Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 18th May 2023 Lords Chamber

I just feel that we could have done this in a much simpler way. This stand-part debate may serve no purpose at all other than to ask whether it is too late to think about doing things in a simpler way, rather than trying to sweep the CIL and Section 106 away, then reintroducing much of it but putting it into a more complicated and riskier scenario, as the infrastructure levy appears to me to do.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this may be the third occasion on which we have discussed the infrastructure levy, which simply illustrates how important a part it will play in future development if it is passed. I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said about the proposal for an infrastructure levy. It seems to me that there are too many variables in the infrastructure levy to give certainty to local communities, planning authorities and developers.

Growth development value on large-ish or medium-sized sites which are going to be developed across a number of years—300 houses over eight years, maybe—can significantly change in that period, as can the viability of the developer, because of lots of external factors. I had a lot of sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, when he asked why we have this complicated system where viability assessments take place at various stages during the development. How can the change that will inevitably happen during a development period provide with some certainty the affordable housing a local area needs, for instance? One of the huge risks of the infrastructure levy is that, rather than increasing the number of affordable homes that are built, it will reduce it, because of the risks to local communities and councils, and to developers, across the planned period.

From what I have heard from the Minister, the purpose of the infrastructure levy is to provide more certainty for developers and to take away the requirement to sign legal and Section 106 agreements. However, it does not—we heard in the earlier group that we are retaining Section 106 for some aspects and deliveries. At the heart of this issue is the challenge of how local infrastructure, as part of a new development, is funded, who funds it, and what qualifies as infrastructure. Planning authorities will have the unenviable task of determining the proportion of infrastructure levy to subsidise housing against mitigating the impact on the community for school places, GP surgeries, open spaces, biodiversity, green spaces, play areas, and so on, all of which will have to be funded through the infrastructure levy.

I have said already that one of the risks of the infrastructure levy is the uncertainty that will be created. As I understand it, and maybe the Minister can help explain it, when a local plan is being developed, the infrastructure delivery strategy will have to be determined at the same time. That leads me to some questions. Where does the infrastructure delivery strategy fit in relation to local plans that have been agreed and are being implemented? Does a new one have to be developed on the back of the long and painful process of developing a local plan? Do we have to have another infrastructure delivery strategy on top of that, bearing in mind that local plans are in existence for 10 years? How does that fit in, because when local plans are developed, they will have had in mind a previous regime for funding infrastructure?

I have another pertinent question. As rates are going to be set by local planning authorities and councils, they will inevitably reflect local economic circumstances. The example of the rates agreed for community infrastructure levy—albeit that excludes Section 106—is informative in this regard. In a Yorkshire metropolitan authority that I will not name, of the charges for CIL that were calculated, the charge per square metre for the highest of the three tiers was £80. I then looked at a district council in Hampshire, where financial circumstances are better, and the highest tier there was £235 per square metre. It concerns me greatly that there should be a huge differential between a relatively poor Yorkshire metropolitan council area and a relatively well-off area towards the south of the country.

The differential rate is so large that I do not see how councils in the north, or areas where it is more difficult to extract funding from developers because of land values, will be able to fund the levels of infrastructure that are required. The risk is that those areas have less funding from the levy to implement affordable housing and all the other public services that normally come out of development, whereas better off areas could provide better facilities. That is one huge risk, and a worry for me.

I have some questions on that for the Minister—I hope she will be able to answer them. I read through the technical paper on the infrastructure levy but I could not see anywhere where the department had done some calculations as to what the rates are anticipated to be in different parts of the country. I am sure the department will have done that, otherwise you would not make this transformational move. It would be good to hear from the Minister what those acceptable estimated rates are. Currently, as we know, about 66% of funding from CIL and Section 106 goes on affordable housing. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us what proportion of different rates across the country it is anticipated will be spent on so-called affordable housing.

I come to my third question. Developers are interested in maximising their profits—quite rightly, as they have commercial interests. They will find ways, as they do with Section 106 and CIL, to challenge the requirements through viability assessments. The best thing that could happen is that those assessments disappear. Perhaps the Minister can talk a bit about that. If all this is to be dependent on viability assessments, the prospect of raising more funds for subsidising housing and community benefits out of development schemes is more pie in the sky than reality.

The trouble with all this is that, as with many other parts of the Bill, there is insufficient information to make judgments about whether the efficacy of the new powers as against existing schemes—which are known, tried and tested—will work.

The big question for me is that the Government are hoping that the infrastructure levy will fund more so-called affordable housing, which, certainly in my authority, is now required to be in perpetuity: the 20% reduction in market value has to be passed on by a covenant on the house in perpetuity. You get a better bang for your buck from that, so I ask the Minister whether this, too, could be a requirement of any infrastructure levy subsidy of affordable housing. There are more questions than answers, and I look forward to what the Minister has to say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I take that point. We have talked about the different rates from different development typologies, and we expect local authorities to set different rates. As the noble Baroness said, they do that with COUNCIL for different development types. We have published research that shows the range of possible rates for different case study areas, and I have put the results of that research in a letter.

For all these reasons, the Government are introducing the new infrastructure levy through the Bill and it is the correct thing to do for the country. There are too many local communities that, with the CIL system and the Section 106 system, are not getting what they deserve from the developments in those areas. So a new system, however difficult it is or however long it takes to deliver, has to be the right way to go.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

The Minister makes a very important point about the infrastructure levy, as opposed to Section 106 and CIL. Could she provide us with some evidence that the infrastructure levy will raise more money than the existing system?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I will look to the evidence but, as I have clearly stated many times, we are expecting the same if not more housing, particularly affordable housing, from this infrastructure levy. I just say to my noble friend Lord Lansley, as I have said before, that we are not getting rid of Section 106 agreements, but will use them only in very restricted circumstances. The main issue from this is that affordable housing comes out of the Section 106 system and into the infrastructure levy system. When the whole country moves to the infrastructure levy, it will make affordable housing a much more important issue when it comes to how we use developer contributions in the future.

I move on now to government Amendment 361A. This makes three consequential changes to other Acts of Parliament to ensure that the new infrastructure levy will be treated in the same way as CIL in relevant legal contexts. First, Section 101(6) of the Local Government Act 1972 requires that a local authority’s functions in relation to levying rates may be exercised only by that authority—in other words, those functions may not be delegated—but CIL is not a “rate” for this purpose. This means that a local authority may delegate its CIL functions.

Amendment 361A replicates this approach in respect of infrastructure levy functions. I emphasise, however, that the Bill contains important safeguards for democratic accountability. For example, new Section 204K(6) makes it clear that a local authority may approve its infrastructure levy charging schedule only at a meeting of the authority and by a majority of the members present.

Secondly, Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides that “local finance considerations” can be a material consideration when determining planning applications. Local finance considerations include CIL, which can therefore be a material consideration when a planning application is determined.

Government Amendment 361A treats the infrastructure levy in the same way, allowing infrastructure levy receipts—anticipated and received—to be taken into account when determining planning applications. This does not override the primary aims of the infrastructure levy to support the development of an area by providing infrastructure, including affordable housing, or its meeting of other purposes, as set out in regulations, in a way that does not make development of the area economically unviable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I cede everything to my noble friend Lord Young when it comes to experience and wisdom in this matter, but I am very attracted by the idea of running the pilot proposed by the Bill. It has long seemed to me deeply inequitable that when it comes to property development, the landowner gets so much for the uplift and the community gets so little. We very much need to explore and try out ways of setting that right, and this seems an excellent thing to try. I share my noble friend’s reservations that aspects of it may turn out not to be right, but that should not prevent us having a go. My amendment just says that if it proves to be a success, and I shall keep my fingers firmly crossed that it is, it would seem foolish to let it die after 10 years without giving Parliament the opportunity to let it continue.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, very much for the best explanation of community land auctions that I have heard. I have searched the internet to find a good explanation but have heard the best one this afternoon from him.

The issue is how we capture for local communities the uplift—a very large uplift in many cases—in land values once planning consent has been given to a site. This is one way in which it could work and it has some attraction to it. However, living as I do in West Yorkshire, where land values are not like those in Surrey, Hampshire or Berkshire, the inevitable consequence of community land auctions is exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Young, said: to the well off, more shall be given while to the least well off, little shall be given.

As far as I can tell, this will exacerbate regional inequalities. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, this is a levelling-up Bill. Living where I do, I was really looking forward to lots of proposals in it to reduce regional inequalities, but this is one example of where it will do the opposite. Somehow we have to find ways of extracting the very considerable uplift in land values once planning consent is given for housing.

Where I live, we still have many former industrial sites in need of costly remediation, and those land values will not be there for a community land auction. The provision will work only on greenfield sites, which is contrary to what we are trying to achieve. It will increase regional inequalities, which is contrary to the purpose of the Bill. If we can find a better way of extracting land value once planning consent or planning allocations have been given, that is where we should go. I am not convinced that this is the way, interesting though the proposal is. “Let us see the evidence” is what I would like to say. I know we are going to do a pilot, but somebody somewhere in the department has done some thinking and provided some evidence. Let us see it before we make a decision on this, because otherwise it is a dive into the unknown.

My last point is that there have not been good examples recently of local authorities getting involved in commercial practice—in fact, the contrary is the case. That is where this would take us: local authorities bidding for and buying land at a certain value and then hoping that, once they sell it on with planning consent, the extra can be extracted. That is putting a lot of faith in the commercial expertise within local authorities, which I am not sure they have. If I was putting a bet on developers and landowners against local authorities, I know which one would win.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, in addition to the levy we have been debating, the Government are interested in testing other mechanisms that could improve land value capture.

Community land auctions are an innovative process of identifying land for allocation for development in a local planning authority’s area in a way that seeks to optimise land value capture. Their aim is to introduce transparency and certainty by allowing local planning authorities to know the exact price at which a landowner is willing to sell their land. The crux of our approach is to encourage landowners to compete against each other to secure allocation of their land for development in the local plan by granting a legally binding option over their land to the local planning authority.

The competitive nature of community land auction arrangements incentivises landowners to reveal the true price at which they would willingly part with their land. If the land is allocated in the local plan upon its adoption, the local planning authority can sell the CLA option, keeping the amount that the successful bidder has paid and capturing the value that has accrued to the land as a result of the allocation. The successful bidder must then pay the price set out by the original landowner in the option agreement to purchase the land. The detailed design of community land auction arrangements will be set out in regulations that will be subject to the affirmative procedure. In a moment, I will address my noble friend Lord Young’s clause stand part notice but, for now, I hope that that is useful background, by way of introduction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, although it is not a matter for the register of interests, I declare a particular interest in this group of amendments in that I grew up in an area developed and managed for many years by a development corporation. At their best, they provide focus, finance and pace for new development. If we are serious about tackling the severe housing crisis, which we have discussed so many times in your Lordships’ House, and ensuring that we create the conditions and environment for the new forms of employment we need—I am reminded of recent discussions in Question Time about the need to develop new battery capacity at speed—we should welcome the move to enable this way of tackling new developments at scale.

However, we must ensure that, as we do so, we learn the lessons of the past, including the not-so-distant past: with all the safeguards we need to ensure development at pace does not ride roughshod over proper and appropriate process and accountability. We also need to ensure that there is appropriate membership of, and links with, those who are democratically elected at local level, so that the public can be reassured they have a recourse via the democratic route.

May I ask the noble Earl the Minister a few questions before I begin consideration of our amendments about the way that development corporations are framed in the Bill? First, the Bill refers to one or more local authorities having what is called “oversight” of the development corporation. Of course, as advocates of localism we welcome this, but can the Minister be more specific about whether that means that the local authority will be the accountable body, which is a different term? This important distinction would help us to understand whether it is the Government’s intention that development corporations are autonomous in terms of finance or whether financial decision-making and probity will still require a council process. If it is the former, I am not convinced that there is sufficient detail in the Bill about how probity will be achieved. Bearing in mind the very considerable sums of public money that will potentially flow through development corporations, it is absolutely crucial that we are all clear on this issue.

Also in relation to finance, the Bill creates substantial new powers of borrowing for development corporations. Will they be subject to the same prudential borrowing regime as local authorities? If it were not so late, I could talk more about public accounts committees and local public accounts committees and how that might be a solution, but I will save that for another day.

Secondly, regarding how development corporations are to operate in terms of planning powers, will they be responsible only for the planning of new development within the designated area? To explain further: should the designated area contain existing development, does the council remain responsible for day-to-day matters of planning, such as infill development, extensions, tree preservation orders and so on, or is the whole gamut of planning within the application area the responsibility of the development corporation once the designation has been made? Can the Minister also clarify whether, in two-tier areas, the district council takes on the planning powers of both tiers—for example, the minerals, waste and flooding powers of the county as well as district planning powers? Would the county council keep the minerals and flooding powers without housing powers, or would all those powers transfer to the development corporation?

Lastly, in terms of membership and chairmanship of a development corporation, it is not clear to me whether this is left entirely to local discretion or whether it will require government departmental sign-off. Will it be a requirement that each local authority that comes within the designated area of the development corporation will be entitled to representation on that development corporation? Can the Minister give any further clarity on that? I am happy to have a response in writing at a later date.

Amendment 403 attempts to establish a principle that the development corporation should be accountable to local residents. When councils undertake development, whatever the scale, the public have all the protections that have been built into the planning system through the route of democratic accountability. Our amendment probes how that will be replicated in relation to development corporations. I note that the new Amendment 403A, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, makes a similar point in relation to ensuring that the public get value for money.

In view of discussions in your Lordships’ House just yesterday relating to the very significant development taking place under the mayoral development corporation in Teesside, I think it is particularly important that the accountability route for the public in relation to both the development itself and the public funds invested is much clearer than it is at present. We strongly believe that development undertaken by a development corporation should have to be in accordance with local plans, subject to master planning, where it is implementing development at scale, and subject to the same reassurance of independent examination as is required of councils.

Our Amendment 404 would give the public the opportunity to make representation at an independent inquiry.

Our continuing concern about this Government’s failure to deliver any scale of housebuilding that would help to tackle our housing emergency has prompted our Amendment 406, which probes the Government’s intentions in relation to a programme for new towns. We have had many discussions in Committee about the role of members of local councils in the development of their areas. Too often in the past, these vital community bodies—parish, town and other community councils—are left out of the loop. Their role at the heart of their communities is key to ensuring that there is a voice for local people as developments move forward.

Our Amendments 407 and 408 will introduce a requirement for local councils to be represented on locally led urban development corporations. In my questions to the Minister, I outlined our concerns over how the finances of a development corporation are to be publicly accountable. Our Amendment 409 reflects that concern and asks that the Secretary of State is much clearer than the Bill currently is about how the finances of development corporations are to be transparent, how they will be monitored and how they are to be accountable to the public. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this short group is actually very important. Clause 156 in Part 8 is an introduction by the Government of a new type of development corporation: locally led. Development corporations have been around in various guises for a long time—new towns, Canary Wharf and the Olympic Park are examples—with very variable degrees of success in achieving their stated aims. Development corporations are the vehicle for public-private partnerships, often to develop former industrial sites. In that sense, the principle is supported by these Benches. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, is quite right to challenge some aspects of the planned changes. We support her Amendments 404 and 405, which would ensure that the public have a right for their voice to be heard. This is, after all, the levelling-up Bill, where public engagement, involvement and participation are emphasised.

It is absolutely right—fundamental, in my view—that locally elected representatives are at the heart of development corporations, for the very reason that they are the route by which members of the public can take their concerns, raise complaints, get answers, challenge decisions that are being made and hold the board to account for the public money that is being spent. Unfortunately, that is not the case with some existing development corporations. Wherever public funding is involved, as it is in development corporations, there has to be public and transparent decision-making and then public accountability for those decisions. Hence Amendment 403A in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Shipley.

Unfortunately, one development corporation, the Teesside Development Corporation mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, is making headlines of the wrong sort, in both the Yorkshire Post and the Financial Times, for the apparent failure of transparency and accountability. Teesside is a mayoral development corporation—I asked this question yesterday in the Chamber, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, responded—where it seems that the mayor has the sole right to appoint the board membership of the development corporation. I think that was the response I got, but maybe that is not the case, in which case I hope that is put right. This practice is totally contrary to good governance, where openness and inclusivity have to be the hallmark. The extension of development corporations to include locally led ones is an opportunity for the Government to review best practice in governance, transparency and accountability and make the appropriate changes so that all development corporations meet the highest standards of open and transparent governance.

Residential Leasehold

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Wednesday 17th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. What they can do is give them the options they should consider at this time.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, on the current plight of leaseholders, there are 11,000 high-rise and medium-rise blocks in need of life-critical safety work since the Grenfell fire tragedy. The Government have made progress and done a contract with 43 or more developers that will put right those blocks—but only 1,100 of them. What assurance can the Minister give the other 10,000 that their work will be done at no cost to those leaseholders?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I assure the noble Baroness that the Government are doing everything they can. They are making sure that, as she has said, the perpetrator pays, and they have put large amounts of money into this. It takes time to work through the remediation of these buildings, but we are working at pace and pushing the industry the whole time to ensure that it makes these buildings safe as soon as possible.

Redcar Steelworks

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Wednesday 17th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

We are not blind to that fact. We are monitoring continually, as we do when we invest in these projects, and the National Audit Office did its audit and said that the public money was being spent as intended. We will look at anything further that needs to be done. As I have said, the mayor is very happy to take part in any review.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, at the heart of this controversy is the perceived lack of transparency and accountability. This may arise from the mayoral development corporation having a board that, as the Yorkshire Post reports, is appointed solely by the mayor. Does the Minister believe that this power to appoint the board and select people who will do his will is at the heart of the problem? Will she consider changes to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill to change that and improve transparency and governance?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

No, it is up to the mayor to decide the best people to be on his board. We have seen absolutely no evidence—if there is any, we would like to see it—of corruption, wrongdoing or illegal acts.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 24th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, these amendments support moves that will enable self and custom build, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, said. It is an important sector that is not especially helped by previous legislation, but these amendments may help. I have a question. I have an example where planning consent was given, with some concessions made, by the planning department to a small number of people who wanted to build out the site as a self-build project and then failed to do so. As the site had previous planning consent on it, a new developer was able to come in and gain consent for a non self-build project. I just wonder if there is a bit of a loophole there that the Minister may have come across and that perhaps needs to be closed.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for introducing these government amendments. We have no problem at all with them. They seem fairly straightforward in what they want to achieve, but I would like to make the point that this is going to help provide only a small number of homes. I wonder what estimate the Government have made of the number of homes this will provide and what the demand is for this sort of housing. It would be quite interesting.

We are concerned about the number of houses being built, full stop, particularly since the Government abandoned their mandatory housing target. We feel that this Bill should be used to help the Government to concentrate on providing sufficient quality housing that includes both affordable-to-buy and social housing. Perhaps the Government could then bring forward an amendment on properly defining “affordable housing”; that would be a very useful amendment to see going forward.

As I said, I have absolutely no problem with this; I am quite happy to support the government amendments. However, we feel that the Government need to balance their interest in progressing this with their progress in meeting their stated target of 300,000 new homes.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, government Amendment 509B provides that these new clauses will come into force two months after Royal Assent. I hope I have demonstrated to noble Lords that the measures proposed through the three amendments in this group will enable appeals and other Planning Inspectorate procedures to progress more quickly and efficiently. I therefore request that these amendments are accepted. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these three amendments, which enable planning appeals to be heard virtually, where the choice is being made by an appointed inspector. I wholly support the opportunity for virtual hearings. Currently, as the Minister explained, there are two options for appeal hearings: one is by written procedure and the other is by a full public hearing. It is usually the choice of the appellant which procedure they use. So someone appealing against, say, a planning refusal can ask for it to be heard in a public setting. I would like reassurance that that will still be the case.

Some members of the public find it easier to join virtually, and that is a really positive move. I accept the argument the Minister has made that it opens it up for more people to take part. Equally, though, there are always some who find that difficult, especially if they live in more remote areas where access to good-quality broadband is not possible. I am thinking of colleagues I have who live in North Yorkshire; when I have Zoom calls with them, it is hit and miss. I would just like reassurance that those people would be able to engage if they wanted to.

Now I have a question about the future. Some planning appeals are so important that, in my view, they are better heard in a public session. If there is a wide interest in the locality, a public hearing in person gives more reassurance to a local community than one that is held virtually or by the written procedure. The reason I argue this is that if you are in a room full of people, you feel the mood and sense what is going on much better than you do in a similar virtual hearing.

I support what has been said, with those provisos. Lastly, local plans have, obviously, planning inspector involvement. Is it anticipated that these too could be heard virtually, or will that still be largely in person?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I know it is not the practice in your Lordships’ House to have long discussions on government amendments. I do not intend to do that, but I want to make some comments on these amendments, because I think they are interesting.

On Amendment 285A, I make the point that varying proceedings should always be the subject of very effective communication, not only because we have professionals engaged in these processes but because the public are involved and need to understand exactly what is happening. Where there are changes, even more effort should be made to communicate why they have been made. I raise again the issue of resourcing of PINS. A lot of clauses in the Bill are putting another heavy burden on the Planning Inspectorate, and those issues need to be taken into account.

Secondly, as we have heard, Amendment 285B indicates that the Government wish the planning process to allow people to participate remotely in planning proceedings at the grant of the Planning Inspectorate. If the Government can see the value of this—I am very pleased that they can—I ask the Minister why what is good for planning proceedings is so inappropriate for the rest of local government? We have had debates on this previously in the Bill.

The Minister made the point that participating virtually increases diversity of participation, which I completely agree with. It also saves unnecessary travel; we have had those discussions on previous clauses. We are all trying to get down to net zero, and people do not have to travel if they can participate virtually. In addition, it helps those who live in bigger geographical areas. My borough is very small geographically, so it is not really a great hardship for anyone to have to come to the town hall for a discussion on a planning application or anything else. However, if you live in some of the parts of the country where that is not such an easy journey, particularly at certain times of the year, it can be much more difficult. So, I am confused about why we seem to think that this is a really helpful process for one part of local government activity but not for the rest of it. I also probe why the amendment says, “require or permit”. I am concerned about “require” and whether the planning inspector is going to be able to insist that this happens virtually, and how that is going to work.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, referred to feeling the mood in planning meetings. That is a variable experience, from my experience in local government. Sometimes it can be useful to do that, and sometimes you would not want to be anywhere near feeling the mood in a planning meeting—but that is another matter. I echo the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, about whether the intention is that this should apply to local planning inquiries. That is a whole other issue that needs further consideration.

By the way, I know that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, responded quite extensively on the ability to have local government proceedings virtually, and that is on the record. I would just appreciate a response from the Minister on why this is right for planning but so wrong for everything else in local government.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Let me respond to a couple of those points. On the difference between a case officer and a planning inspector and how you bring in the appellant, at the moment the case officer handles the administration of a planning appeal case, which includes the appointment of a planning inspector, but they also determine the mode of the procedure after seeking input from the parties and the inspector. Therefore, at the moment it is the case officer who talks to the parties and the inspector, and who then makes a decision taking all of that into account. We are suggesting that the planning inspector, who is the decision-maker or recommendation maker for called-in and recovered cases, will assess the details of the case and representations received from all parties in just the same way, so they would be seeking input from all parties before they made that decision.

On local plans, the major party in that will be the local planning authority or the local authority, and I cannot see those discussions being taken online. I suppose a local authority could ask for that, but those are usually quite long and arduous meetings that sometimes go on for weeks, so I am pretty sure they would be public.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My understanding, then, is that in the instance of a local plan hearing, the local planning authority would decide whether it should—the Minister is shaking her head, so I have misunderstood. Therefore, the appointed planning inspector makes the decision whether it will be in public or online.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Yes.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I therefore seek assurance that those members of the public—and in some cases members of the council, presumably—would be able to ask for it to be held in person if that was more relevant and appropriate.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

That is exactly what I was saying. Although the decision would be made by the inspector, it would be taken only after speaking to the person asking for the inspection, which would be the local planning authority. So it is important that it has a large input into that, just as any appellant in a normal planning appeal would have input into the discussion on how it was going to be dealt with. However, I cannot see a local plan inspection being held online. As I said, as with the current procedure, the appellant will be asked and the council will have a chance to comment on the appellant’s choice of procedure. That is because we need to make sure there is fairness to all parties, but the inspector will have the final decision.

On how Planning Inspectorate meetings, hearings or inquiries differ from local authority meetings—I think that is the question the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, asked—the measure clarifies the Planning Inspectorate’s existing practice of operating in-person and virtual proceedings as appropriate. This is necessary just to reduce the risk of challenge. We are not changing anything in the legislation; it can do this anyway without us changing anything. That is unlike some local authority meetings; Planning Inspectorate events through hearings or inquiries do not represent decision-making forums but allow interested parties to make representations. Hearings and inquiries enable planning inspectors to gather evidence, which they use to inform their approach to a case with a view to issuing either a decision or a recommendation to the Secretary of State, whereas planning meetings are decision-making meetings.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock]

288: After Clause 123, insert the following new Clause—
“Public consultation on planning and women’s safety(1) The Secretary of State must, within 90 days of the day on which this Act is passed, open a public consultation to establish the impact of proposed changes to the planning system on women’s safety.(2) Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (Determination of applications: general considerations) is amended in accordance with subsection (3).(3) After subsection (2A), insert—“(2B) In dealing with an application for planning permission for public development, a local planning authority must establish a review of how the proposed development would impact women’s safety. The review must, in particular, consider the impact of proposed development on—(a) open spaces,(b) layout of buildings,(c) unlit or hidden spaces,(d) visibility of entranceways, and(e) blind spots.(2C) The local planning authority must prepare and publish a report setting out the results of the review.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to open a public consultation to establish the impact of proposed changes to the planning system on women’s safety and would require local planning authorities to review the impact of new developments on women’s safety.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, we have discussed for many hours now the importance of a plan-led process and the outcomes of planning. Planning has the power to create great, safe, appealing places. Equally, poor planning has the ability to create places that do not feel safe and do not appeal to many of our fellow citizens. Amendment 288 asks the Government to have a consultation once the Bill is enacted in order to consider in the planning process the particular angle of women’s safety. In saying that the focus is on women’s safety, I do so in the knowledge that anyone who is particularly vulnerable, be they old, less able, or children or young people, would benefit from a focused look at safety in public places in the planning process.

I equally acknowledge that, during a planning application, the safety unit of the local police force will often be asked for advice and commentary on what is being proposed. Frequently in my experience, that considers fencing, alleyways and so on, but this amendment is trying to extend that. The consultations that I am seeking would have a broader look at whether the places that we create will be safe for women, particularly on their own, to use. There have been a number of recent tragic examples where clearly walking across a park at night is not safe.

I was particularly alerted to this issue when I read a research report published by Turley, a planning consultancy. Its argument, which I summarise, is that women are disproportionately impacted by poor design in public spaces, which makes women feel more vulnerable. I guess that, if I asked the women in this Chamber whether they cross the road at night when the other side is better lit, the answer would be yes. Do they avoid overgrown hedges where it is particularly dark? Yes. Do they avoid going down the shortcut of the alleyways, or the ginnels, as we call them? Yes. Our planning process has resulted in places where women feel less secure, and if they feel less secure, they are less likely to use public places. If public places are public places, they ought to be safe for everyone.

What I am seeking is that, by giving greater thought to women’s safety, we plan out, before places are built, areas which are less safe for women. In a survey, 55% of women stated they would not use public transport after dark and 34% stated that feelings of insecurity have stopped them travelling at times. A report by UN Women UK found that 70% of women have felt harassed in public spaces due to the issues that I have just raised of dark places, poor lighting, overgrown hedges, high fences and that sort of situation.

It has consequently been argued that women cannot fully enjoy towns and cities, especially, if they do not feel that they can travel through them safely. The sad fact is that there have been several recent terrible examples where women, even though they were not alone, were viciously attacked. If it were within our grasp to avoid creating places where this happens, surely we would want to grasp that and deal with it very quickly.

--- Later in debate ---

Ultimately, safety should be embedded in the design process to have the most impact. If this important matter is considered at the planning application stage alone, this may lead only to minor changes to final designs. Therefore, while I appreciate the spirit of this amendment, the Government must oppose it as national planning policy guidance and the law already require local planning authorities to take the issue of women’s safety into serious consideration when plan-making and decision-making are taking place.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for her full-hearted support for this amendment and the approach that it is taking. I thank the Minister for her full reply. Yes, planning applications are currently considered in relation to safety, but the difficulty is: through whose eyes is safety being considered? What I am trying to suggest to your Lordships’ Committee in this amendment is that women have a particular perception of safety which probably is not shared by many men.

Earlier I asked a general question: how many women here would cross the road to somewhere that is better lit? There were nods all around. That is not because planners previously had deliberately designed something that was going to be unsafe. They designed something they thought would be safe, but they did not see it through the eyes and perceptions of women. That is particularly what I am pointing to. It is a shame that the Minister, who I am sure would have agreed with much that I said, did not feel able to support this amendment.

Finally, we have the wonderful reference to the NPPF— as yet unpublished. The NPPF, says the Minister, will make reference to women’s safety and has particularly considered the safety of women and girls. But, unfortunately, we will not see the content of the NPPF until the Bill has been enacted. If you ask me, that is not acceptable. This amendment and others have asked particularly for issues of general importance to be thought about. The answer is that it may well be in the NPPF, but the Government are not publishing this until they have made all the decisions on this Bill. I urge the Minister yet again to get this NPPF before the House by Report because that will enormously aid our discussions. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 288 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville was unable to remain in your Lordships’ House to this late hour and has passed me some notes to which I will speak, if that is okay. She wished to speak in particular to Amendment 289, to which she added her name, and wishes the noble Lord, Lord Randall, a speedy recovery.

As others have said, the wild belt definition was proposed by the Wildlife Trusts. Any Government committed to nature recovery, biodiversity and our environment ought seriously to consider what they have to say. As we all know, biodiversity is at an all-time low. Our previous desire to see neat and well-kept hedgerows, farmland and gardens has had a devastating effect on our wildlife, of all types and sizes. To help biodiversity recover, it is necessary to ensure that areas of the countryside, both rural and urban, are maintained in a “wild” state. These will be included in the local nature recovery strategies for each area and easily identified in these plans.

A wild-belt area must be protected as such, from planning use and planning decisions. It is too easy to refer to a piece of scrubland as unsightly and of no particular use and to concoct a plan to turn it into something else. This misses the point altogether. That which is wild—and therefore unsightly, in the eyes of some—is likely to attract wildflowers and insects and become the home of small mammals and birds, all of which will increase the biodiversity of an area and protect and enhance nature’s recovery.

The Environment Act makes provision for the creation of local nature recovery strategies. By ensuring that wild-belt areas are included within these strategies, we can protect them from predatory development. They can, however, be used for farming and other land uses which will protect and not hinder nature recovery, such as nature-friendly farming and habitat restoration for carbon offsetting.

Amendment 386 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, also proposes wild-belt designations by local authorities, which would enhance the local environmental outcomes reports. Everything possible must be done to ensure that biodiversity is increased across the country. I support Amendment 386 from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman.

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

My Lords, as this is the first time I have spoken in Committee on the Bill, it is probably appropriate that I declare my farming and land management interests, as set out in the register.

I turn to Amendment 289 in the name of my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge, and so eloquently introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and Amendment 386 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. I thank all noble Lords for laying these amendments and provide assurances that I share the same view as my noble friend Lord Caithness on the importance of helping nature to recover.

While these two amendments both refer to wild belts, they take somewhat different approaches. I will begin by addressing Amendment 289, which seeks to secure a land designation of a wild belt. This would provide protection for sites being managed for nature’s recovery, identified through local nature recovery strategies. I thank noble Lords for the recent constructive debate on local nature recovery strategies, which covered quite similar ground. As my noble friend Lord Benyon reassured the Committee, the Government share the desire for local nature recovery strategies to be reflected appropriately in local plans so that the planning system can play a more proactive role in nature recovery. This is something we committed to explicitly in the recent environmental improvement plan.

Where we differ is on the necessity of making amendments to this Bill to achieve this. Instead, we will rely on existing duties created under the Environment Act and the guidance which the Government have committed to produce. The language of this proposed amendment—to “act in accordance” with a new designation based on the local nature recovery strategy—would be more binding than previous amendments. While the Government are determined that the planning system should play an important role in nature recovery, the system still needs to balance this priority with other priorities. Requiring, in legislation, that planning must “act in accordance” with plans for nature recovery would hamper the ability of planning authorities to strike this balance.

Last month we published the regulations and statutory guidance needed for responsible authorities to begin preparation of local nature recovery strategies. We are now working to put in place the guidance on how local authorities should consider LNRS in their local plans. This will be published this summer and will deliver on the commitments we have made. Therefore, while I appreciate the intention of Amendment 289, the Government are not able to support it. I hope that the noble Baroness, on behalf of my noble friend, will be able to withdraw it.

Amendment 386, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, would require the Secretary of State to publish draft legislation to allow local authorities to propose wild-belt designations for the purpose of improving the results of environmental outcome reports. EORs sit alongside the Government’s commitments to support nature’s recovery and are intended to ensure that decision-makers have the facts they need when deciding whether to move forward with a specific plan or to permit a specific development. EORs will consider a range of environmental factors, including the influence of protected or designated spaces on the effects of the development, and the model of outcomes and indicators will allow the Government to reflect environmental priorities, including matters such as the preservation of wilderness.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, talked about the need for a joined-up approach. The local nature recovery strategy statutory guidance explains how areas for nature recovery should be identified, including how conditions should be spatially connected for nature recovery and existing areas of importance for nature. I know from my own experience on the Select Committee for land use—my noble friend Lord Caithness also raised this—about management. We need to see much better management, particularly of green-belt spaces which are neither very green nor have much biodiversity in them. This is a real opportunity for those areas to do a lot of what these amendments are proposing.

Noble Lords also referred to the commitments the Government have made on this issue. The recent levelling up White Paper reinforced that local nature recovery strategies will be reflected in plan-making. It has been mentioned several times, but the National Planning Policy Framework expects plans to identify, map and safeguard components of local wildlife-rich habitats and wider ecological networks, including the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites of importance for biodiversity, wildlife corridors and the stepping stones that connect them, and the areas identified by national and local partnerships for habitat management, enhancement, restoration and creation.

While the concept of a wild belt is intriguing, introducing a designation that is required for the purpose of improving the results of an EOR risks distorting the purpose of environmental assessment, which is to provide relevant environmental information in a digestible way to support effective decision-making. Therefore, I am not able to recommend that the Government support these amendments, but I hope I have provided noble Lords with the assurances they seek in order to withdraw them.

While Amendments 386 and 289 take different approaches from each other, and from the Government’s stated position, I hope I have reassured noble Lords that we are working towards the same aim—nature’s recovery—and that the approach we are taking through the powers under the Environment Act and subsequent guidance will achieve that aim.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 24th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and the noble Lord, Lord Best, for raising these important points about buildout.

I will address the noble Baroness’s amendment first. Too many developers choose to land bank having achieved planning permission on a particular site. We know from Local Government Association data that there are more than 1 million housing units with existing planning consent that have not been built. The question we need to ask is: why, when as a country we are desperate for new houses, are we failing to take action to ensure that sites are developed promptly? Is the Minister able to provide any explanation for the long delays in developing sites? Will the Government provide proposals to prevent such delays?

I think we are all keen to have more housing units built, so we should focus on any delays in the system and try to improve buildout. From local experience I am aware of some of the reasons for delay. Where there are several sites with planning consent in the same locality, developers choose to delay construction in order not to have too many units on the market at the same time. That is an understandable commercial decision, but it delays the building of units of housing, which we desperately need. Developers also, understandably, want to create a steady flow of sites to develop as part of their business plans. These extend into several years, so it is not surprising that there is a slow output of new homes. What actions do the Government intend to take to address this issue?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 261 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, proposes two fundamental changes to Clause 104, which modernises the procedure for serving completion notices in England. While I appreciate the intention, I remind your Lordships that completion notices—when served by a local authority or the Secretary of State—must provide the recipient with an opportunity to complete development. It is a “use it or lose it” power. Removing this opportunity for the developer to use the permission, as this amendment does, raises the prospect that compensation from the loss of the permission will be necessary as it is a revocation of a planning permission. I believe this would make completion notices less appealing to local planning authorities.

The second proposed effect of the amendment relates to the removal of finished parts of a development where a site could not be completed in full. Local planning authorities already have the power to require the removal of unfinished developments by order under Section 102 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, brought up one or two important issues. In the clauses already in the LURB, we have introduced two further provisions to ensure a better buildout rate of planning permissions in this country. First, the Government will require housing developers to report annually to local authorities on their actual delivery of housing. This will enable them to identify where sites in their area are coming forward too slowly. It will also help to inform whether to sanction a developer for failure to build out their schemes promptly. Secondly, the Government have introduced a new power that will allow local planning authorities to decline to determine planning applications made by developers that failed to build out at a reasonable rate earlier permissions on any land in the authority’s area.

To strengthen the package further, we will publish data on developers of sites over a certain size in cases where they fail to build out according to their commitments. Developers will be required to explain how they propose to increase the diversity of housing tenures to maximise development schemes’ absorption rate, which is the rate at which homes are sold or occupied. The NPPF will highlight that delivery can be a material consideration in planning applications. This could mean that applications with trajectories that propose a slow delivery rate may be refused in certain circumstances. We will also consult on proposals to introduce a financial penalty against developers that are developing out too slowly.

I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on houses that are not what a particular local authority wants. I believe that is up to the local authority. If the local authority has a local plan saying that it needs specific types of housing in the area, it needs to make sure that the planning applications that go through will have that in them. Local authorities know their area best, so it is up to them to make sure that their local plan is up to date and reflects what is required.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I thank the Minister for the information she has provided about sanctions and so on. I wait to see how firm those sanctions are. On the issue of local planning authorities having the power, basically, to dictate to a commercial enterprise what is developed on a site that the commercial enterprise owns, I would love to hear what powers the LPA will have in that regard.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The whole system is designed, after the LUR Bill, to be plan led. Therefore, planning applications should be in accordance with, first, national policies and, as importantly, local policies. If local policies say that you need, for example, houses for older people or disabled people, one should be agreeing only those planning applications that have those types of tenure within the developments that are coming forward through planning. If the system is plan led, I would have thought that the inspector should stick to the locally produced plan. On that basis, I hope this reassures the noble Baroness opposite that Amendment 261 is not necessary.

Amendment 269, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, seeks to ensure that the development of large housing sites—defined as sites of 500 or more dwellings or more than five hectares in size where the predominant use will be housing, or designated as a large housing site within a development plan—is diversified in such a way that it provides a mix of new housing that reflects local needs, including social housing, in line with a local authority’s local plan requirements and national development management policies. While we agree with the sentiment of this amendment, we believe that there are better ways of achieving its objectives. The Government are of the view that diversification is best achieved by making this a stronger material planning consideration in the assessment of any housing application, and by requiring a buildout and diversification statement in all prescribed applications. We believe that this is best achieved via a new national development management policy, as that can be applied more flexibly compared to legislation and therefore address the different planning circumstances and housing needs that occur across the country, and that such a measure should not necessarily be limited to larger housing sites.

That is why the Government announced in December 2022—as part of the consultation Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill: Reforms to National Planning Policy—that developers will be required to explain how they propose to increase the diversity of housing tenures to maximise a development scheme’s absorption rate, which is the rate at which homes are sold or occupied. We invited views on the design of this policy, which will help to inform our thinking as part of our fuller review of national planning policy later this year. In these circumstances, while I very much agree with the objective of this amendment, there is a better way to achieve it via national planning policy, and I believe that it should be applied to a greater range of housing sites. This will ensure faster buildout rates and the diversification of those housing sites.

Government Amendment 261A will amend Clause 105 to strengthen the existing powers and hold developers more to account for unreasonably slow delivery or non-implementation of planning permissions. Currently, Clause 105 gives local planning authorities the power to decline to determine planning applications made by a person connected to an earlier planning permission on that same land which was not begun or has been carried out at an unreasonably slow rate. This amendment will enable authorities to exercise the power where an applicant is connected to an earlier permission on any land in their area which has not begun or has been built out unreasonably slowly. This change will send the message to developers that local planning authorities, as well as the communities they serve, expect new residential developments to come forward at a reasonable rate before new planning permissions are considered. This amendment will give greater powers to local areas to tackle cases of slow buildout.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, in the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, who cannot be here this week, I will introduce her Amendment 283, to which I and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, have added our names. As it is her amendment, I will not do what I normally do and speak off the cuff. I have some notes from her, and I will, unusually, read from them.

A number of statutory consultees receive requests to provide expert information and opinion on planning applications and other planning cases. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, just mentioned some of them. The main statutory consultees include Natural England, the Environment Agency, the Health and Safety Executive, Historic England and Highways England.

The volume of planning application requests has increased by 38% over the six years up to the financial year 2021-22. It is estimated that this trend will continue. Natural England alone received almost 18,000 requests in the last financial year. In 2019 the main statutory consultees estimated the total cost of providing this advice at approximately £50 million. Obviously, costs will rise with volume.

Amendment 283 inserts a provision into the Town and Country Planning Act. It would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to allow statutory consultees to charge developers and others for the provision of such advice and information about planning applications and other planning cases put forward by developers and others to local planning authorities. This provision would bring the cost-recovery arrangements for the majority of planning applications under the Town and Country Planning Act, in line with the proposals in Clause 118, which will allow cost recovery in the case of nationally significant infrastructure projects.

Amendment 283 lays out what particular provisions the regulations may make, including who should pay, how much and when. It also defines an “excluded person” who cannot be charged, unless that person is the applicant for the planning permission. Broadly speaking, in at least the first instance, it seems that the charges would be for the planning applicant or developer to pay, and charges would not be levied on the planning authority. It is all very straightforward and essential if our hard-pressed statutory consultees are to provide a prompt and efficient service to both planning authorities and applicants in the face of the growing case load.

The Minister has ostensibly agreed, as the Government have laid what seems like a similar amendment, Amendment 285C. However, proposed new subsection (3)(b) in the government amendment could be interpreted as prohibiting a statutory consultee charging fees to a planning applicant in respect of the provision of advice to a local planning authority by any route. It could even prohibit current scenarios where a developer is willing to meet those costs under a voluntary agreement, for example under a planning performance agreement or a service level agreement. If that is not the intention in proposed new subsection (3)(b) in the government amendment, the ambiguity needs to be removed.

It would be good to have confirmation today from the Minister that the Government intend to ensure that the statutory consultees can recover their costs. I ask the Minister whether she might be prepared to meet the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and other interested Peers between now and Report to identify a mutually satisfactory and unambiguous version of these two amendments.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I speak to my Amendment 287, which would achieve a planning fee system that would cover costs for local planning authorities. It largely mirrors Amendment 267 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and my noble friend Lady Thornhill. I concur entirely with his arguments, but have some additional points to make in support of the plea to enable local planning authorities to set their own fees.

Too often planning applications, especially those that are complex, such as a major commercial development, have a set fee that nowhere near covers the costs, simply because there is so much more to planning applications than simply considering the plan details submitted at the first stage. I give an example of a recent application near me for a very large commercial development of 1 million square feet—probably a bit more than that—with a fee of £300,000. That is, and sounds, a considerable sum. However, in the end there were more than 200 different elements of the planning application to consider, 96 of which were amendments to the original plan. One of those, which I endeavoured to read, was of itself more than 100 pages long.

Understandably, these applications are hugely complex and require considerable expertise within the local planning authority to understand and respond to them. They are not just about the design and features of the building itself—there is also highway access, road safety, landscaping, biodiversity, trees, noise and light pollution, and the impact on the landscape. In my local authority, they have to consider drainage and, in this instance, 14 attenuation tanks had to be built in the end to deal with run-off from the development. Hugely complex issues are being considered, and it all has to be done within that set fee, regardless. It took nigh on two years for that application to be fully considered and ready for a planning committee. Clearly, the fee failed to cover the costs of the details of the application.

There are implications to all this. The Royal Town Planning Institute reckons that there were 42% cuts in planning budgets over the 10-year period from 2008. There have been increases since, not all of which have been directed towards day-to-day planning officers. Digitisation was one of the issues rightly being considered by the Government. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, has said, the information is that local council tax payers are subsidising planning applications. If I told local people where I am that that was the case, they would rightly be very concerned, when other vital services have insufficient funding.

The RTPI research showed that one in 10 planning officer roles was unfilled. The reason for that is that so many expert planning officers find life much better rewarded—in many ways, not just financially—in private practice. The draining of local planning officers from the system is putting immense pressure on dealing with planning applications, and the timeliness of those, which again is hindering the Government’s aim to build more housing. None of this is helpful to achieving that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the Grenfell fire tragedy of June 2017 has rightly ensured that many of us in this Chamber have put our minds to the outrageous way in which the construction industry failed to meet existing building safety regulations and how material manufacturers knowingly sold flammable cladding materials to be put on high-rise blocks of flats. That is not me saying that; the inquiry into the Grenfell fire said that.

We have over the past six years in this House tried two ways, so far, to address those issues, first through the Fire Safety Act and then through the longer, more detailed Building Safety Act. Right from the outset, I and others have said quite clearly that, whatever happens in putting right the wrongs of 20 years or more, the leaseholders are the innocent victims in this situation. They have done everything right in their lives and nothing wrong, and they should not be asked to pay a penny piece towards putting right the wrongs that have been done to them, which were concealed from them when they entered into a contract for their property.

We have, with the Government, tried hard to put this right. We have heard from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, who have been on this route march, as it seems, from the beginning, trying to find the answer to the question, “As the leaseholder must not pay, who must?” The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, asked the right question—of course, he always does—which is, “Has the Government done enough?” Some of us, including him at the time, said we did not think so, and so it is proving.

Not only we in this Chamber but thousands of leaseholders are saying that the Government have not done enough. Not only is the construct in the Building Safety Act of the waterfall of responsibilities failing to ensure that remediation takes place promptly or at all, but, meanwhile, as we heard from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, many leaseholders have awful tales to tell about anxiety caused, mental health that has broken down, financial burdens that cannot be met, ensuing bankruptcy and life chances blunted—and no responsibility of theirs.

Why would any of us involved in legislation allow thousands of our fellow country men and women to be put in this position, where they are being seriously adversely affected, in emotional, financial and social ways, and not do anything—or enough—about it? The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, rightly said again that the Building Safety Act, despite our best efforts, excluded certain groups of leaseholders: those living in blocks under 11 metres, enfranchised leaseholders and, indeed, some buy-to-let leaseholders. That is clearly not acceptable, because those leaseholders are suffering immensely; the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, gave a vivid example of that.

So the challenge to the Government and to the Minister, which I hope she will take up and respond to, is: what, then, can be done? The Government have tried to put in place a series of funding mechanisms and responsibilities, but that is clearly failing to help thousands upon thousands of leaseholders.

The Minister was unfortunately—or fortunately, for her—was not part of the long discussions on what became the Building Safety Act. We were promised at the time that leaseholders would not be expected to pay, but that is clearly not bearing out in practice. Therefore, I hope the Minister will go back to her department and ask those fundamental questions. The Government’s purpose, as expressed by the Secretary of State Michael Gove, was that it was morally reprehensible for leaseholders to pay. If that is the case, let us put that into practice and find a route through, so that no leaseholder pays anything. They have done nothing wrong and they should not be expected to pay.

In his proposed new schedule to the Bill, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has made a very detailed proposal about the polluter pays principle. I concur with the principle that those who cause the damage—the construction companies and the materials manufacturers—must pay. We have to find to find a way for that to work in practice. I am hoping that the Minister will come up with some answers.

Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, has once again raised the issue of second staircases in high-rise buildings and houses in multiple occupation, which we debated during the progress of what became the Fire Safety Act and also the Building Safety Act. Most of us said that, yes, that was the expert advice from the fire service chiefs and that is what we should do; but, unfortunately, that was not accepted by the Government.

I agree with the noble Baroness’s amendment, but I go back to the key to all this. My view—and that of all who have spoken, through all the outcomes that followed the Grenfell fire tragedy—is that, however the remediation of these buildings, of all heights, is resolved, when it comes to the leaseholders, whether enfranchised or unenfranchised, whatever happens, they must not pay. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, in his Amendments 274, 318, 320 and 325, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, returns us to subjects that we debated extensively this time last year in what was then the Building Safety Bill. I say to the noble Earl, with the greatest of respect, that this House and the other place considered his arguments carefully last year and rejected them. I really do not think that this Bill is an appropriate place to try to reopen these issues.

Last year, the Government opposed the noble Earl’s scheme and proposed an alternative, the leaseholder protection package, which was agreed by your Lordships and the other place. As your Lordships will be aware, the leaseholder protections in what is now the Building Safety Act 2022 have been in force since June 2022 and form part of the Government’s response to the need to fix defective buildings, alongside a number of other measures that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State set out recently in a Statement in the other place, which was repeated for your Lordships.

Those protections are complex. I would be very happy to have a meeting with interested Peers to discuss the Government’s actions in detail if that would be helpful. If any noble Lord would like to do that, they can get in touch with me or my office and we would be very happy to set that up. But, as I said, the protections are complex and it is true that it has taken time for the various professionals working in this space to get to grips with them. None the less, there is now progress on getting work done, getting mortgages issued on affected flats and moving the conversation forward with the insurance industry to ensure that remediation can be undertaken and that building insurance premiums, which had been excessively high, reflect this reduction in building risk.

I want to be clear with your Lordships: the leaseholder protections are working. The first remediation contribution order to get money back for leaseholders has been made by the tribunal and is being enforced now. In response to my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, I can say that there have been a further 12 applications for remediation orders to the First-tier Tribunal and nine for contribution orders; that is up to the end of December—we do not have any further updated figures.

The Government’s recovery strategy unit is litigating against large freeholders, and leaseholders have the peace of mind that the remediation bills they were facing—sometimes for more than the value of their home—are no more. I emphasise to your Lordships that changing the basis on which leaseholders are protected would set back by months the progress of remediation work, which is finally happening at pace, and would create further uncertainty in the market.

In addition to the inevitable delay to remediation that would be caused if the noble Earl’s proposals were adopted, I must emphasise that the objections set out by my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh, when he spoke from this Dispatch Box last year, are still relevant. The building-by-building assessment process that he proposes would be both costly and time-consuming, which would not be in anyone’s interest.

While the noble Earl says that his scheme seeks to avoid litigation, our experience shows that the level of complexity and the sums at stake in this field mean that litigation is inevitable—and will necessarily take place in the High Court, rather than the expert tribunal already dealing with disputes under the leaseholder protections, increasing costs and the time taken to resolve cases. I should also make it clear that the Government’s package of measures in this space goes much further than the leaseholder protections set out in the Building Safety Act.

At this point, I would like to answer a few questions. Both my noble friend Lord Young and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, brought up the point of “under 11 metres”, which I know has been an issue raised. I think I have said many times at this Dispatch Box that the views of the independent experts are clear: there is no systematic risk in buildings under 11 metres. However, we continue to look at these on a case-by-case basis and provide any help to those leaseholders accordingly. If my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham would like to let me have the letter that was sent to him, I would be happy for the team to look at it.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, this group is made up of two of my amendments, Amendments 213A and 312L. The first is a probing amendment, designed to ensure that local planning authorities must consider what facilities are needed to provide the necessary health and social care facilities for their area, including for those with a terminal illness. My second amendment builds on this to ensure that local planning authorities must regularly survey the health and social care requirements for their area when considering any future development requirements.

We know that an ageing population is increasing the demand for specialist health and care services within local communities. We also know that demand for palliative and end-of-life care is rising rapidly as our population ages. In the next 25 years, the number of people aged 85 years and over in the UK will almost double. We heard some figures around the need for housing for the elderly in previous debates, so this issue covers various aspects of how we plan for the future. In areas such as mine, in Cumbria, where we have what is known as a super-ageing population, there are even more stresses on local authorities and services to provide.

Because of this ageing population, by 2045 there will be over 136,000 additional deaths per year in the UK, compared with projections for 2023. So the demand for palliative care and end-of-life services will increase, particularly due to the larger numbers of people living longer with multiple and complex health conditions. It is absolutely critical that every person at the end of their life receives the care and support they need so that they can live the end of their life in dignity.

Marie Curie has provided some very helpful information, and I thank it for its briefing on this matter. It has estimated that, if palliative care capacity does not increase in line with projected increases in mortality, as many as an additional 14,000 people may die each year without palliative care by 2030, and as many as 86,000 additional people may be in the same position by 2040. In contrast, if capacity in the palliative care system grows to reflect this ageing population, as many as 77,000 more people every year could receive the specialist palliative care they need at the end of their lives. It makes a huge difference to how people can get the support and dignity that they need, as well as support for families in that difficult time.

We know that access to medicines out of hours can be complicated and time-consuming. For example, when Marie Curie surveyed areas in its report on better out-of-hours care, it found that only 25% of areas had a pharmacy open throughout the night that was able to dispense palliative medicines, and 68% of areas had only partial availability of healthcare professionals who were able to administer palliative medicines at night. More facilities within local communities could also relive pressure on the acute sector. Reducing unplanned admissions would reduce pressure on NHS hospitals—and we know how incredibly important that is at the moment with the extra pressures that the NHS is feeling. We know that there are around 5.5 million bed days occupied by people in the last year of life, just in England. The total cost of those admissions to the NHS is more than £1.2 billion. There are huge opportunities to improve life for people and end-of-life care, as well as to support our NHS in the work that it does.

To look at the importance of reducing health disparities for end-of-life care, the introduction of the Health and Care Act 2022 created the first ever duty for the NHS to commission palliative care services in every part of England through integrated care boards. That is very welcome—we know how important they are to local communities and families. However, we need to ensure that local planning authorities identify and allocate land and sites to help health commissioners to deliver the joined-up health and care services that we need within local community settings. By 2030, one in five people in the UK will be aged over 65 and the number of people receiving palliative care services is projected to increase from 47% of all deaths to 66% over the next decade. That is almost a 20% increase.

At the same time, the nature of care need is also changing, with an increasing proportion of people dying at home or in a care home. This will again lead to growing pressure on primary care, social care and the local community. Too many people already miss out on the care and support they need towards the end of their life, particularly those from disadvantaged groups. The most recent estimate suggests that in England, up to 25%—a quarter—of those who need palliative care are not receiving it. Out-of-hours emergency department attendance increases in frequency as death approaches. It is between five and eight times higher in the month before death than at 12 months before death. It is also more common among people living in the most socioeconomically deprived areas.

Marie Curie and others have carried out research that indicates that certain groups face particular barriers in access to palliative care, including people who are living in poverty, living alone or living with dementia, as well as people with learning difficulties, those who are homeless, those who are in prison, those from minoritised ethnic groups and LGBTQ+ people. There is much to do in this area. I know it is quite a specific area to put into the Bill, but I hope that by putting these amendments forward we can have a proper debate on something that is very important to our society. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, has raised a very important issue about end-of-life care and how the planning system can be encouraged to prepare for the needs that will arise in the not-too-distant future. It is an argument that we on these Benches absolutely support; I will just expand it ever so slightly by saying that whenever there is a big allocation for a housing site, local residents immediately say there will be a huge pressure on primary healthcare—GP services. Although the community infrastructure levy enables planning authorities to try to extract some funding from the levy for improvements to primary healthcare services, it is often not that possible when there are so many other big demands placed on the levy—highways infrastructure, education, outdoor play space and so on.

Often, certainly in my part of the country, where house prices and land values are lower, the levy is therefore also lower and is unable to support the development of essential provision for primary healthcare. It is an area that I guess we may want to explore when we get to discussion about the replacement of the community infrastructure levy. I thought I would raise it now, in this context, because whichever of the Front Bench team is responding may be able to give me an answer. With that, I clearly support the amendments.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, the two amendments in this group, Amendments 213A and 312I, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, look to ensure, as she explained, that local planning authorities should consider the health and social care facilities needed for their area when considering future development. I am sure that we can agree that it is important to ensure that we have the right health and social care facilities in place where they are needed: that is why this is already a consideration as part of planning policy, guidance and legislation.

The National Planning Policy Framework is clear that when setting strategic policies, local planning authorities should set out an overall strategy for the pattern, scale and design quality of places, and make sufficient provision for community facilities, including for health infrastructure. The Government have set out in planning guidance how the need for health facilities, as well as other health and well-being impacts, can be considered as part of the plan-making and decision-making process. Plan-making bodies will need to discuss their emerging strategy for development at an early stage with directors of public health, NHS England, local health and well-being boards, and sustainability and transformation partnerships/integrated care systems, depending on the local context and the implications of development on health and care infrastructure. The National Planning Policy Framework must, as a matter of law, be given regard to in preparing the development plan, and is a material consideration in planning decisions.

We have also set out, in the consultation on reforms to national planning policy, that we are intending to undertake a wider review of the NPPF to support the programme of changes to the planning system, and, as part of this, we will consider updates needed to reflect the importance of better environmental and health outcomes. In addition, as part of the new infrastructure levy system, local authorities will be required to prepare an infrastructure delivery strategy. This will set out the local planning authority’s priorities for spending levy proceeds.

Section 204Q(11) requires levy regulations to determine the consultation process and procedures that must be followed when preparing an infrastructure delivery strategy. This can include which bodies must be consulted in order for charging authorities to determine their infrastructure priorities for spending the levy. Such bodies could include integrated care boards to ensure that health infrastructure is considered in the preparation of the infrastructure delivery strategy. We can also make provision that integrated care boards must assist charging authorities with the preparation of an infrastructure delivery strategy. That is Clause 93.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, this group is intended to make minor, technical and consequential amendments to the reforms in the Bill connected to plan making.

Amendment 216A is a minor and technical amendment to Schedule 7. It clarifies an ambiguity in relation to new Section 15CA, to be inserted into the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 by Schedule 7 to the Bill. The amendment, which will insert new subsection (3A) into new Section 15CA, clarifies that local planning authorities may be made liable for the costs associated with observations or advice delivered by a person appointed by the Secretary of State under new Section 15CA(3), which in practice will be in relation to the proposed local gateways.

Noble Lords will note that the intention was always that, in relation to remuneration and allowances payable under new Section 15LE(2)(j) in Schedule 7, it should be possible for local planning authorities to be made liable for these costs. This amendment simply ensures clarity as to where liability for remuneration or allowances under new subsection (2)(j) may fall. The position following this amendment will broadly mirror arrangements for other relevant appointments, for example in relation to independent examination of plans and local plan commissioners appointed by the Secretary of State.

Amendments 242A, 242B, 242C, 242D, 242E, 242F, 242G and 242H set out consequential amendments required to various pieces of legislation in connection with our reforms to plan making. Through the reforms to Part 2 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, as introduced by Clause 90 and Schedule 7 to the Bill, the concepts of “local development document” and “development plan document” will be replaced by

“local plan, minerals and waste plan or supplementary plan”.

Various consequential amendments have been tabled to ensure that these changes to terminology are carried across to other legislation.

Schedule 8 already sets out minor and consequential amendments of this kind. These further changes will be inserted into Schedule 8 and amend various pieces of legislation to ensure that other key legislative provisions would continue to have effect in light of our reforms. These include, for instance, the Local Government Act 1972, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Greater London Authority Act 1999, the Commons Act 2006, the Planning and Energy Act 2008 and the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I have a query, and I congratulate the noble Baroness on so carefully explaining the long list of amendments. On the first amendment, Amendment 216A, is that a new requirement for local planning authorities? If so, then surely it should fall under the new burdens agreement between the Government and local authorities and should therefore be funded by the Government.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I am told that if it was a new burden, it would be. We do not know whether it is going to be a new burden, but if it were to be a new burden, it would be.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

And if it was not a new burden, it would not be?

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

Exactly.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I would be grateful if the Minister could write and let me know.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

We will write.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I rise to offer Green support for all these amendments. On the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, it is worth reflecting that if you design a space, a community or a building that is accessible and welcoming to everybody, that will be a really good building for any person to enjoy. This is the same principle that applies to accessible public transport and many other areas.

I mostly want to speak to Amendment 222 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. I commend him both on tabling this amendment and on his excellent introduction to it. He was perhaps reading the mind of the Committee on Climate Change, because he must have tabled this amendment before its report about three weeks ago, which really stressed the nation’s utter failure to prepare for the climate reality that is now already locked in—what is now known in shorthand as adaptation. Another Member of your Lordships’ House, the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, said:

“This has been a lost decade in preparing for and adapting to the known risks that we face from climate change”.


It is very clear that what we should be doing now is making sure that we design, build and deliver buildings, infrastructure and communities that are actually fit for—as the noble Lord said—the next century. To take a practical example of this, the APPG on Wetlands has done a great deal of work and spread the word about how crucial wetlands are. We think about all the issues the Government keep facing all the time on sewage and what is spilling into our rivers and oceans. Sustainable urban drainage systems and just the smallest-scale wetlands—something that I have seen NGOs presenting with—can be a way of enriching biodiversity and addressing the kind of issues that this amendment does. They also create a much more pleasant environment for people and do something to tackle all the issues we have with water distribution in our country.

It is not just the Committee on Climate Change. Yesterday your Lordships’ House gave strong support for the amendment to the Energy Bill saying that we absolutely have to deal with retrofitting—with the adaptation that is necessary for existing homes. That very much addresses this amendment as well.

I will offer one constructive suggestion to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and something to think about. We have now got to the stage where pretty much everyone, including the Government, is talking about the climate emergency and about biodiversity in nature. These are just two of the very big issues we face in terms of the planetary boundaries. A year or so back, the Stockholm institute concluded that we have exceeded the planetary boundary for novel entities, which is shorthand for pesticides, plastics and pharmaceuticals. I suggest that the next step—which everyone will be talking about in a few years, but we can get ahead of the curve now—is to say that we need design codes that ensure we are living within all the planetary boundaries, which includes things such as geochemical flows and protecting fresh water: a whole range of issues that come under the planetary boundaries model. If we are indeed to be able to survive and thrive on this poor, battered planet, we have to design to live within those planetary boundaries.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, is quite right to raise the issue of accessible and inclusive design. Everyone benefits where design is accessible and inclusive for everyone, so all planners and all local plan strategies should bear that in mind as a prior consideration. The noble Lord has our complete support.

We must say two things to the Government that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has said several times today. We need the content of both the National Planning Policy Framework and the national development management plan before we get to Report, otherwise we will have to include in the Bill content that may later appear in either of those two important plans. We cannot operate in this vacuum of lack of knowledge and information about the content of two absolutely fundamental building blocks of strategic planning. We need to keep raising that—I think it was also raised today by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage—and I hope the Minister has heard the pleas from across the Committee.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, not just for his amendment but for his continued work to ensure that we keep issues of inclusivity at the forefront when considering all aspects of the Bill, particularly planning. Levelling up must relate not just to tackling inequalities between the regions and places in the UK but to ensuring that no group is excluded from opportunities that are open to the rest of us. That is why the amendments in this group are so important.

We absolutely support the principle behind the noble Lord’s Amendment 217 and will definitely support the consideration of observations and advice relating to inclusive design as local authorities go through their plan-making process. But for the sake of practicality, if this amendment is accepted, there may be a need for further guidance about whether local authorities could be exempted on individual developments if they are able to demonstrate adequate reasons for that. I certainly do not suggest that they should be able to do so on many grounds—they would have to be very exceptional circumstances—but if that was not included, there may be examples, such as where heritage assets are involved in the development or something like that, where there would need to be some consideration of other factors. But it is a very good amendment, as is Amendment 302, which is an unequivocal statement, which we absolutely support, to ensure that inclusive design is enshrined in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

If Ministers are so impressed with that that they now insist that all those voluntary decisions have to be compulsory, they are putting another inhibition on the required expansion of neighbourhood plans, and they will rapidly push communities back on the defensive. We shall get back to where we were, where the developer proposes and the community opposes, and the whole process will get logjammed again. I believe Ministers should look again at both these provisions, or they may find that the neighbourhood plan goose stops laying the golden eggs of increased housing provision.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Stunell is the expert on neighbourhood planning, and there is nothing I can add to what he has just expounded. I also agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, said. In particular, my noble friend raised important questions about the statement by the Secretary of State last week about future planning proposals that will affect this Bill.

Finally, my Amendment 227 is just an extension of Amendment 231 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, about development plans within national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. The amendment in my name would enable neighbourhood development plans to limit housing development in those vital areas of the country entirely to affordable housing—and affordable housing in perpetuity—so that there is a stream and supply of new housing in those areas that is appropriate, relevant and affordable, if “affordable” is the right definition. In this case, it means affordable for local people who live and work in those areas; evidence of that has already been given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, neighbourhood planning has been a great success story. I went into it with my council, probably at the same time as the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and it was difficult to begin with, because it was very new and communities did not understand it. What I think is good about neighbourhood planning now is that all that groundwork has been done by many councils across the country, working with many communities. Therefore, for new councils and new communities coming on, I think it is going to be a lot easier as we move forward.

I thank noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, who is obviously a guru on neighbourhood planning, for their support. As I say, I am also fully in favour of it, as can be seen by what has happened in Wiltshire. It has been a great success story; it has given many communities a much greater role in shaping development in their local areas and ensuring they meet their needs.

The Bill retains the existing framework of powers for neighbourhood planning while at the same time providing more clarity on the scope of neighbourhood plans alongside other types of development plan. However, we recognise that the take-up of neighbourhood planning is low in some parts of the country, and we would like to see more communities getting involved. This is why the Bill introduces neighbourhood priorities statements. These are a new tool, and they will provide a simpler and more accessible way for communities to participate in neighbourhood planning.

On Amendment 225 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, perhaps it would be helpful if I set out some detail about the intended role of neighbourhood priorities statements in the wider system. A neighbourhood priorities statement can be prepared by neighbourhood planning groups and can be used to set out the community’s priorities and preferences for its local area. The provisions in the Bill allow communities to cover a range of issues in their statements, including in relation to the use and development of land, housing, the environment, public spaces and local facilities.

Neighbourhood priorities statements will provide a formal input into the local plan. Under new Section 15CA of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, inserted by Schedule 7 to this Bill, local planning authorities will be required to “have regard” to them when they are preparing their local plans. This will be tested at examination. While some communities will use them solely to feed into the local plan process, we also expect that they will operate as a preliminary stage to preparing a full neighbourhood plan or a neighbourhood design code. In these ways, neighbourhood priorities statements will feed into the planning process. Furthermore, they may also act as a springboard for other community initiatives outside the remit of the planning system.

Amendments 227, 229 to 232 and 234 deal in different ways with the scope of neighbourhood plans. On Amendments 227 and 231 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Hayman of Ullock, we acknowledge that delivery of affordable housing within national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty can be a challenge and that neighbourhood plans can play an important role in supporting provision. However, I do not agree that these amendments are necessary. Clause 91 specifies what matters communities can choose to address within their neighbourhood development plans. It does not prevent communities including policies relating to the provision of affordable housing in the plan area. All policies in neighbourhood plans, however, must meet the statutory tests, known as the basic conditions, before they can be adopted, including that they must have regard to national policy.

I draw the Committee’s attention to specific measures we have taken to address this issue. Paragraph 78 of the National Planning Policy Framework sets out a rural exception sites policy. This allows for affordable housing to be delivered on sites that would not otherwise be developed in order to meet specific local need for affordable housing, the majority of which will be required to remain permanently available to those with a local connection. In 2021 the Government published planning practice guidance to further help bring forward more of these sites in future.

Furthermore, I point to our decision to allow local authorities and neighbourhood planning groups in designated rural areas to set and support policies to require affordable housing from a lower development threshold. The threshold can be five units or fewer, compared with the threshold of 10 units in other areas. We will consult on how the small sites threshold should work in rural areas under the infrastructure levy.

I turn to Amendment 229 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. Under the reformed planning system, it will continue to be the role of the local planning authority to set a housing requirement number for neighbourhood plan areas as part of its overall development strategy. As under the current system, where neighbourhood planning groups have decided to make provision for housing in their plan, the housing requirement figure and its origin would be expected to be set out in the neighbourhood plan as a basis for their housing policies and any allocations that they wish to make. The allocation of housing has not changed; the neighbourhood takes the planning housing requirement from the local plan. As the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, has said, across the country we have seen neighbourhoods adding to that number rather than taking away from it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, as I just said when I asked for that clarification, this is a really interesting amendment. One reason I am particularly interested in it is that, not only before being elected to the other place was I a local councillor for some time, but my job was working on major infrastructure development—in my case, particularly in the energy and water industries. So I see this from both sides. There are a number of issues around investment intention and delivery, how developers work with local authorities, how they work with the regulator and how, often, it can be not as straightforward as you would expect to deliver a major infrastructure project in industries such as electricity and water, for example.

One of the reasons I asked about the role of the regulator and how that would work is that an issue we found when developing new projects—for the national grid, for example—was that if you are going to spend a lot of money on large investment projects, you need it to be signed off by the regulator, which needs to agree the need case for that particular investment. The problem is that the need case can change. A project that I was working on stopped and started over and over again for about 10 years because the national grid would apply to the regulator, Ofgem, which would say, “Yes, you need X amount of supply, go ahead and build that pipeline, get your substation sorted”, and so on. We would do all the community consultation and work with the local authority, then 12 months later the national grid would put its financials and the need case to the regulator, which would say, “Well, now this has happened, you don’t need it any more”, and everything would be put on ice.

One of the issues around planning for major infrastructure is how you stop the huge waste of money with all the stopping and starting of projects. I know that this amendment does not particularly look at that, and I know that we will come to NSIPs later in the discussion, but this amendment gives us an opportunity to start considering how we make the development of infrastructure much more efficient and how we make developers, local authorities and their investment intentions work together in a much more constructive fashion during the planning phase.

I welcome the fact that this amendment has been tabled, because these areas are not discussed enough unless you have been involved in this and seen the tripping points and how money is wasted. We talk a lot about how, if a utility provider has to spend money to do something, the money goes on bills, but if things were dealt with more efficiently in the first place, including by the regulator and in the relationship with local authorities, maybe we would save money instead.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this excellent amendment, probing how we link national planning, regional strategic planning and local planning by including planning by private companies whose role is regulated by government, poses a very interesting question. I will give a couple of practical examples.

In my area on the M62 corridor, National Highways —or Highways England, another of the forms it has taken over the years—has a plan to create a link road from the M62 to the M606. To my knowledge, that has been in the local plan for 25 years. It has prevented the development of a brownfield site because of the land that it would take and the consequences that followed from that.

It was in the latest five-year plan from National Highways for its infrastructure, and all of a sudden, having done some costings—I think that was at the heart of it—it suddenly withdrew its intention, within the five-year plan and no further, to create or even begin to plan for that important link road, which, I have to say, has very significant consequences for the whole area. That is because its purpose was to take traffic off what I think is the most congested motorway roundabout in the country, the Chain Bar roundabout at junction 26 of the M62 in West Yorkshire.

Building (Public Bodies and Higher-Risk Building Work) (England) Regulations 2023

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Tuesday 28th March 2023 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)]

My Lords, under the Building Safety Act 2022 and subsequent secondary legislation such as this, the Government are introducing a raft of measures to improve building safety. We are introducing the biggest reforms to the design and construction sectors in a generation, including the introduction of duty-holder and competence requirements for all building work. They also include introducing a more stringent regulatory regime during design and construction for higher-risk building work, to be overseen exclusively by the Building Safety Regulator.

The “higher-risk” definition during design and construction applies to work on buildings with at least two residential units, care homes and hospitals that meet the 18-metre or seven-storey height threshold. Under the current system, there is an exemption available to public bodies where they can obtain partial or full exemption from the building control procedural requirements if this is approved by government. These regulations will ensure that, in future, any exemption allowing public bodies to carry out building control on their own buildings will be limited to non-higher-risk building work only.

The exemption will not apply to higher-risk building work moving forward, as the Building Safety Regulator will be the sole building control authority for all higher-risk buildings, including those owned by public bodies. Although these regulations make only a small change, they are an important part of our ongoing reforms to ensure the safety and standards of all buildings and to ensure a consistent approach by the Building Safety Regulator to all higher-risk building work.

These regulations make three sets of changes. However, I will start by providing some context and background. After the tragedy of the Grenfell Tower fire in 2017 and the deaths of 72 people, the Government committed to fundamental reforms by implementing the recommendations of Dame Judith Hackitt’s independent review and introducing a new building safety regime. The review made significant recommendations, including the need to reform building control as the system which checks that building work complies with building regulation requirements such as fire safety.

Building control is carried out freely across the public and private sectors at present. Anyone commissioning building work, whatever its nature, can choose to use either the local authority—that is, the local council—in the public sector or a private sector approved inspector to carry out the building control. There is then a further option, open specifically to public sector bodies. If approved by Ministers, these bodies can obtain an exemption from some or all of the procedural requirements of building control and then carry out building control on their own buildings. This exemption has very rarely been used and almost all building control is carried out by either local authorities or approved inspectors, as opposed to public bodies self-regulating. In all cases, and irrespective of any exemption, the functional requirements of the building regulations, such as fire safety, continue to apply.

One of Dame Judith Hackitt’s main findings on building control was the lack of a level playing field between public and private sector building control. She recommended that the Building Safety Regulator should carry out building control for higher-risk building work and therefore end the choice of building control for these buildings. The Building Safety Act 2022 contained many reforms related to building control, including implementing a recommendation to end duty-holder choice of building control for higher-risk buildings, as well as strengthening the regulation of the building control profession.

These regulations are only a small part of our building control reforms, which themselves are only a part of wider building safety reforms. However, they are important. They contain measures that support the new system and its operation for higher-risk buildings, led by the Building Safety Regulator. The three sets of changes that these regulations make are as follows. First, the regulations end Ministers’ ability to grant building control procedural exemptions to public bodies for higher-risk building work. Building control on higher-risk buildings will in future be overseen exclusively by the Building Safety Regulator. However, the ministerial ability to grant exemptions for non-higher-risk building work is unaffected.

Secondly, the regulations require any public bodies with a partial exemption under Section 54 of the Building Act 1984 to cancel their public body notice with the local authority if the building work becomes higher-risk building work. Local authorities will also be required to cancel public body notices under the same circumstances. Currently, no public body has a partial exemption and therefore these measures are being introduced for future use as opposed to changing any existing arrangements. Only one public body, the Metropolitan Police, currently has any type of exemption, and separate regulations to be introduced later this year will change that exemption so that it applies to non-higher-risk building work only.

Thirdly, the regulations will allow the Building Safety Regulator to fine public bodies £7,500 if they have not cancelled their public body notice when building work becomes higher-risk building work. This will ensure an equal approach to approved inspectors, who will become registered building control approvers under the new system and who will be liable for sanctions if they fail to cancel an initial notice, which is their equivalent of a public body notice, under the same circumstances. Public bodies will be allowed to contest any fines, first through the Building Safety Regulator and ultimately in the courts.

These regulations support the aim of increased building safety, in particular for higher-risk buildings, by ensuring that the Building Safety Regulator is the sole body carrying out building control on such buildings. It also removes any possibility of this approach being undermined in future by public bodies being given exemptions that circumvent the Building Safety Regulator and the higher-risk building control regime. I hope noble Lords will join me in supporting the draft regulations. I commend them to the Committee, and I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I support the regulations that the Minister has detailed. They are entirely appropriate and another step in the right direction to overhaul and thoroughly improve building safety, particularly as in this case they apply to higher-risk buildings. I have a couple of questions for the Minister which I hope she will be able to answer.

My first question struck me when I was reading the details in the statutory instrument. Why on earth should any public body be exempt from basic building safety? Why is there an exemption? We would not be having this debate if there was no exemption. I did not quite hear what the Minister said, but it is my understanding that, of the higher-risk buildings that are in occupation, care homes, hospitals, secure residential institutions, I think, and military barracks are excluded from the definition of higher-risk buildings—if my memory of when we went through the Bill serves me right—and I have never understood why that should be the case. I would think that many hospitals would fall under this, as they are high enough to comply with the definition of a higher-risk building. I wonder why they are exempt, if I heard correctly and have read the Explanatory Memorandum correctly. Do we know how many public bodies will now be drawn into this? There are not that many that are very high-rise. It would be interesting to know.

I think the reason that care homes and hospitals were excluded from this is that they are already covered by fire safety regulations and legislation, but I am quite in favour of belt and braces. If there are fire safety regulations that control that, let us add to them regulations such as these because the two could work in harmony to ensure that, in this case, quite vulnerable people would have double the protection that we would want to make sure they had. That is another little query in this case.

My next point is about the Met Police. How on earth does it get an exemption? Where did that appear from? Somebody ought to say, “This will not do. You’ve got to be included in this because, as a Government, we are determined to ensure that any higher-risk buildings are totally safeguarded against the risks that were identified by”—as the Minister reminded us—“the Grenfell Tower tragedy nearly six years ago, which was just awful”. Let us get this right. If it means more regulation and better safety for more people, it gets a big tick from me.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 27th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, local nature recovery strategies are one of the triumphs of the Government’s Environment Act, which I welcomed at the time, as did the whole House. We wanted to ensure that they had a little bit more edge and power than they had when that Bill went through this House. We now have the chance.

Local nature recovery strategies are not a nice to have; they are essential. They are essential not only for nature and the environment but for the future of our economy, which is supported by so many of the ecosystems that I am sure the Minister, given his ministerial experience, is more aware of than I am. This is something that is vital, rather than, as I said, a nice to have. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, was right when she said that we have a problem here if the thousands of people who will be involved in writing these strategies are not convinced that any notice will be taken of their words.

However, I have some really good news here as chair of the local nature partnership in Cornwall and Scilly. Cornwall—not Scilly, although we are now involving Scilly in the final plan—was involved in a pilot local nature recovery strategy, along with four other areas. This was not seen by the various parties in Cornwall as being a pain to do, as something that the local authority and the local nature partnership had to urge, nudge and cajole them to do. It was something that people genuinely wanted to be involved with. The consultation exercise spread right across all sorts of organisations, individuals and households.

A strategy came out that was welcomed and that everybody wanted to happen. The great thing was that it was local. The Cornish aspects were particularly around things such as Cornish hedges, which are very different from other hedges elsewhere in the country. We also involve marine because, for a peninsula such as Cornwall, marine is so important. I was disappointed that the guidance that has come out does not mention marine. Marine is essential. It is part of the same ecosystems for those areas which are coastal.

My message is short: these local nature recovery strategies are vital to our future. We have, as we all know, one of the most nature-depleted areas in the UK. Even Cornwall, the environment of which is loved, has the same problems of retreating nature. This is the chance to have the turnaround in the environmental improvement plan. It is completely within the Government’s strategy. As the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, said, the UK was at COP 15 in Montreal last year. We signed up to the global target of 30% being managed for nature. That is a UK target as well, as put out by the Government. Many local authorities, including in the south-west, have taken that target as well.

I urge the Government to take this step of ensuring that these plans really mean something. Let the thousands of people who will be involved and who will volunteer to participate know that not only will their voices be heard but their policies will be implemented.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, we have had some very powerful speeches in support of incorporating local nature recovery plans into the planning system. I wholeheartedly agree with my noble friends Lady Parminter and Lord Teverson, and others such as the noble Baronesses, Lady Willis of Summertown and Lady Jones of Whitchurch. They made powerful speeches, so I do not need to add to their arguments.

However, I want to make two points, the first of which is the importance of stitching together different strategies across different government departments. This, in essence, is what Amendment 184ZA is about—that what was agreed in the Environment Act must be incorporated where it matters: in local plans and national development management planning.

Secondly, the Environment Act currently requires local plans and local planning authorities to achieve a 10% biodiversity net gain in any planning application, but it is not that straightforward. If the applicant is unable to improve the site on which it is developing by a 10% net gain—and a recent application I had resulted in a minus 19% biodiversity figure—the next option in the cascade of biodiversity options is for the applicant to purchase a nearby greenfield site and improve the biodiversity there. If that does not work, you get to commuted sums, whereby the applicant has to provide a sum of money for the local authority to improve biodiversity somewhere else entirely. To me, that is not what biodiversity net gain should be about.

As I have declared on many occasions, I am a councillor in Kirklees. Recently, I had a major application in my ward, and the applicant was unable to pursue any of those options. The commuted sum was for somewhere else entirely, and biodiversity was depleted in the area applied for. That is why these local nature recovery strategies are so important: they put that at the heart of local planning policies and outcomes, so that applications cannot fob off a lack of biodiversity net gain into some other part of a council district.

This amendment has my wholehearted support, and I hope that my noble friend will bring it back on Report if the Government will not accede to it now.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, it has been a very good debate, and there clearly is a lot of support for the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. We also strongly support them.

As has been discussed, the Environment Act created the local nature recovery strategies and introduced the statement of biodiversity priorities for local areas, accompanied by the habitat map, which identifies where people can contribute to enhancing biodiversity. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, these are not just nice to have; they are essential if we are to not simply reverse the decline but improve the situation. We know that local nature recovery strategies have the potential to really drive forward the recovery that is so badly needed. Importantly, they bring local knowledge and expertise into play. Also, as we have heard, the duty to apply the local nature recovery strategies in decision-making such as planning is too weak and will have a negative impact on their effectiveness.

My noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch pointed out that the Government chose not to accept amendments tabled during the passage of the Environment Bill that would have required local authorities to take close account of local nature recovery strategy land identifications when making planning decisions. She also referred to the pledges made by the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith. Some of us who spent a lot of time considering that Bill had expectations in this area, and I am pleased that the noble Baroness has tabled these amendments so that we can debate those expectations.

The noble Baroness made it clear that the guidance for authorities on the application of the strategies is just not strong enough. As a result, despite groups mapping sites that will be essential to nature recovery in a local area, local authorities will not necessarily have to take proper notice if they do not want to. That is the fundamental problem, and we do not want lots of time and effort on the part of local nature recovery strategy groups and supporting bodies such as Natural England to be wasted, and opportunities then completely missed.

These amendments, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and supported by many noble Lords, would rightly prevent any wasted effort and enable the local nature recovery strategies to achieve their full potential. Incorporating them into local planning authorities’ development plans is surely an obvious way to go about this. We do not want them to be weak documents, sitting on a shelf somewhere and not informing proper strategic day-to-day planning decisions. We need them to make a real difference, not just a tangible one.

As we have heard, many people think that greater weight should be given in planning to local nature recovery strategies. The Environmental Audit Committee and the Office for Environmental Protection have supported this approach. The noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, talked about our commitments at COP 26, saying that there is a gap between what we say we will do and what we actually do, and that planning plays a very important role in nature recovery. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, asked, what are our priorities for the future? How will we meet the government targets? Surely, anything that helps deliver the local nature recovery strategies is to be welcomed. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, certainly thought this: he made it very clear that he thinks it important that this be included.

I hope that the Minister agrees with those who have spoken today and sees the absolute sense in accepting these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this has been an excellent debate on the conflicts that will inevitably exist between the national development management policies and local plans. I thank my noble friend for pointing out in great detail the difficulties that may arise.

At the heart of this is the fact that, at the moment, we have no idea what will be included in the NDMP. Frankly, that is fairly critical as to whether or not there will be conflict. It will depend on whether these will be very high-level national policies, as in the current National Planning Policy Framework. It will depend on whether they will set standards, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has suggested. It will depend on whether they will simply reflect what is currently national planning policy but put it into a statutory situation for local planning authorities and local councils to agree to.

In Committee on the Bill last Wednesday, the Minister suggested that we would have a round table to try to tease out the detail and meaning behind the Government’s proposals in the Bill. It is absolutely vital that that happens as soon as possible. Throughout our debate on the plan-led process, it became clear that, if the intentions of the Government for the national development management policies are not understood, there will be conflict—as this group of amendments makes clear—around the degree to which local people have power and influence over local plans at this stage, and around the degree to which planning inspectors who are set to look at the local plans that are drawn up have power and influence over local plans. That is why it is really important that we hear from the Minister as soon as possible. What sort of policies are going to be included in NDMPs? At the moment, it is a fairly blank screen.

I have only one other thing to say, which has been raised by my noble friend. New subsection (3) inserted by Clause 87, which is about revoking or changing the NDMP, says that

“the Secretary of State must ensure that such consultation with, and participation by, the public or any bodies or persons (if any) as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate takes place.”

I hope the Minister will be willing to take away “if any” in that clause and reflect how important it is for local plans to be accepted by local residents. That means that the NDMP has to be acceptable to and accepted by local residents, as it is going to dictate the content or the direction of travel of local plan decision-making. There is a lot that hangs on the content of the NDMP, so I hope that when the Minister replies she is able to give us some hints as to what it will be.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by addressing Amendments 185A and 192 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor of Stevenage and Lady Hayman of Ullock, which seek to remove or reverse the precedence given to national development management policies over the development plan in planning decisions where there is a conflict between them. I welcome this further opportunity to explain the objectives behind this aspect of the Bill.

As I indicated in our debate on this issue last week, national development management policies are intended to bring greater clarity to the important role that national policy already plays in decisions on planning applications. A clear and concise set of policies with statutory weight will make sure that important safeguards, such as protections for designated landscapes and heritage assets, are taken fully into account, without these basic matters having to be repeated in local plans to give them the statutory recognition they deserve.

These amendments deal specifically with what to do in the event that there is a conflict between national development management policies and the development plan when a planning decision must be made in accordance with both. The amendments would remove the certainty created by the Bill that up-to-date national policies on important issues, such as climate change or flood protection, would have precedence over plans that may well have been made a long time ago.

Some local plans are woefully out of date; for example, some date back to the 1990s. Only around 40% of local planning authorities adopted a local plan within the last five years. It would, in our view, be wrong to say that, in the event of a conflict, national policy does not take precedence over out-of-date policies in these plans, which is what these amendments would achieve. This point is particularly crucial because we wish to use national policies to drive higher standards, especially on good design, the environment and tackling climate change, and it is important that these take precedence in the event of a conflict with out-of-date policies in plans.

Nevertheless, I expect such conflicts to be very limited in future as we are making it easier to produce plans and keep them up to date, and because the Bill makes sure that new plans will be drawn up consistently with national policies, including the new national development management policies. Given the important role that national development management policies will perform and their benefits in providing certainty, I hope noble Lords understand that we are not able to support this amendment. I agree with my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham that few, if any, conflicts should arise under this new way of working.

Amendment 186 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley would give national development management policies precedence over the development plan only where there was a “significant” conflict between the relevant policies. Where a local policy and national development management policy are both relevant considerations but not in any conflict, it will still be for the decision-maker to decide how much weight is afforded to these policies based on their relevance to the proposed development. Our clause sets out only what should be done in the event of a conflict between policies where they contradict one another. My noble friend brought up the green belt. Policies controlling development in the green belt are standard nationally and will be set out in the NDMPs. Local plans could—will—define the boundaries of the green belt, as they do now, so I do not think there should be any conflict between those two issues.

We have explained why we believe it is important that NDMPs are prioritised in the event of such a conflict, and we expect such conflicts to be limited, as I have said.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

What I am trying to explain to noble Lords is that there should be no conflict because they deal with different things. The national development management policies are likely to cover common issues that are already being dealt with in national planning policies, such as the green belt, areas at risk of flooding and heritage areas. They would not impinge on local policies for shaping development, nor would they direct what land should be allocated for a particular area. They are totally different things. Looking to the future, therefore, I cannot see what conflict there would be.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I just want to explore this further, if the Minister will agree to it. The question from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is at the heart of this issue. Where there is an existing, up-to-date local plan, why should that not have primacy over the national development management policies, because it will have taken cognisance of those in developing the local plan?

Can the Minister help me here? In the NPPF, there are 16 national planning policies. Does she anticipate that those will be translated into the NDMPs? It is at that level that we need to understand this because, when it comes to local plans, the NPPF is part of them; as the Minister rightly argued, it is put into local plans. But then they are then interpreted locally, for local reasons, which is why I am concerned about an NDMP having primacy over up-to-date local plans.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The national development management policies are dealing with the top-level issues. The noble Baroness is absolutely right that we are out to review those issues of consultation. These issues have come back. We have not got the list yet, but your local plan will accept those as being there and will then deal with issues that are local. As my noble friend said, there will be issues such as the green belt, but they will take into account the national policies on green belt and deal only with very localised policies on it, so there should be no conflict. I do not see where that conflict can be. But we are going to have a meeting on this to further discuss and probably have, not arguments, but strong debates—those are the words—on these issues.

--- Later in debate ---

This is not a real point, because I should not make it, but I just remind my noble friend that the counties have large numbers of people who might just be willing to vote for her party. They do not much like being left out, and they are beginning to think that is what often happens, so there may be some self-interest in rewriting this part of the Bill.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, how do I follow that? I will not, as it is dangerous territory.

This is a very interesting and important debate because it is about creating part of the hierarchy of a plan-led process. At the moment, we have quite a mixed pattern across England. Obviously, London has the ability to make a spatial strategy policy and plan; so do just some of the metro combined authorities, as they are known. In 2018, there was a statutory instrument which enabled three combined authorities to create spatial strategic plans: they were Greater Manchester, Liverpool City Region and the West of England. The others do not. Why not?

Here is an opportunity to create a more coherent approach to spatial development strategies across the country. I am speaking as someone living in a metro area, in West Yorkshire. It does not have the ability to make a spatial development plan but is getting round it by creating lots of plans which it hopes will be adopted by the constituent authorities so that it, in essence, has one. That is not satisfactory because what is needed is an overarching approach that all the constituent authorities can agree on. At the minute, it is a series of plans for different elements—for example, flooding, transport or economic development.

It is not just the county areas which are being omitted from a coherent approach. I hope that, given this debate, the Minister will be able to give us some hope that there will be a bit more coherence attached to this for all the metro mayors and—as has quite rightly been argued—for the counties. It is a nonsense otherwise. I do not know how you can plan, certainly for economic development and transport infrastructure, unless you have an overall approach which a spatial development strategy would enable.

I was very taken with what the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said about thinking about which elements we would want included in a spatial development strategy. He quite rightly included economic development in Amendment 200. I do not know how you could have a spatial development strategy without thinking about economic development and setting aside sites for business development. That must be included.

Having said that, you need to include transport infrastructure. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said, climate change must be a part of that as well. Alongside that, if you have housing sites and a broad approach to spatial development and business development, you need to think about public service facilities. At the moment, even in a big metro area such as where I am, these are often so piecemeal, and it is so frustrating. Why can we not have people think about what you need for schools, hospitals, and local general practices, for instance? What about thinking about provision for nature, which was the subject of the first group of amendments this afternoon on local nature recovery plans? That ought to be integrated into an approach to spatial development, as well as leisure facilities. All that needs to be there.

I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, who talked about using travel to work areas as the boundary. That makes it extraordinarily difficult if those are not coterminous with the local authority boundaries which are being used. I will give noble Lords an example from my own experience. Travel to work areas in West Yorkshire include York, Barnsley in South Yorkshire and even Doncaster. People from Manchester come and work in West Yorkshire and Leeds and vice versa.

One of the challenges for the Minister is to try to come up with an answer to what boundaries are used because Schedule 7 talks, quite rightly, about the constituent authorities and members of a combined authority, a combined county authority or even—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Deben—just a county council. You need to know what boundaries you are using.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I am sorry to interrupt, but I think it is actually a bit simpler than that. The participating authorities that choose to be in the spatial development strategy choose to be in it and bring their territory with them. Everybody else, from my point of view in Amendment 205, are other authorities that are consulted. They are not making the strategy, they are consulted about it, so their geography does not matter so much.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My experience is that that was not quite how it worked. In West Yorkshire, Harrogate—which is just north of Leeds—was included, even though it is in North Yorkshire, because it is part of what they call the “golden triangle”. I think it is a challenge, and I hope the Government will just decide which boundaries they use—I presume it will be local authority boundaries, because that makes sense—and the others are just part of a negotiation.

Those are the key points I wanted to make. It is an interesting group to think about how it all works. I notice in the schedule it says that spatial strategies have to be mindful of, and consistent with, the national development management plans. I would like to hear from the Minister how spatial strategies will operate across a wider region, because if you are talking about transport—the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, picked up on this—you need to think in a wider area than just a small combined authority area.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments concerns strategic planning and spatial development strategies. As these are to date a very rare form of plan, it might be useful to set out some background. The Government recognise that it is often desirable to plan over areas, as we have just heard, wider than a single planning authority in order to properly address the strategic and cross-boundary issues that have been brought up in this debate so far. However, it is important to stress that a spatial development strategy cannot allocate sites; instead, it can set broad indications of how much and what type of development should go where.

Once a spatial development strategy is adopted, local plans within its area must be in general conformity with it; that is, they must generally follow that strategy and its policies. Most of us will not actually have dealt with a spatial development strategy, because only one exists at the moment, and that is in London, which the mayor refers to as the London Plan. Other combined authorities are able to request the equivalent spatial development strategy powers as part of their devolution agreement. Three areas have done so already—Greater Manchester, Liverpool City Region, and the West of England, as noble Lords have heard—but for various reasons, none has produced a strategy as yet. Moreover, the Government have agreed to give a spatial development strategy power to the West Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority.

Through the Bill, we are extending the powers to produce a spatial development strategy, on a voluntary basis, to other local planning authorities, as we are aware that in other parts of the country—such as Hertfordshire, Essex, Leicestershire and around Nottingham—some of them have already sought to progress strategic plans over recent years. The Government would like to support and enable these efforts at more strategic planning.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I appreciate that we disagree. I thought the point was that we would disagree well in Committee. I have sat and listened to this debate for many hours. I just wanted to clarify why I think economic development is important: we will not be able to build any houses and nobody’s well-being will be helped if we stand still economically or go backwards. I do not relish austerity for the masses. Therefore, I think we need economic growth, mass housebuilding and the supply side to be tackled.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

It is with trepidation that I follow the last two speakers, the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Fox. I will say just one small thing about the green belt. The green belt, as part of local plan making, is reviewed and, as appropriate, areas are taken out of the green belt for housebuilding and development. That is what happens. It happens at the right time and place when there is proper public consultation.

I start with Amendment 198 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. I have lots of sympathy with the idea of deliberative democracy. It is always worth exploring new ways of engaging with local people, involving them in developing ideas and understanding about what is going on, and helping to inform decisions before decision-makers finalise plans. I am concerned that the plan the noble Baroness lays out in Amendment 198 will probably work okay in a district council, but in an area such as the one where I am a councillor, for 450,000 residents, it becomes more challenging.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I want to ask a question based on the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. He said that the crucial point of the Bill and these clauses is the role and primacy of the two documents—the development plan and the national development management plan—and where they stand in that relationship. Clause 86 makes it clear that the NDMPs take precedence over the development plans if there is a conflict. But where does a third document stand, which the noble Lord also mentioned, the NPPFs, which were introduced via the Localism Act 2011? The document replaced a two-foot-high pile of codes, practice notes and so on about planning. In the instant that it was introduced it was controversial because it reduced the amount of planning paperwork that people needed to have knowledge of and refer to, and it made access to the planning process much easier for lay people and for councils. It seems to have proved its worth and to be a useful document. Echoing the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, my question is: is this document now effectively a dead letter? If it is not, where does it stand in relation to the two documents which are given a mention in Clause 86 and in subsequent policy?

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this is probably one of the key groups of amendments on planning in the Bill, as it sets out the strategic framework under which local plans will be created and planning applications will be determined. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, started us on the right track by saying that we believe in a plan-led system; the question is, “Who leads the plans?” Which one is going to be most important —the national management development plan or the local plan? The local plan currently has primacy in planning legislation.

Building Safety (Leaseholder Protections) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Tuesday 21st March 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock]

That this House regrets that in laying the Building Safety (Leaseholder Protections) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2023 (SI 2023/126) His Majesty’s Government have not published data on the number of landlords who have benefited from an error which allowed landlords to transfer costs of remedying historical building defects on to their leaseholders; further regrets that His Majesty’s Government have no intention to identify leaseholders affected by that error to advise them to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal to recover costs; and calls on His Majesty’s Government to publish these figures in a spirit of transparency and write to those affected with clear guidance on how to recover costs.

Relevant document: 31st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the regret Motion standing in my name is critical of the Government’s response to those leaseholders who have been adversely impacted by a government error, which the Building Safety (Leaseholder Protections) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2023 have recognised. The regret Motion puts the spotlight once again on the plight of leaseholders. Since the awful Grenfell Tower tragedy nearly six years ago, leaseholders and tenants have been at the very heart of the policy response to the crisis in building safety that was so cruelly exposed that night.

The Grenfell Tower inquiry has meticulously gathered evidence of years of malpractice by developers and materials manufacturers. It is clear where responsibility lies for the very significant number of building safety defects. Those not responsible in any way are the innocent leaseholders, who have done everything right and nothing wrong. The Building Safety Act set out the ways for the building industry to rectify past building defects. Those related not just to the removal of dangerous flammable cladding but to the lack of fire breaks, for instance, that were required at the time of construction. The Act also established how the very large costs of remediation were to be funded. In the case of non-cladding defects, there was a cascade of responsible entities. At the bottom of the cascade were leaseholders, who may be required to pay a capped contribution, which was limited to £10,000 outside London and £15,000 in London. These alone are significant sums—for first-time buyers, for instance.

There are still questions to be asked about whether the Government’s attempt to ensure that cladding is fully removed and safety defects are put right is effective in practice. However, the focus of the regret Motion is an error that inadvertently crept into the regulations, which determined how much developers would be required to pay, if at all. It was the intention that a family of associated companies of the developer would be included in the assessment of the value of the companies and, therefore, the ability of the developer to fund the remediation works. The regulations, unfortunately, excluded what have been described as parent and sister companies. This led to one very large developer being able to demonstrate that the special purpose vehicle that had been set up for the development did not of itself have the funds to pay for the remediation of safety defects. If the family of associated companies had been included with that special purpose vehicle, as was the intention of the regulations and of the Act, the developer would have been funding the costs of remediation. As a result of the error, this company was able to avoid paying for the defects and, via the cascade system, was able to pass on part of the costs to the leaseholders.

This is grossly unfair to the leaseholder, and a major company, which had already bypassed building regulations unlawfully in constructing the property, was now avoiding the responsibility of paying for this dangerous and deliberate practice that put profit first and people’s lives in jeopardy. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities was made aware—and only made aware—when a leaseholder contacted the department to query why they had been asked to pay remediation costs when they knew that the developer in question was a very large one and likely to be within the limits to be able to pay. I am pleased that the department quickly remedied the error, passed these amended regulations and brought them into force the following day, just to make sure that no other developer tried to bypass paying for remediation because of the error. However, there is currently no remedy for those leaseholders who have unwittingly paid towards remediation costs when they should not have done.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee asked the department to quantify the numbers of leaseholders who have been forced to pay when they should not have been. Unfortunately, the department was unable to provide a figure and does not seem to have made any attempt to do so.

There is a route for any leaseholder caught out by the Government’s error, and that is to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal—but who knows about that? Leaseholders have been trapped all through this saga by the unscrupulous, immoral and unlawful behaviour of developers and others. The very least the Government can do is to seek out those leaseholders, provide them with the necessary information about how they can recover their costs and support them in doing so. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee asked whether protection for affected leaseholders could be introduced retrospectively, via primary legislation if necessary, and I too ask that question of the Minister.

This is injustice heaped on injustice. It was a government error, and the Government should do all in their considerable power to put it right. I will listen carefully to the response from the Minister. I hope she will be able to provide all the information that I and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee are asking for, including the ways in which leaseholders can find retribution. Meanwhile, I beg to move.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, I shall add a few words of support for the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. I stand with a weary sense of déjà vu, looking around at a number of people with whom I have sat as we have worked through building safety and fire safety measures.

What is interesting is that the Government fundamentally tried to grasp this problem. I pay tribute to the right honourable Michael Gove, who has been quite exceptional in taking hold of it and trying to solve it. I say well done to the Government for shifting the main problem in this very troubling area.

Like many noble Lords, I am still finding that people contact me because they are in a dreadful situation. Some of them are going bankrupt because they are simply unable to pay for the remediation work on their properties. This does not just affect big tower blocks; it happens to quite modest blocks of flats in places like St Albans, Stevenage and Bedford, in my diocese.

On the particular problem that the noble Baroness has mentioned, it is extraordinary, when the Government have already committed themselves to doing so many things on this—not least reforming the leaseholder system, which we will watch with great interest—and troubling that this unintentional problem, which is having a devastating effect on some people, is seemingly not being addressed. It would be a huge help if we could simply get the figures published to find out how many people are being affected by what seems to be an error and then try to help those people to find a remedy.

This is a terrible scar on the whole industry. We need to find ways to work with those who have unintentionally found themselves caught up in this and are quite desperate. That is supported by, as the noble Baroness has mentioned, the point made by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that we need that data. I add my weight to the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has made today, and I hope we will see some movement.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for securing this important debate to discuss the Building Safety (Leasehold Protections) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2023. I also pay tribute to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its careful consideration of the regulations and to the right reverend Prelate and other noble Lords who have contributed to this discussion.

As noble Lords will know, the regulations correct an error in a previous instrument to ensure that, when assessing liability for the costs of remediating relevant defects, the consideration of the net worth of a landlord group for the purpose of the contribution condition includes parent and sister companies, as originally intended.

The department does not collect data on leaseholders who are liable to pay for the remediation of historical safety defects, not least because it is not a centralised process. We have, however, been made aware by leaseholders and, indeed, parliamentarians, of a very small number of cases where landlords state that they did not believe they met the contribution condition because of this unfortunate and unintended error. As I say, to date these cases are small in number, but of course we must say sorry to those people, because it will affect them, however few they are.

Due to the caps for qualifying leaseholders in relation to non-cladding remediation and interim measures, the maximum amount such qualifying leaseholders could have been charged is limited to £1,000—or £1,500 in Greater London—over the past year. Landlords are already required to produce a new landlord certificate which complies with these regulations in specified circumstances, including within four weeks of becoming aware of a relevant defect not covered by a previous certificate.

I wanted to make sure your Lordships were aware that the Building Safety Act already includes anti-avoidance and enforcement provisions to ensure that those who are liable to pay do so, and, where it is just and equitable, that costs incurred for historical safety remediation may be recovered. Remediation contribution orders allow interested persons—including local authorities, fire and rescue services and leaseholders—to apply to the First-tier Tribunal, as we heard, for an order requiring a landlord, developer or associated company to make payments in connection with remediation costs. Applications to the First-tier Tribunal for a remediation contribution order cost £100.

The department is clear that any opportunities to avoid the protections needed to be closed off swiftly, and that is what these regulations have done. Although it may be possible to give retrospective provision in law—as the protections in the Building Safety Act do—there is a general presumption not to apply new law retrospectively, and the department does not believe it would be proportionate to do so in this case. The Government therefore have no plans to introduce retrospective provision through primary legislation.

The department has published extensive guidance on the GOV.UK website to explain the leaseholder protections, including information relating to remediation contribution orders. Those affected who write to the department—and I encourage any noble Lord who knows of anyone who is worried about this to tell them to come to the department—will be informed of their options and directed to the guidance to help them to make an informed decision. Of course, each case is different, and leaseholders may wish to consider seeking legal advice before pursuing avenues of recompense.

LEASE—the leasehold advisory service—is providing free support and guidance to leaseholders who face costs for historic safety defects, and officials in my department continue to look at new ways to raise awareness of the leaseholder protection provisions to all leaseholders. These regulations are being issued free of charge to all known recipients of the 2022 regulations, and I put on record my assurance that the department will update GOV.UK guidance to further raise awareness of available redress options, with notifications sent to those who have signed up for them.

The circumstances surrounding the leaseholder protection legislation introduced last summer—particularly the speed of its preparation—were highly unusual, but necessary to ensure that leaseholders were afforded the financial protections under the Building Safety Act without delay. As my honourable friend the Building Safety Minister, Lee Rowley MP, said in his letter to the committee, we are confident that we can rely on the department’s processes that have long been in place, but which were abbreviated last summer, to ensure that, as far as possible, such mistakes will be avoided in the future.

I should like to deal with a couple of further questions. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, referred several times to developers and their related companies. I point out that these regulations refer to landlords; that is, building owners. The mistake has no effect on the liability on developers.

I have answered the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, in that we think that this is a very small number. Of course, if anybody knows of any such person, we will give them the support they might need to ensure they get the redress they should have. I hope I have answered all your Lordships’ questions. As ever, I will happily follow up in writing on anything I have not covered, and I am very happy to meet with any noble Lords to discuss this issue further.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for bringing forward the debate today. We can all agree that qualifying leaseholders should be protected from the costs of historical safety remediation. This legislation is important in ensuring that landlords’ groups that meet the contribution condition must meet the full costs of both non-cladding remediation and interim measures. On that basis, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her Motion.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for their support.

The right reverend Prelate has been at the heart of this issue for the six years since the awful Grenfell tragedy; he knows first hand, as he said, the devastating impact it has had on leaseholders. Perhaps I am wrong in saying this, but it was almost the last straw, in that all of us across the House had tried so hard to get the Building Safety Act to provide legislative ways of delivering remedies for leaseholders, and at that moment when everything should have been put right as far as possible—there are omissions that I still intend to pursue—an error crept in. Even then, where things were put right, innocent leaseholders were at the mercy of landlords who wanted to pass on the costs to them. The Minister has said that it is a small number but actually, we have no idea whether it is small or large, and the Government should find out.

I am grateful to the Minister for apologising for the error on behalf of the Government. I accept that it crept in inadvertently, but apologies do not pay bills. Leaseholders have had enormous bills of up to £10,000 from the cascade cap, which they would be required to pay. I am disappointed with the Minister’s response, both to my regret Motion—

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The £10,000 would have been over 10 years, and we have stopped it at the end of the first year, so the maximum that would have been required was £1,000. I just wanted to clarify that. I would not want it to be £10,000.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I thank the Minister for pointing that out. I will see what the legislation says.

I am very disappointed with her response and the response to the request by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which also made a very strong statement that the Government ought to find out how many leaseholders were affected and provide them with information and support. This is a government error, albeit one made inadvertently. The Government ought to be leading the way in showing that if errors are made, efforts are made to put them right. Currently, no efforts are being made to put this right. Therefore, I want to underline my considerable concern that the Government are not intending to take any action, and I would like to test the opinion of the House.