. In many of those cases, residents are quite happy to live on a private street.
In a specimen survey of 600 private streets, 63 were suitable for adoption, but only in 17 cases did the majority of the frontagers want the street adopted; that leaves 46. I accept that that is a small survey, but it might give some flavour of the position out there in the country. To deliver useful conclusions, any national survey would need to identify not only the number of private streets, but the number of streets that could be made suitable for adoption, and that residents actually wanted adopted. As I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate, such a survey would be large-scale, costing a significant amount of taxpayers’ money, and I am not persuaded that it would offer value for money, particularly at this time. I am not sure how such a survey would help us move forward. We are fully aware of the problem and sympathise.
Mrs Main
I completely accept that a survey would not be a value-for-money thing and is not likely to happen. That is why I believe that talking to the local authorities might be useful. They will be aware of which roads people would like adopted but are frustrated that they cannot have adopted, and in which cases roads are not adopted, but nobody wants them adopted and everyone is fine with that. That is why I felt that talking to the local authorities could be the way forward.
Norman Baker
I agree with that, and we are talking to local authorities. I will come to that in a moment. The issue is not quantifying to the nth degree exactly how many unadopted roads there are, but ensuring that we have a full picture in the Department of the problems that arise, so that we can identify solutions to move forward. That is what I am trying to do in my role.
There must be two elements to any sensible strategy. The first element is to ensure that the best possible use is made of the powers already available to local authorities. They are not perfect, but the powers are there. I spoke in some detail to my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering about the existing tools, including planning conditions, adoption agreements and the advance payments code. I accept that there are limitations in respect of some of those matters. The second element is to consider whether the existing tools can be made more effective through changes in legislation.
On best use of the existing tools, as I indicated in a previous debate on the subject, planning circular 11/95 sets out the uses for planning conditions, and the courts have further clarified their use, setting out clear criteria. Rather than occupying the time of the House by repeating what I said previously, I refer my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans to that previous debate for further background information on that point.
The circular also states that conditions may be imposed to ensure that the development proceeds in line with locally defined needs. For example, a condition may be imposed to ensure that necessary infrastructure is in place before full occupancy of the site. I understand that this type of condition has been used to secure highway infrastructure where a development would have an adverse impact on the highway network. That is particularly important where sites are to be delivered in phases, as it allows a compromise between the needs of the developer to build and sell the site in phases, and the needs of the highways authority to ensure a safe and suitable standard of road.
The planning condition route allows the local authority and the developer to discuss and agree the needs of the site, and to take them into account for the benefit of future occupiers of the development. The Planning Inspectorate can provide model conditions to give guidance to local authorities where particularly problematic issues have been identified. My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans might like to know that at the request of the Department for Transport, and indeed the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Planning Inspectorate is developing a model condition to assist with the problems raised in places such as Kettering and St Albans.
My hon. Friend referred in passing—indirectly, at least—to problems potentially arising between two-tier authorities. I am familiar with that situation in my constituency, where we have a district and a county council. This is not necessarily a legislative problem, but in some cases local authorities—district and county—do not work together as well as they might. It is important that that is pursued from a local angle. Clearly, any changes to local government functions are a matter not for the Department for Transport but for my colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government.
Coming back to the model condition, it could offer increased consistency and certainty for authorities, some of which have voiced uncertainty about how planning conditions can be used robustly to specify highway standards, in line with the national policy set out in planning circular 11/95. I accept that no model condition would offer a one-size-fits-all solution; it would need to be adapted by individual authorities to suit the circumstances of particular developments. A carefully designed model planning condition that can be adapted for use in particular local circumstances could offer a useful way forward. Local councils in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering have certainly indicated that they would find that helpful.
I said in response to the previous debate on the subject that I would be prepared to explore potential legislative options, and I am happy to reaffirm that commitment. There are two particular aspects of primary legislation that have been identified by highways authorities as being in need of review. The first is the so-called advance payments code, to which my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans referred, which forms part of the Highways Act 1980. The original purpose of the code was to allow highways authorities to secure a payment or security from developers to cover the cost of making up the road to an adoptable standard, in the event that a developer failed to do so. The payment or security would be available when a development reached a certain stage, at which point the frontagers could require the carrying out of street works and the subsequent adoption of the road. In effect, the deposit or security covers the liability of the owners of the new homes for the cost of making up the street that would otherwise fall to them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering was concerned that funds under section 38 cannot be accessed by the highways authority unless the developer goes bust. We understand from the local authorities with which we have discussed the matter that they have difficulty accessing funds deposited by developers, and we will examine that issue with authority representatives as part of our review of section 38 and other elements of legislation. I hope that is helpful to my hon. Friend.
Currently, under the Highways Act 1980, there is a six-week window in which the highways authority can request a deposit or security. I am aware that the usefulness of the code is weakened because, in many cases, there is no longer any reliable mechanism to make the highways authority aware of the start of works on a particular development, particularly in a two-tier arrangement. As a result, the authority will not necessarily become aware of the need to request a deposit or security until after the six-week window has passed. I think that there is a good case for extending that window, but I am advised that unfortunately that would require primary legislation to amend the Highways Act 1980. That has become the issue, rather than the assessment of the applicability or suitability of the existing condition.
Before I move on to my conclusion, I will refer to the second aspect of legislation that is in need of review, which is section 38 of the Highways Act 1980.
Norman Baker
We will look at how far we can get down the track. We want to get as far down it as possible, including through changes to legislation, if we can make them. Certainly we will do what we can short of introducing legislation, if that approach is necessary.
Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980 is a well-used mechanism that can be very effective where a developer is prepared to commit to making up new roads to an adoptable standard. I am aware, however, that the existing arrangements place no obligation on developers to enter into such an agreement, even if the authority is clear that that would be squarely in the public interest. In the debate on 10 June, I indicated to my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering that I was exploring that matter with the Department for Communities and Local Government to see whether we could have
“options for legislation, including empowering local authorities to require developers to enter into section 38 agreements.”—[Official Report, 10 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 578.]
We have had initial discussions with representatives of the Department for Communities and Local Government on the subject. They were not unsympathetic, but the issue, both in that case and with regard to advance payments under the Highways Act 1980, is simply finding a window for legislation. Both my hon. Friends will be aware that the coalition Government’s commitment is to give priority in legislation to the elements that were included in the coalition agreement, so that we can be seen to be delivering properly on what we promised the public. It is a question of how much traffic one can get on the bridge at any time. That does not mean that action will not happen, but it means that the issue will have to take its place in the queue. We will do our best in our Department to try to find a way to progress the matter, either through primary legislation or through some other means that helps move matters forward in a productive way.
The Department for Transport had a constructive meeting earlier this year with council representatives from the Kettering constituency, which was helpful in establishing the nature of the concerns and providing an initial view of some potential solutions. I am now keen to move forward by inviting—