Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Earl of Lytton

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s comments and agree with everything that she has said. I shall speak specifically to Amendment 7, which is in this group and is a probing amendment.

Banning orders are a very important element of the Bill. They are not undertaken lightly and involve a great deal of research and work on the part of the local authorities. It takes many months of gathering information from tenants and consulting with related agencies operating in the sector, such as Citizens Advice, food banks, social services and local housing associations, to build up a picture around a person who they are investigating with a view to considering a banning order. Local authorities’ budgets are extremely stretched, as we know, and while it is to everyone’s advantage that they undertake this work in order to achieve a successful outcome when they apply for a planning order, it seems not unreasonable that they should receive the fine as recompense for the work undertaken. This will be especially important when it is highly likely that the local authority will be expected to house those previous tenants of the landlord subject to the banning order, as my noble friend has indicated.

There is an undertaking that local government will not be expected to take on new burdens that are not listed in the new burdens doctrine, with the expectation that the Chancellor will have had regard to this requirement when making the local government settlement. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that this is the case. Might she also be able to find a way forward to recompense local authorities in some way for this additional work, which is desperately needed by private sector tenants?

[The Earl of Lytton]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, has raised a very important matter, and it is appropriate that it should be grouped with government Amendments 3 and 4. As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, mentioned earlier, there is no limit to the amount of roguishness that can come about. As to the question of identifying who is the perpetrator, who the owner and who the person in control—is it a company and or an individual?—these are murky waters, particularly with patterns of complex ownership, possibly involving ownerships of non-domestic individuals or companies, and so it goes on. It begs the question, in terms of Amendments 3 and 4, as to what the person faced with the sanctions envisaged here will do under the government amendments in particular. What is the nuclear option? What are the choices before the case is even heard, let alone when it is actually heard? What happens when a conviction occurs and is subject to an appeal?

This leaves potentially malevolent folk, if that is what they are—we assume that the ones who are rogues are malevolent folk and are appropriately labelled as such—still with the considerable ability to make mischief and make life a misery. Whether that is spitefulness, simply being manipulative, or whatever, I see great problems. That is one of the reasons why I am concerned for local government being handed this issue on a plate. There may be very uncertain outcomes that are extremely costly to unpick. Bearing in mind what I said a few minutes ago, I am not in favour of short-changing due process. There must be due process. I do not think we can tackle roguishness that borders on, or may actually be, criminality, other than by proper due process. We cannot have the rule of law being circumvented to catch these people; we have to play this by the rule book. That is the only way in which not to discourage the willing horses while at the same time squeezing out the malevolent types.

I see, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, sees, some serious structural difficulties in dealing with this in practice. We have in this Committee the skills set to unpick this and to consider the complications and ramifications.

Water Bill

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Earl of Lytton

Tuesday 11th February 2014 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Lytton]

My Lords, we have discussed the substance of Amendment 160B already so I do not propose to move it. However, while I am on my feet, I will comment on Amendment 160A and the terms in which the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, moved it. I received a different narrative on this. The circumstances of the post-2009 cut-off, as explained to me, were that that was the time when Planning Policy Statement 25, in relation to construction on flood risk areas, came into being. As the story went, therefore, everybody was on notice that that was an issue, so that was the cut-off point. However, it occurs to me that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has raised rather an interesting issue.

It is fair to say that the end of summer 2008 was when the wheels came off the banking system and, with it, the property development system. If anybody had a planning consent that he was hoping to implement in 2008, he would have found that there was no money or funding to implement it—nothing would be forthcoming. Many of these schemes were put on ice. Indeed, there was a government recommendation—I do not know if you can call it an instruction—to the local planning authorities that they should look favourably on extending the three-year life of these. As I am sure noble Lords are aware, detailed planning consent has a three-year life, so it would have run out and would have had to be reapplied for. Due to the circumstances of having to reapply—maybe there are a new lot of regulations and so on—you can run into a whole raft of cost, time and delay.

The idea was that those things should be perpetuated, and with very good reason. They underpinned balance sheets, loans and all sorts of things. If they were to be effectively prejudiced by the loss of a planning consent, so that you had a property with either no verifiable development value or a lower development value, that had repercussions for precisely the sort of reasons I outlined earlier this afternoon in another context. So it is perfectly possible that a planning consent that was negotiated on the basis of rules in 2006 or 2007 would not have got going by the end of 2008 or 2009, and would have had to be preserved. The houses would not have been constructed until some time later, but the circumstances relating to that consent would have related to the antecedent circumstances at the time of granting of planning consent. I can see that there is an issue here.

I am always a bit frightened by development land values anywhere. I am even more frightened when things go wrong and people start reaching for their lawyers. What are they going to start looking at? Will they say, “The house is now constructed, it was built on what might be called an old technology basis pre-2008, and, lo and behold, it has flooded”? If they are excluded, it may have a material effect on the value. Who will they look to for recompense—the local authority or the fact that Planning Policy Statement 25 did not apply, or should have applied in some other form? This makes me think of the time-honoured American superfund arrangements, where most of the money went not to environmental clean-up but into the pockets of lawyers trying to attach liability. I do not wish to see that sort of thing happening here. Some careful thought has to go into the date and where the cut-off should be. I know it is not easy. I am happy to believe that the account of the reasons and circumstances given by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, is the correct one, but I am slightly surprised that it seems to be a little at variance with the one that I have. I would be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say about this.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville]

We have had a good debate on this issue, so I will be brief. I am concerned, like others, at the exclusions from Flood Re. My concerns are that many households may have no idea that their property is in a high-risk area or that they are excluded from Flood Re. Like the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, I am interested to hear from the Minister how many properties were built before 2008 but were not occupied until 2009 or after. The people living in these properties may well get a nasty shock when they realise that they are not able to do anything about it.

My concern with Amendment 160A is that all classes of people, whether they are freeholders, leaseholders or the owner of a commonhold tenancy, should be treated equally. Other noble Lords have covered this area in detail. If properties are on the flood plain, whether they are 200 or five years old and whether they are owned or rented, they should be able to access affordable flood insurance. Anything less is invidious. There will be households where a newly married couple have taken on the leasehold of a property, raised their children, lived in it all their working life and now seek to retire there. When they first took up occupancy of the dwelling, there would have been no hint of it ever flooding. However, with changes in the jetstream and continuous and persistent rainfall year on year, they now find that they and their neighbours are suffering from flooding. Are these residents now to be excluded from Flood Re? The Bill is not clear on who the person with the “qualifying interest” is. Will the Minister clarify this situation?