Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 25th October 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Duke of Montrose (Con)]

With the leave of your Lordships, I will touch on another small point. In Monday’s Hansard, the heading for this Bill said that legislative consent had been obtained from the Welsh Government but that the Government were still looking for legislative consent from the Scottish Government. In fact, a Scottish Government paper relating all the trials and tribulations that my noble friend had been through—it had 26 pages—was still operating. Are we still looking for more consent from that direction?

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this Bill has been improved by the assiduous work of this House over the last 10 months. Some significant and welcome changes have been made during that process.

I turn first to the two Motions left on the Order Paper. I regret that the Commons has failed to perceive the benefit of enabling some meetings of councils to be in a hybrid form. Like the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I feel sure that this issue will resurface as the Government move towards the creation of even larger units of local government, which will put additional pressure on those elected to attend meetings in person.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 23rd October 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I will make a brief comment in response to the Minister’s Motion C in relation to Amendment 3, which I moved on Report. I want to put on the record that I understand the line that the Government have taken. It is difficult to make statutory geographical disparities. What matters is the assurance that the Minister has given on that issue. It will really matter, in respect of policy formulation to address geographical disparities, for the evidence to be constantly collected to identify what those disparities are. I accept the assurances that the Minister has given and I have no intention of pursuing the matter further. I am grateful to the Minister.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the House that I have relevant interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and as a councillor in West Yorkshire.

I will speak specifically to Motion B1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett. The finest achievement of the levelling-up Bill could be putting the reduction of child poverty and health inequalities at its heart. After all, it is levelling up that we have been talking about during the many hours that we have debated the Bill. Unfortunately, the government amendment fails to make it absolutely specific that that is what the Bill is going to try to achieve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I briefly intervene on this group to make two points, one on Motion F1 and one on Motion J1. I am prompted on Motion F1 by what the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, was asking about South Cambridgeshire. I declare an interest as I am chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum and used to be the Member of Parliament for South Cambridgeshire.

To set this in context, the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority is a mayoral combined authority and is not intending to be a county combined authority, but this does prompt a question. One of the essential problems with a mayoral combined authority is the difficulty of there being both a combined and a county authority infrastructure. For many people in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, this is too confused and duplicatory a structure.

For the sake of argument—this is not one that has been advanced in Cambridgeshire, but it might be—let us say that it moves from a mayoral to a county combined authority. As the legislation is presently constructed, one could clearly not do that as it would, in effect, disempower district councils in the process. So if my noble friend Lord Howe is saying that the nature of a county combined authority requires that it is for upper-tier authorities only—in this context, the county and Peterborough, and not the district councils—and if the local devolution settlement were found to be unsatisfactory and a change were desired locally, why are there no legislative provisions to allow that to happen? That is the question I put to my noble friend.

Secondly, I support my noble friend Lady McIntosh. Her Amendment 22B very reasonably says that the Government may make regulations relating to remote participation in local government meetings. That creates an opportunity for Ministers to think about this and, if necessary, move slowly. It is clearly not their wish to move rapidly but, without dwelling on the detail, there are physical, demographic and personal circumstances that mean that members may wish or need to participate in meetings remotely. Frankly, there might also be meetings where there is a relatively modest need for everybody to come together. As we know, there can sometimes be large numbers of meetings in local government that are not places where large numbers of votes happen and it would be perfectly reasonable for Ministers to enable such meetings to take place remotely. Given the permissive nature of Amendment 22B, which my noble friend has put forward, it is rather surprising that she was not able to find a compromise.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Motion J1 and then Motion ZE1. I support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. There is one element that has not yet been discussed, which is that this House allows for hybrid meetings of its committees. Now, you have to say to yourself, if it is right and proper for this House to enable Members to take part virtually in its committees, why is it not possible for local democracy to have the same rights? The arguments have been made for inclusivity—or, as it will be, exclusivity if the Government unfortunately fail to hear the arguments that have been made.

I will point to one example, which I think shows the strength of the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. The Government have, in their wisdom, created new unitary authorities, one of which is North Yorkshire. Now, North Yorkshire is a very large area to be in one unitary authority. It also does not have the best of weather in the winter. So, if you live towards the south or even the east of the area, because the county council headquarters is more or less in the middle—so it is useful in that sense—you will have a round trip of over 100 miles to go to a council meeting. If, as often is the case, you have to go across the Yorkshire Dales or the North York moors, where roads are impassable, you will be excluded from the meetings—not because you want to be excluded but because the weather is excluding you. And, if you are not able to drive, I can tell you now that you would simply not be able to get to a meeting in Northallerton in the heart of North Yorkshire.

For those reasons alone, it seems to me practical that the Government should allow for flexibility for local government to make those sorts of decisions, to enhance local democracy and be more inclusive. So we support the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh in her quest to enable hybrid meetings to take place.

I turn to Motion ZE1. It is a travesty of local democracy if a fundamental change to the constitution of a combined authority—which is what we are considering in the instance of the West Midlands combined authority—can be made without a full consultation and involvement of all those who wish to have their voices heard. I live in West Yorkshire, so I can absolutely confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said: that at the heart of the discussions was the combination of the two roles of mayor and PCC. Not all of us agreed, but the outcome was as it was. The consequence of combining those two roles in West Yorkshire and in the Manchester combined authority is that we elect a mayor and then the mayor appoints one of their colleagues to be police and crime commissioner.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I am once again grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to the debate on this group of Motions and amendments. As I indicated at the outset, the Government cannot support the three amendments to the government Motions in this group.

Motion F1, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, would have the same effect as the original amendment but apply only to local authorities. I urge the House not to go down this road. The basis of the CCA model is that only upper-tier and unitary authorities can be members, not least because they are the bodies in whom financial responsibility will be vested and who will contribute financially to the running of the CCA.

However, as I am sure the noble Baroness accepts, because we debated this at length at earlier stages of the Bill, we recognise the vital role that district councils play. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and my noble friend Lord Lansley, and as Ministers said in the other place, we are sympathetic to the idea that district councils should have voting rights pertaining to them as non-constituent members. We have deliberately left scope for this to happen. However, we are clear that that should be a matter to be determined at the local level. District councils need not be shut out of the room, as the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, suggested, nor do I expect them to be so. We expect the upper-tier local authorities that we agree devolution deals with to work with district councils to deliver the powers most effectively being provided. In discussions thus far, we are encouraging potential deal areas to consider how best to involve district councils, in recognition of the role they can play. My ministerial colleagues have been engaging personally with district councils and the District Councils’ Network on this issue.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering has returned to the charge on virtual or hybrid meetings with her Motion J1. As I stated in my opening remarks, at the heart of the issue is the strength of the scrutiny exercised by local authorities and the importance of maintaining the integrity of local democratic principles. I need not remind the House that virtual and hybrid proceedings have significant limitations for scrutiny and interaction of members of any legislature. As such, we do not agree that councillors should be able to attend these meetings and cast their votes remotely. The Government are therefore unable to support the amendment in lieu. I respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, who drew the comparison with committees of this House, by saying that the functions, roles and powers of committees of this House are wholly different from the functions, roles and powers of committees of local authorities.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but I remind him that councils have scrutiny committees, which frequently do not vote, so there are similarities between the committees of this House and, for example, scrutiny committees of local authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise for intervening before the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has a chance to speak to Motion R1, but I have to disagree with my noble friend on this occasion. Last week, we had a debate on planning fees, in which I participated. The risk in what the noble Baroness proposes is that it would lead to local authorities significantly increasing the fees that would be charged for householder applications.

I remind the House that I chair the Cambridgeshire development forum. As far as larger developers are concerned, the point I made last week is that we should promote planning performance agreements to enable local authorities and developers to come to proper agreements, with potential sanctions and performance obligations on the part of the local planning authority. They would give them access to greater resources in dealing with major developments. I fear that what the Liberal Democrat Front Bench proposes would just lead to increases in fees for householder applications.

I also want to say a word about Motion M1 on climate change. The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, knows that I thoroughly agree with what he proposes but, at this stage, sending back the same amendments is inherently undesirable if it can be avoided. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will tell us more about how the Government will use the new national development management policies, which will have statutory backing. If the Government set down NDMPs in terms that are clear about the importance of decisions that take account of mitigation of and adaptation to climate change, they will have the effect that my noble friend and other Members of the House look for from this Motion.

The distinctive point of the original Amendment 45 was that it would extend specific consideration of mitigation of and adaptation to climate change to individual planning decisions—there is plenty in the statute about the application of this to plan-making—so that is where the gap lies. That gap can be filled if national development management policies are absolutely clear about how decisions are to be made on the impact of climate change. I hope that my noble friend says something that allows me to feel that we do not need to send the same Amendment 45 back to the other place.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Earl most sincerely for the time he has spent with me and my colleagues in discussions about these issues. They were, of course, of great interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, and I repeat my good wishes to her for a speedy recovery.

It is not often that you get a Motion both agreed and disagreed with before it is proposed, but here we go. I will speak to Motion R1, about planning fees, which is in my name. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for his support. He has made the powerful case in favour of enabling local authorities to determine their planning fees to cover costs: no more, no less.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I apologise for interrupting the noble Baroness, but surely we discovered from the documentation that came with the statutory instrument last week that after the increase in fees, the great majority of that subsidy would be to householder applications? What the noble Baroness is looking for is for householder application fees in effect to be doubled.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for his comment. What we did discover, and I have the papers with me, was that there would still be a subsidy for major applications—that was in the papers—and that there would be a subsidy for householder applications. But the case I make is this: if householders wish to add an extension to their house or improve it in some other way, then there is a cost to that, of which the planning application fee is a minor part. Why should their next-door neighbour subsidise it? I do not think it is a just or fair way of spending taxpayers’ money. If we told them that this was happening, I think they would be as cross as I am.

We need to recover costs because the principle that I have just outlined, but also because without local planning authorities being fully resourced, they will not turn around the situation that is well recorded by professional bodies, by the Local Government Association and by the Government in the papers that we had for the statutory instrument last week—that there is a significant shortfall in planning officers in local government because of the lack of resources. If we are going to reverse that, local planning authorities need to be properly resourced, so that in a plan-led system we have experienced and well-qualified planners who have the responsibility of ensuring that local and national plans are respected.

The only other point I want to make on this issue is this: many councils across the country are under severe financial pressure—let us put it like that. Some, as we heard from Birmingham, which was the latest council, are on the brink of having insufficient resources to fulfil their statutory obligations. Particularly in those circumstances, it seems quite wrong to expect councils to use council tax payer funding to subsidise planning applications, hence my continuing pursuit of a fair and just planning application fee process.

I suppose my final point on this is to totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, when he asks why on earth in a local democracy cannot local government have the right, responsibility and duty to set its own fees? It does on everything else, so why not on that? I will push this to a vote if the noble Earl fails to agree with me and others’ powerful speeches on this.

On the other amendments, I endorse the “healthy homes” Motion that the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, has pushed again today. He is absolutely right: why do we continue building places that produce problems, when we could solve it from the outset? If the noble Lord wishes to press his Motion, he will get our full support, as will the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for his Motion on climate change. He is absolutely right; it is an existential threat to our country. We must take it seriously, and here is one area of policy where we can be seen to be doing that.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall be very brief. This has been quite a long debate, and we have a number of votes at the end of it.

First, on the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, regarding NDMPs, we agree with her that the Government’s amendment is not sufficient to answer the concerns that were raised in Committee and on Report. If the noble Baroness wishes to divide the House, she will have our full support.

Secondly, on the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, on planning and climate change, we consider this an extremely important issue, as other noble Lords have mentioned. If he wishes to divide the House, he will have our full support.

On the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, on healthy homes, which he spoke to so eloquently—as did the noble Lord, Lord Young—we also believe that health needs to be at the centre of planning when making decisions about housing. If the noble Lord wishes to press this to a vote, he will have our full support.

We welcome the fact that there have been concessions on ancient woodland and offshore wind, and some concession for the noble Lord, Lord Best, on his amendment. We would have preferred to see mention of social housing, as well as affordable housing, in the Government’s Amendment 329A.

On the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, on floods, it is very important and the Government need to get a grip on whether people can get insurance—ideally through Flood Re—because we cannot have insurance with excess that is so huge that it makes the insurance pointless. We have a debate tomorrow on Storm Babet; I am sure these issues will be raised again then.

Finally, on the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on planning fees, we believe that this is an important point that we need to continue to discuss. Therefore, if the noble Baroness wishes to test the opinion of the House, she will have our strong support.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock]

At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 82B in lieu—

82B: After Clause 123, insert the following new Clause—
“Planning application fees
(1) Section 303 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (fees for planning applications etc.) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (4) insert—
“(4A) If the Secretary of State is satisfied that the income from the fees set by regulations does not meet the cost of performing the function, a local planning authority may make provision as to how a fee or charge under this section is to be calculated (including who is to make the calculation).”””

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I beg to move.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)]

I want to be sure that I have heard it right. Is the noble Baroness moving this one?

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Yes, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I have an interest in both the items that we are considering in this group. For the avoidance of doubt, I declare my involvement as a practising but nearly completely retired chartered surveyor with a knowledge of the leasehold and construction sectors.

The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, deserves the full appreciation of the House for what I can only describe as a progressive defenestration of the fuzzy edges that have surrounded the question of the building safety regulator. He has whittled it down to the last elements, as to whether this is a proposal for a like-for-like transfer from one jurisdiction, if I can term departments in that sense, to another—or whether, as he had previously identified, some other morphing process was going on behind the scenes. I supported him previously in this, and I support him again in his endeavours here. This really boils down to the last element, as to whether there is a change.

One could be forgiven for suspending a certain amount of belief here. If there is going to be the process of transferring a body from the Health and Safety Executive to some other framework, known or unknown, why would one run the risk of the delays, disruption and everything else that would be involved with that if it were not for the fact that some other factor was involved? Motion X1 as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, is a significant litmus test of what is involved. I encourage the Minister to consider very carefully whether the Government mean what they say in saying that it is a like-for-like transfer from one authority to another, or whether in reality it conceals some other paradigm shift. That is very important.

I turn to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. I apologise for the fact that his colleague has had to use my comments from a previous stage in this debate to tell him that his approach is no good. Of course, my comments were made in the context of saying that it has a technical deficiency. I was not in any way intending to suggest that the direction of travel in which he was engaged was faulty or in any other way imbued with anything other than the highest principles. He and I share a great deal of what has happened here.

Again, the noble Lord is absolutely right in proposing Motion ZC1—and I was pleased that he referred, obiter as it were, to the problem with the exceptions. What has happened here is a sort of drawbridge approach to the liability and scope of the Building Safety Act, and it is that which creates these cliff-edge approaches to who is qualified, whether their funding qualifies or excludes them, and so on and so forth. That is what has been dogging everybody all the way along the line. In reality, that delineation of the protections under the Building Safety Act is pernicious, because they are protections that any Government should apply in response to a serious and systemic failure in the home building industry to deliver adequate quality in building safety terms—and, may I say, presided over by nearly 40 years of ineffective regulatory control of building standards.

To expand a little, the Government’s resistance to anything beyond the straitjacket of parameters relating to the scope of leasehold protections seems to be governed by an entirely arbitrary approach and unwillingness even to collect data, understand implications or assess risk—I refer specially to those non-qualified leaseholders to which the noble Lord referred. My aim in all this has been to approach the matter on a much broader spectrum. The noble Lord and I shared an amendment to the Building Safety Act 18 months ago, and I think he has felt obliged to whittle it down evermore to try to get to something that he can achieve here. I absolutely applaud his persistence—but I am forced to suggest that, in the absence of any risk assessment, any government response to what may come down the road will be blindsided and ineffective. Hearing or speaking no evil does not prevent evils occurring—in this case, to hundreds of thousands of innocent lease payers, to market sectors, to valuation, to lending, to regeneration of urban areas and to new homes targets generally. I have said all this before, and I apologise for repeating it.

The noble Lord has been assiduous in his campaigning. With regard to Motion ZC1, I do not know how many leaseholders might be affected by this, but I suspect that it is actually quite a small cohort, and the Government should accept it and not allow this exclusion process or drawbridge approach to cut them off. Of course, I tried to address the whole thing on a much wider scope, but to no avail, which is why, when my words are used as a reason for denying the noble Lord the fruits of his endeavours, I have to bear in mind that I seem to have been assiduously ignored throughout this, up until today, when my words are used by the Minister against his own Back-Bencher. There is something faintly quizzical about that whole arrangement.

I hope that the Minister will at least indicate that the Government are cognisant of the serious, ongoing and growing problems arising here—to finance, to a whole sector, to hundreds of thousands, a very large number, of excluded leaseholders, and much more besides. If the Government do not recognise that, we are in for very serious problems indeed.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the very fact that these two issues remain for this Bill demonstrates that the Building Safety Act is, sadly, unfinished business. Although the matters will not be concluded today, I can be sure that they will be raised in future legislation in this House, because they need to be resolved. Having said that, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, said about non-qualifying leaseholders. It is a large group which deserves not to be neglected, and I support my noble friend’s valiant efforts in getting the regulation appropriate to the need.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the building safety parts of this Bill, which have been complex, but it was all done in the interests of the leaseholders who are at the end of this process. The noble Lords, Lord Stunell and Lord Young, have outlined the reasons for their amendments. I hope that the Minister will carefully consider these outstanding matters. We are all mindful in your Lordships’ House that behind all the technicalities and complexities of the Building Safety Act and attempts to right its deficiencies in this Bill is a group of leaseholders, many of whom were or are first-time buyers, who have had the start of their home-owning journey blighted by the worry and concern of remediation and uncertainty over service charges. They have been let down by errors in the original Bill, which meant that the status of their leasehold determined what charges they would have to pay.

The Minister reassures us that further review of these matters will be undertaken. I hope that will be the case, and that further thought will be given by the Government, if there is to be no compensation to those who have already had significant costs, to how that might be dealt with in future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to thank the Minister for his introduction regarding the two amendments that were moved by the Front Bench here. The first was in my name, relating to childcare. We thank him for listening to and recognising our concerns, and thank the Government for tabling an amendment that does exactly what we asked for; we very much appreciate that. My noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage had an amendment down on vagrancy, and again, we are very pleased that the Government have tabled an amendment in lieu on the Vagrancy Act. I will say only that this was promised two years ago, so in our opinion the sooner that action is taken on this, the better.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has an amendment in lieu on RAAC. The Minister is aware, as are other noble Lords, of increasing concerns about the number of schools, hospitals and in fact other buildings that have been affected by this. It is important that there is proper information regarding the extent of the problem, and that schools and hospitals, and other organisations which have buildings that are affected have the support that they need, because this is extremely concerning.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the detailed arguments he has put towards Motion ZB1 in my name, which I recognise have substance. However, the levelling-up Bill, which includes missions relating to education and health, means that we need to think about the quality of the public buildings provided, because they have a substantial impact on the quality of the services that are then received by those in both schools and hospitals. To have higher-quality buildings inevitably leads to better outcomes for patients, students and children.

Given that, there are two issues. One is that these are public buildings that are publicly funded, and there ought to be greater transparency for users and employees in those buildings of the state that they are in. The Minister has carefully explained the vast data collection that goes on regarding the buildings, both in the school and NHS estates. He is right—there is a vast collection of data. However, there is not transparent, easily accessible data for people who use those buildings and work in them. If, as he said, safety is paramount—I totally agree—the public need to see that there is transparency around the data on the state of those buildings.

I am asking the Minister and the Government to accede to easily accessible data concerning these public buildings because of safety concerns. That has been highlighted by the recent RAAC issue, and more and more buildings have been discovered with RAAC as a safety issue. I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote today, but I hope that the Government will consider greater publicity and accessibility of the data that they collect already so that people can see what state their buildings are in.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 18th September 2023 Lords Chamber

Amendments 301, 314 and 316 relate to the extent and commencement of the amendments and the Title respectively. Amendment 276 has been tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and would remove any restrictions on local authorities providing childcare. I will listen carefully to her remarks on that. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, at this stage—the beginning of another day on Report—I remind the House of my relevant interests as a councillor in Kirklees and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, who is standing in today for the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, to whom I wish godspeed and a full recovery.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said, childcare is facing a crisis of unaffordable provision. Many families are simply unable to bear the cost of full-time care, thus restricting parents to reduce their working hours; that has a knock-on effect on their household budgets and puts pressure on the family finances. The Government are bringing these amendments forward rather late in the day—during Report on the Bill, which we started in January—especially given the crisis in not only affordability but provision; as she said, there have been a large number of closures among childminding providers. Given that, we on these Benches support the government amendments because extending childminding to non-domestic settings would be sensible.

However, I have a proviso here; I wonder whether the noble Baroness can respond to it. She has spoken about the regulations facing childminders being the same as those for nursery providers, but she has not spoken in full about the regulations affecting the building premises that may be used by childminders. Clearly, we want them to be appropriate to the age of the children using them. Children from the age of nine months to the toddler stage certainly need safe facilities and different ones from those for which a non-domestic setting might be built. I want to know from the noble Baroness that there will be clear, enforceable regulations around this.

The great majority of childcare is provided by the private sector. Amendment 276 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, would extend that to local authorities. We on these Benches support that extension as it will enable councils to fill the gaps in private provision, which are more likely to be in areas of higher deprivation and in the very communities that the Bill is ostensibly aimed at helping.

With those remarks, we support the Government’s amendments and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly, largely in relation to Labour’s amendment. As the noble Baroness may recall, some of us spoke about the provision of early years facilities in Committee. I want to return to that issue briefly to see whether we can tie up one or two loose ends.

I am most grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Barran, for the correspondence and meetings that we have had between Committee and Report. The meeting with the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, had the largest number of advisers in the smallest room that I have ever been in; that would not have been possible under Covid. The new DfE advice to local authorities, Securing Developer Contributions for Education, is a great improvement on its predecessor. It is much clearer and on several occasions makes clear and specific mention of early years provision.

However, the response from the department of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, was slightly less clear. Given her background as an effective head of a local authority, I think she assumes that all local authorities are run as well and professionally as her one was. All I say is that the evidence from a range of local authorities is that their ability to provide early years facilities is not good.

An article last week indicated that local authorities are sitting on a grand total of £3 billion of unused Section 106 money, £420 million of which is for education. It is somewhat disappointing that the LGA spokesman’s response to that said just that doing this is “a complex process” that takes a lot of time. I thought that was local government’s job.

I have four specific questions for the Minister, of which I have given her advance warning. The first is: what we are going to do to monitor whether these funds are being used to expand childcare provision, because there is no central collection of data at the moment. Please can we do something about that?

Secondly, there is an expectation, which is clear in the advice, that existing or new spare primary school capacity will be repurposed for early years services. How will guidance be flexible to ensure that, if there are changes in the birth rate, we do not end up with nurseries closing and have the same problem?

Thirdly, how can we make sure that we are also looking at early years settings that are convenient for people’s work? It is one thing to have early years provision near where you live but, for many working women, it is far more useful and a more efficient use of their time to have early years provision near their place of work. Could the Government say whether they are aware of this potential issue and, if so, what they are doing to try to mitigate it?

Lastly, how will the Government make sure that all local authorities can use this funding on new stand-alone provision if they deem it appropriate, without being reliant on private providers, which may or may not want to operate in the area? This applies to the new infrastructure levy but also to existing sources of funding. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

--- Later in debate ---

I strongly believe that the Government have not yet delivered on earlier commitments, putting thousands of leaseholders in an intolerable position, and that the current position is indefensible. We should give the other place the opportunity to think again. I propose to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 282C.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, building safety remediation comes back again. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for sharing their expert knowledge and understanding of the plight of leaseholders as a consequence of the building safety debacle exposed by the Grenfell Tower tragedy.

The noble Earl has put a huge amount of time, energy and expertise into seeking an all-encompassing solution to the building safety scandal so tragically exposed by the Grenfell Tower fire six years ago. As has been said, hundreds of thousands of leaseholders have been financially penalised as a result, because the construction sector, developers, materials manufacturers and the Government have failed to take full responsibility for their failings. It is clear that leaseholders and tenants are the innocent victims. They must not be expected to pay. Yet despite the progress made by the Building Safety Act, that is what is happening to many leaseholders. They are paying eye-watering, vastly increased insurance bills, have waking watch requirements and are unable to sell and move. All that is on hold because of the omissions in the Building Safety Act.

I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, who reminded us that, right at the start of this, the Secretary of State promised that there would be full protection for leaseholders. Unfortunately, that has not happened. We have before us, from both noble Lords, alternate ways of fulfilling that commitment made by the Government. The first is to go back to square one, which is basically the proposal from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and fulfil the polluter pays objective that no leaseholder or tenant, regardless of where they are or their circumstances—enfranchised tenant, tenant or leaseholder—should pay. That is morally right. There is debate on various aspects of the building safety scandal but that is what I have said from the start: innocent leaseholders and tenants should not be subject to payment for the failings of others. The second argument, from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham—and I have added my name to his amendments—is that making step-by-step improvements to the Building Safety Act may be more acceptable to the Government.

In the end, the decision is not ours. The decision is the Government’s, and if we can persuade them to take another step forward to protect another group of leaseholders, that seems to me to be the practical way forward—as much as I admire what the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has done.

I move to Amendment 282NF in my name. There is a large group of leaseholders who were specifically excluded: those who live in blocks of under 11 metres. One of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, seeks to include leaseholders in blocks of under 11 metres. However, I wanted it to be specifically drawn to the attention of the House, because it was wrong to exclude them on the grounds that the risk is less. Fire services across the country, not just the London fire service, say that the risk is unacceptable. These flats are covered with flammable cladding that was put there knowingly by materials manufacturers that knew it was flammable and that a fire in those flats would become enormous, as was the case at Grenfell, where it was minutes before the fire reached the top of the high block of flats. I want to draw attention to the plight of this particular group.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, who unfortunately is not well, for the meetings that I have had with her to discuss the plight of leaseholders who live in these blocks of under 11 metres. I thank the civil servants who accepted that there is a problem here. The trouble is that nothing has happened, and we need action to help these leaseholders.

Insurance agents for the blocks under 11 metres still say that there is a risk, and insurance bills are therefore unacceptably high and unaffordable. We still hear from estate agents that the blocks will be more difficult to sell because of the risks of fire due to the cladding material. So my amendment asks for those blocks to be covered by the responsible actors scheme.

Here we are again debating the building safety scandal. I ask that the Government accept Amendment 282C in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, as one more step towards dealing with the issues blighting the lives of many thousands of leaseholders. They cannot afford the bills that they are presented with and are unable to pay for the remediation—which is not theirs to pay. They do not even own the right to the bricks and mortar, yet they are being expected to pay for it—that in itself is wrong, but it will have to be covered by another Bill that we await from this Government. This is about whether we make another step in the right direction or go back to square one and try a big, all-encompassing solution to this situation.

What we must do is give hope that all leaseholders who have been adversely affected by the building safety scandal will have their issues addressed by the Government, as the Secretary of State promised at the very outset of our debates on this problem. That is necessary, and the amendments today seek, in different ways, to deal with that. I want to hear from the Minister that the Government intend to deal with every leaseholder’s issues. It is not the leaseholders’ responsibility, and it was not of their doing; they have done everything right and nothing wrong, and should not be expected to pay.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I remind the House of my interests in the register as a serving councillor on Stevenage Borough Council and Hertfordshire County Council, a vice-president of the LGA and a vice-chair of the District Councils’ Network. I ask the Minister to convey our wishes too to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook; we wish her well for a speedy recovery. Her patience and willingness to collaborate on the Bill have been outstanding.

With this Bill, we have an opportunity to put right some of the very difficult issues that have emerged from the awful tragedy of the Grenfell fire. In the six years since Grenfell, we have seen people left in the most dreadful limbo on this issue. The stress, fear and harm they have lived with on a daily basis are incalculable. They are not able to sleep for fear that their buildings are not safe; they are living in fear of the exorbitant costs of mediation measures; and they are unable to sell their properties or move away. For some, that has impacted their physical and mental health. In the most serious cases, leaseholders have faced bankruptcy. Their dreams of owning their own homes have transformed into the stuff of nightmares.

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, mentioned the case of Vista Tower in Stevenage, which I know well. That demonstrates so many of the issues arising from the remediation we are talking about. I remind your Lordships’ House that nearly two-thirds of high-rise flats and a third of mid-rise flats still require an external wall safety form before any mortgages are even considered, so the issue is certainly far from being fixed.

We welcome the comprehensive and detailed Amendment 260A from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, particularly his strong focus on “polluter pays”—a principle that has had much attention during the passage of the Bill. As ever, he has a very thorough and conscientious approach in setting out a complete building safety remediation scheme. We acknowledge that his knowledge and expertise on and experience of such issues are recognised throughout your Lordships’ House, and I hope that, as we go through the following processes of remediation, the Government will continue to work with him and the cladding groups to advise on improving the remediation scheme that will comprehensively cover the remediation that people need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, has raised a fundamental issue of human rights and dignity. I am really surprised that the Government have so far failed to repeal the Vagrancy Act. It just needs to be deleted from the statute book. Perhaps the Minister can give us the assurance that it will be. If he cannot, and if the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, wishes to press her amendment to a vote, we will certainly be supporting it.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank both noble Baronesses for their comments. I am pretty sure that that will be the only time I am mentioned in the same speech with Beethoven.

In response to Amendment 277 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, I am still clear, as are the Government, that the Vagrancy Act is antiquated and not fit for purpose. I am happy to reassure the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Taylor, that we will repeal the Vagrancy Act at the earliest opportunity, once suitable replacement legislation has been brought forward. Given that we remain committed to repealing the Vagrancy Act, there is little value in carrying out an assessment of the kind described in the amendment. The House will have ample opportunity to debate the matter when further details on any new legislation are set out.

Amendment 304A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, is on the timing of the statement of levelling-up missions. We have committed within the Bill to publish this within one month of Part 1 of the Act coming into force, which will be two months after Royal Assent. This is already an appropriate and prompt timescale, which includes time to collate materials and data across government departments before the publication and laying of the report. Reducing that time would be unnecessary and may undermine the purpose of the missions: to ensure focus on long-term policy goals. I hope that provides reassurance for the noble Baronesses and that Amendment 277 can be withdrawn, and the other amendment not moved.

--- Later in debate ---

My amendment remedies all these potential deficiencies and sets a statutory deadline of a year, which would allow adequate time for essential consultation and engagement. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, is absolutely right to raise this as an important issue. Currently, planning, in the sense of local authority planning services and applications, depends on landowners bringing forward sites for housing or business use for inclusion in the local authority local plan; councils then make the decision as to which of those sites are in fact acceptable. That is not a strategic approach, which is exactly why she has brought this amendment forward. It draws attention to sites that are allegedly appropriate for development but it excludes the importance of nature recovery, ELMS and all the other issues—we discussed ancient woodlands at our last sitting on Report. It also fails to draw attention to the importance of watercourses as part of a planning process, which is of course why we had the debate on the previous day on Report on nutrient neutrality.

The noble Baroness is right to draw our attention to this as an issue to which we ought to have a strategic approach. I will wait to hear the Minister’s response, but the Government ought to consider having an overview of how they expect land to be used, rather than just leave it to landowners to determine whether they have sites they wish to put forward for development.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock]

281: After Clause 226, insert the following new Clause—
“Regeneration of schools and hospitals: register of serious disrepair(1) Within one month of the day on which this Act is passed the Secretary of State must establish a register of schools and hospitals in England in serious disrepair.(2) The register must comprise a list of—(a) schools that have been partially or fully closed on a temporary or permanent basis because one or more school building was deemed unsafe for staff or pupils,(b) schools that have classrooms or buildings on site that are closed due to disrepair and details of those classrooms or buildings,(c) schools that require major rebuilding or refurbishment,(d) hospitals that have been partially or fully closed on a temporary or permanent basis because one or more hospital building was deemed unsafe for staff or patients,(e) hospitals that have rooms, wards or buildings on site that are closed due to disrepair and details of those rooms, wards or buildings, and(f) hospitals that require major rebuilding or refurbishment.(3) The register must be reviewed every three months to ensure it contains up-to-date information.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Government to keep a register of schools and hospitals in serious disrepair, and ensure the register is regularly updated.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I tabled a version of this amendment in Committee—which seems a very long time ago; I think it was in March—on the need for a register of school and hospital buildings which are in a state of disrepair, so that local residents know what the issues are and can hold the Government to account for putting right those buildings that they have to use.

Little did I know at that stage about the huge, urgent issue that has emerged this summer around reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete—concrete with air bubbles in it, as far as I can make out. According to the Department for Education, at least 147 schools in England have been affected by RAAC, but this number may grow as investigations continue. At least 27 NHS sites have been confirmed to have aerated concrete and I understand the NHS is conducting an urgent inquiry into the safety of the buildings. Thousands of patients and pupils are facing disruption as a result of this aerated concrete coming to the end of its life, which apparently means it could break and collapse the building at any moment. Very fortunately, so far no serious injuries have resulted from such collapses.

We know the Department for Education was aware of the use of RAAC in schools that were built in the 1970s and 1980s. Its report from 2018 showed that as many as 400 schools per year could need their buildings repaired as a result of the use of this material. The 2021 spending review provided funding for just 50 of those per year. At the end of 2022, the Department for Education listed building failures as one of six key risks in its annual report. Similarly, as an FoI request from my party has shown, hospitals across the country are facing huge repair costs from chemical leaks and broken fire alarms—in one hospital, raw sewage was in patient areas. In my view, sewage seeping anywhere in a hospital is totally unacceptable. This followed on from a report from November last year that the repair bill for NHS hospitals in England alone has hit £10 billion.

My amendment seeks, as a first step in tackling these issues, to get the information into the public domain. I will give one example of why this is important. School admission authorities are already being asked by parents having to choose a school for their children whether their preferred school is affected by a need for critical repairs which could disrupt their children’s education. School admissions are likely not to know, so it is really important that parents, in the case of schools, have the information to make choices about their children’s education. In the same way, NHS trusts should be able to make available similar information to patients where there is an ability to choose where an operation will take place.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that provides sufficient assurance to the noble Baroness that the powers and processes that she is essentially advocating are already provided for. More generally, I hope that I have sufficiently assured the House that we are already taking action to address the issues raised in this group, and that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for his extremely long, detailed and careful response to the issues I raised about the repair of schools and hospitals. I remind the noble Earl that the amendment refers only to setting up a register for buildings that suffer from serious disrepair, so it would not cover emergency water leaks or the like. The importance of a public open register is to enable transparency for all those who work in or use those buildings—patients, parents, pupils and all the staff who work in those buildings. Then, of course, it also enables accountability to those bodies responsible—in the end, the Government—for having full and timely repair processes for those public buildings. I am afraid that unfortunately, the noble Earl has not convinced me of the Government’s approach to school and hospital buildings that are in serious disrepair, so I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 13th September 2023 Lords Chamber

My amendment would put charging for casework for town and country planning applications—to give advice to local planning authorities on statutory development plans, environmental assessments and other planning work—on the same basis as the NSIP work, overcoming the issue that is currently problematic. Much as I have examined it—and many are the conversations I have had with both Ministers—I cannot see any logical reason for the charging systems to be different, so I hope that the Government will now accept my amendment.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the House of my relevant interests as a councillor and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

Throughout the debates on the Bill, we have all agreed on the importance of having a plan-led approach to development. Therefore, an effective local authority planning service is key to implementing timely decisions on planning applications. The House of Commons Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Select Committee issued a report on planning reforms earlier this year. The report stated that the National Audit Office found that local authority planning services had been cut by £1.3 billion over a 10-year period to 2020, which equates to a 55% reduction in service spending. That is from the National Audit Office, so we cannot argue with those figures.

A Local Government Association survey in 2022 found that 58% of councils had trouble in recruiting planners—and, in county councils, that rose to 83%. The Royal Town Planning Institute estimates that one in 10 planning officer posts are not currently filled. From my own experience in my council, I know that senior planners are enticed into the private sector, leaving councils less well equipped to deal with complex applications. The enormous stress on planning services has the consequence of putting an additional delay on development, which adds programming problems for housebuilders and developers of commercial units. Amendment 235 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham—who I thank for adding his name to an amendment on issues that we both raised separately in Committee—would insert a new clause to address those practical issues. It would enable a local planning authority to set a level of fee that covers the costs of a planning application.

I appreciate that the Government have agreed to increase planning fees by 35% for major applications and by 25% for all other applications. Of course, that is a step in the right direction. However, nationally set fees fail to take into account regional differences in costs; they also fail to reflect the actual costs of dealing with very complex developments, either very large housing sites or commercial developments.

This national approach to fee setting results in council tax payers subsidising complex planning applications. That cannot be right. The stark fact is that 305 out of 343 local authority planning departments had a deficit totalling £245.4 million in 2020 and 2021. That is a huge sum, where council tax payers are subsidising housebuilding developers, for example, who are well able to meet the costs of a planning application in full.

In addition, of course, there are the Government amendments that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has spoken about this morning, which are a good step forward in conceding the argument made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, about statutory consultees being paid for the work that they do—that is right and proper. But this adds to the bill that local authority planning services have to pay and it adds to the cost. All in all, there will be additional costs for the work being done. I think that the Government have made some concessions to the principle that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has asked about and I support that. I wish that they had gone further, as she argues, but it is one step in the right direction.

I will of course listen carefully to the response from the Minister to Amendment 235, but I feel strongly about this issue. It is not a matter of principle; it is a practical amendment to enable local authority planning services to provide the service that they are required to do and that they want to do, but for which they need the funds to do. If the Minister is unable to concede that principle, I will be minded at the appropriate stage to test the opinion of the House on this matter.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 235, which I proposed in Committee and to which the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has just spoken. Since Committee, the need for it has become more urgent, as reflected in the report of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Select Committee in July, which concluded:

“The Government’s reforms to national planning policy will fail if local authorities lack sufficient resources to implement them. The package of support which the Government has outlined does not go far enough to address the significant resourcing challenges which local authorities currently face”.


I support the amendment for two reasons. First, I do not believe that the Government should be controlling the fees charged by planning departments, as a matter of principle. They do not control other local authority fees—building regulations, parking fees, library charges, school meals, swimming pool charges—so why planning? A national cap does not reflect the different circumstances of local authorities.

The case for relinquishing control is made stronger by the aspirations in the levelling up White Paper, with its commitment to

“usher in a revolution in local democracy”.

The revolution is stopped in its tracks by the notion that local authorities should not be free to recover the costs of their planning departments.

In reply to my amendment in Committee, my noble friend the Minister said that

“having different fees creates inconsistency, more complexity and unfairness for applicants, who could be required to pay different fee levels for the same type of development. Planning fees provide clarity and consistency for local authorities, developers and home owners”.—[Official Report, 24/4/23; col. 1003.]

Let me briefly dissect that. As far as local authorities are concerned, they are the ones who sponsored my original amendment. They have since confirmed their continuing support with this statement:

“We support this amendment. Planning fees do not cover the true cost of processing planning applications. In 2020/21, 305 out of 343 local authority planning departments operated in a deficit, which totalled £245.4 million”.


As far as developers are concerned, they already have to cope with myriad different local plans and can well manage different fees. What the developers want are well-resourced planning departments that can effectively process their applications quickly. One of the reasons for the disappointing housebuilding performance is planning delays. The amendment addresses that. As for home owners, I do not think that they know that planning fees are set centrally and they are used to local authorities having different charges for libraries, parking, allotments and the rest. I do not think that they would mind if fees were set locally, as long as they got a good service.

Secondly, I do not think it right that council tax payers should have to subsidise the planning system—the hidden subsidy referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. There are more important calls on those resources, underlined by the financial problems facing Birmingham City Council. The Minister told us that the Government were consulting on increasing the fees, but in the words of the Local Government Association:

“We welcome the Government’s commitment to increase planning application fees. However, our modelling has shown that even if all application fees were uplifted by 35 per cent, the overall national shortfall for 2020/21 would have remained above £80 million”.


In his opening speech, my noble friend referred on several occasions to full-cost recovery for provision of services. That is exactly what this amendment does.

I conclude by quoting the Times, which recently, on 7 July, summed up the position:

“Britain’s planning system is grinding to a halt, with four out of five big applications now being delayed by up to two years.


Official figures show that more than half a million new developments have been delayed during the past five years as threadbare planning departments struggle to cope with even routine cases.


Industry experts said the delays were exacerbating the housing crisis, with developments now taking up to three years to get started. Councils are supposed to give developers a decision on big projects within 13 weeks, but the latest official data shows that only 19% of applications were processed in this time over the past year, down from 57% 10 years ago … Developers say that performance is damaging efforts to tackle the housing crisis and other government priorities such as installing wind and solar farms. They warn that unless the government insists on proper funding for planning departments, the housing crisis will worsen as councils will always choose refuse collections over planning when allocating scarce resources.”


The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has made a powerful case and I hope that the Government will reflect in their reply on the further measures that are now needed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 227A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, seeks to impose a requirement on the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations under Clause 128 that will enable statutory consultees to charge applicants for their advice on planning applications and consents under the planning Acts. I appreciate that our Amendments 229 and 230 do not go as far as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, might like. However, given the complexity of statutory consultee charging—it is a complex field—in our view it would be unwise to rush into a radically different set of arrangements. The changes that she proposes have the potential to impose financial impacts on applicants, in particular home owners and SMEs, and they could severely affect local planning authority capacity and its ability to make timely decisions. We need to ensure that an appropriate balance is reached with any charging model.

To put that into context, there are around 28 statutory consultees prescribed nationally and around 50,000 applications a year that the big six national statutory consultees comment on. That does not include local statutory consultees, such as highways authorities. Therefore, we will need a system that works for everyone, not just a select few, and this will need to be worked through carefully and collaboratively with the sector. Against that background, I hope that the noble Baroness will see why we are reluctant to rush into the model that she proposes and that she will in fact decide not to move her Amendment 227A on that account.

Amendment 235, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, would enable local authorities to set their own planning application fees. I understand how important it is for local planning authorities to have the resources that they need to deliver an effective planning service. On 20 July, we laid regulations, as she mentioned, that will increase planning fees by 35% for the major applications and 25% for all other applications. This is a national fee increase that will benefit all local planning authorities in England. In addition to the 35% increase, local planning authorities may charge fees for providing pre-application advice or using pre-planning agreements for major schemes. Fee levels for those services are set by individual local planning authorities. It is important to factor that point into noble Lords’ consideration of this issue.

The Government do not believe that enabling local planning authorities to vary fees and charges is the way to answer resourcing issues, for several reasons. First, it does not provide any incentive to tackle inefficiencies—indeed, the opposite is true. I am not sure that I heard that point addressed either by my noble friend or by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. Secondly, I have to come back to the point that the Government argued in Committee. Having different fees between local authorities would be bound to create uncertainty and, perhaps more importantly, unfairness for applicants. We have to be cognisant of the need for fairness. It is all very well for my noble friend to say that applicants will not notice if fees vary between areas. It is a question of doing what is right for all parties and not just feeding the wishes of local authorities in this area, understandable as those are, as I said. Also, at an extreme, if fees are set too high, they could risk doing what I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, does not want, which is to discourage development coming forward in the first place. For those reasons, I am afraid that I must resist the amendment and I hope that, on reflection, the noble Baroness will be persuaded not to move it when we reach it.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Before the noble Earl sits down—I thank him for the reply—can he just confirm that the Government are willing for council tax payers to subsidise planning applications, which are often very big applications? That is often where the fee discrepancy occurs, with very big housing developments or commercial developments. Is the noble Earl happy for the Government to see council tax payers subsidising those planning applications?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

The noble Baroness’s question has a lot of hypotheses built into it. As she knows, local government funding is not just a matter of fees being charged and council tax being levied; there is of course support from central government as well. I suggest that it is very difficult to generalise in the way that she is asking me to. However, I say respectfully that she ought to remember too that local authorities can charge more for more complex cases, so there is flexibility in that sense.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

My Lords, I hate to dampen the overall enthusiasm, but I would just like to put in a word for the countryside and those who live and work in national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. They sometimes feel that their interests are overlooked. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister in being mindful of their interests when he comes to draft his amendment, if he would do so.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this is a good day. I thank all noble Lords who have worked hard with the Government to get to a place where there is landscape protection for those areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks. I am fortunate to live in a place where I can easily get to three great national parks—the Yorkshire Dales, the North York Moors and the Peak District—so I particularly welcome, from a selfish point of view, what has been achieved here.

Turning to government Amendment 230A, I am pleased that the Government have closed a loophole here in the way that biodiversity net gain is measured. That is very positive. I applaud the whole biodiversity net gain approach.

I will make one comment about an issue which constantly concerns me when dealing with local planning applications: applicants trying to wriggle out of their responsibilities in biodiversity net gain. As the Minister will know, there is a hierarchy of how applicants can achieve biodiversity net gain—on site, close to, by, or as near as possible. If you live in a built-up area like me, “as near as possible” can be a big distance away. The town where I live—I guess this happens to small towns all across the place—will often see its biodiversity further depleted because the hierarchy allows applicants to put their biodiversity net gain at some distance away. I wonder whether the Minister could perhaps address that and enhance what I believe is a very positive approach adopted by the Government.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

My Lords, I welcome the Government’s amendments that have been tabled in recognition of previous concerns expressed by your Lordships. As a member of Friends of the Lake District, I am pleased to see that the Government have pretty much accepted the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Randall. It is important. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Randall, my noble friend Lady Jones and the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, for their comments and support for that.

Those of us who live in areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks know that there is so much that we can do to enhance nature, increase natural beauty, support our cultural heritage, and work to support climate change and the local people who live there. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, brings this about by implementing much of what was in the Glover review. Again, I thank the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Randall, for all their work on this. These are important amendments, and they will improve our countryside.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I stand to introduce my Amendment 240, and also to speak briefly in support of the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.

My Amendment 240 is on flood prevention, mitigation certification and accreditation schemes. The reason I have tabled this amendment is that it does concern me that, when we have areas that have suffered major flooding, with both residential and business properties damaged, often the incentives to “build back better”—to put in flood mitigation and systems such as, in a residential building, a different sort of kitchen, different flooring, flood doors and so on—have not always been the eventual outcome when repairs have been done. It is also about the actual standard when they are put in: what kind of standard are the building repairs, which are being paid for by insurance companies? Whenever there is a major flooding event, insurance companies have an enormous amount of work to do, and we should thank them for that. Most insurance companies work very hard to provide a good service. But we have to be careful to make sure that all the equipment and facilities that are available are of the right standard and that appropriate mitigation is being put in place, which is why I have brought my amendment forward.

On the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, I just wanted to make a few comments. Her Amendment 231 is about sustainable water management and sustainable drainage; I know this is a topic that is very close to the noble Baroness’s heart, and I completely support her on what she is trying to achieve through this. We know that sustainable drainage systems—SUDS—can play a pivotal role in ensuring that new properties are built in a way that manages surface water flood risk at a local level. We also know that the Government have a really good policy on SUDS under the Flood and Water Management Act, which the noble Baroness referred to. I think the frustration is that we now need the Government urgently to implement this, so that we can benefit from the announcements. The Government announced in January that it was going to be mandatory in all new developments, so we need to crack on with the implementation of this. We would very much support the noble Baroness’s amendment on that.

On the noble Baroness’s Amendment 232, on basically not building any more on flood plains, we again strongly support the noble Baroness in her efforts to achieve this. We know that the insurance industry, through the ABI, has been calling for the Government to ensure that there is no inappropriate development on flood plains and flood risk areas, and also that we need a more transparent planning application system in regard to this. One of their asks is that the Government link future residential and commercial developments to the building regulations approved documents. Again, it will be interesting to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that.

This Bill is also reviewing the National Planning Policy Framework, so we think that brings forward an opportunity to really set how this should happen, to ensure that we do not get inappropriate building. I remember there was one case when there was a large flood—I live in an area that floods—and there was a new development called “Water Meadows”. After the flooding had gone away, it was called the “Meadows”. That was very disingenuous of developers, and I think we need to get to grips with this. If the noble Baroness wishes to put her Amendment 232 to a vote, we would be very happy to support it.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the important amendments that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has tabled to the Bill demonstrate how wide-ranging the Bill is. These amendments themselves could benefit from an individual Bill, because they are so critical to the future both of development and of environment preservation in our country. To be able to spend only 30 to 40 minutes debating them is a great shame, because the noble Baroness raises very significant issues.

The reason that these issues are so important was not stated, but I will state it because it is fundamental. We know that climate change will inevitably lead to higher rainfall and, therefore, to higher potential flood risks. All water companies, I know, have to take that into account in their 25-year plans when developing their own infrastructure, to make sure that it is flood resilient. If they are doing that, then surely the Government and Parliament itself have a responsibility to help developers build in such a way that housing, in particular, is either not built on flood plains or is built to be totally resilient to increasing water levels and flood risk as a result of climate change.

The Environment Agency has a hierarchy of flood zones: 1, 2 and 3. Flood zone 3, the high-risk one, is separated into two parts: 3a and 3b. Flood zone 3b is what we would describe as a functional flood plain: where water goes when there is heavy rainfall. There should not be any development on flood zone 3b, and on 3a only after very clear advice that it should not be there during a planning application or consultation. That is the essence of Amendment 232, of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh.

Too many homes are currently being built on areas at risk of flooding. The consequence is that in a few years’ time, as rainfall increases as a result of climate change, those same houses will be at greater risk of being flooded. That cannot be right; we ought to be dealing with that at the planning and construction stages.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I very much hope that the Government will take this amendment seriously. I would like to see them accept it. I do not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that ancient woodland is irreplaceable. It just takes a very long time—a matter of centuries—to replace it. As part of our planning, when it comes to 30 by 30, where to put woodlands and the extremely important issue of connection, we ought to be saying that losing 0.2% of our ancient woodland every year is not good. We want to plan to add 0.5% a year to where we plant and how we connect. We should have a long-term strategy to make sure that, in 100 years, we have twice as much woodland as now; otherwise, we will continue to bite into it.

A planning permission is currently being sought in Kent. I can see the argument for it. We want a supply of ragstone. A lot of important buildings are built of ragstone. This may be entirely the right place from which to get it. An additional Thames crossing is in prospect. We may well need it. We know that there will be circumstances in which we want to tear down ancient woodland. You cannot just take the soil and stick it somewhere else in the hope that things will re-establish themselves. It needs much better, more careful and longer-term planning.

Ten thousand years ago, there was none of this stuff. It has moved and come since. All these plants and animals have moved here during this period. We should not think that we cannot multiply it. We should be planning on the basis that we can, which needs a lot of thought, care and consideration. I declare an interest. I own a PAWS—a plantation on an ancient woodland site. I do not have any ancient woodland but I own a space where one used to be. We should give it careful attention, ensuring that every time we damage a woodland, there is proper consultation and consideration. It should not just be about whether we should lose this bit but about how we, as a local authority, plan to end up with more in a century’s time, rather than saying, “Shall we eat this slice of an ever-diminishing cake now?”.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I ought to start by saying that I am a member of the Woodland Trust and therefore protection of woodland is very important to me, so I wholly support the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, in her amendment.

Ancient woodland is ancient. The definition of ancient woodland is that it has been around since the 1600s or even longer. The combined effect of a copse or even a small woodland area in biodiversity terms is enormous. The Woodland Trust and others define these areas as being our equivalent of the rainforests in the tropics in the extent of the diversity of nature that is encouraged to live among the trees. So, it is not simply a question of cutting down a tree; it is destroying a habitat. I think that is what we ought to be thinking of and it is exactly what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, thought about.

Some of these ancient woodland areas are homes to threatened or at-risk species, so again it is not just about, “Let’s cut down the old oak tree”; it is about protecting a whole habitat for a huge number of species. The National Planning Policy Framework, which was published last week, has a tiny paragraph saying that

“development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats … such as ancient woodland … should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists”.

If only it had ended at “should be refused”. Because if we are, as a country, intent on protecting and enhancing our environment, those bodies of ancient woodland are exactly the sites that we should be protecting in full. What the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is asking, which we on these Benches wholly support, is that we strengthen that protection of ancient woodland, which is a key element of any Government’s environmental protection. So, I thank the noble Baroness for tabling the amendment and if she presses it to a vote, as she has indicated, we will be with her.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall be brief, because my noble friend Lady Young has set out extremely clearly why her amendment is so important, as have other noble Lords who have spoken. Part of the problem is that we have never really properly appreciated the huge contribution that ancient woodland makes. We have talked about it, but have we actually properly acted on it to protect it in the way that is needed? We know the huge contribution it makes to our environment, through carbon capture for example, but also, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, pointed out, it takes absolutely centuries to replace once it has gone.

There is so much talk about offsetting on the environment, but offsetting cannot always provide what is lost. We just need to consider that more. Offsetting is not the easy way to manage these things every time, so we completely support what my noble friend is trying to achieve. To be honest, she is the expert on this and if she is concerned, we should all be concerned, so if she wishes to test the opinion of the House, she will have our strong support.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock]

235: After Clause 128, insert the following new Clause—
“Planning application fees(1) Section 303 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (fees for planning applications etc.) is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (4) insert—“(4A) A local planning authority may make provision as to how a fee or charge under this section is to be calculated (including who is to make the calculation).””Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause would allow local authorities to set the fees for planning applications, in order that the cost of determining an application is reflected by the fee charged.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who is not in his place, for the long and careful response he gave to the amendment on planning fees, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and me. It is a practical amendment to ensure that council tax payers are not required to subsidise applications from developers, and to provide an effective and efficient planning service. Unfortunately, I was disappointed with the response from the noble Earl, so I would like to test the opinion of the House.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Report stage
Thursday 13th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the two amendments in this group apparently have little in common, but they do. Their common feature is that they are all about fairness. Amendment 66 in the name of my noble friend Lord Shipley is about fair voting systems. I obviously support his remarks about the importance to our democracy of having an electoral process and system that is seen to be fair to the electorate. As he rightly said, anyone elected with a third of the vote does not have the support of the majority of the electorate in their area. Fairness in voting is very important.

Amendment 63 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, is about fair funding. If levelling up—the name of the Bill—means anything, one element must be fairness across the country. This means fairness in terms of our democracy and fairness in terms of the financial support given to communities across England.

One thing we know is that our communities across the country vary considerably in their levels of inequality. As I have said many times during the debate on this Bill, the levelling up White Paper is full of information about how some people in some parts of our country are at a huge disadvantage because of the inequalities that they suffer as compared with the rest of the country. We have listed these inequalities before: in health, in skills, in access to public transport, in crime levels in their areas and in the quality of the housing and green spaces available. There is a plethora of examples of where some communities and the people who live in them are at a serious disadvantage because of those inequalities. At the heart of that are the councils that serve them. If councils have inadequate funding to provide the level of services that respond to the level of need, those inequalities will persist and get wider.

This brings me back to fair funding. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, said, fair funding has been a promise of this Government—a pledge, even—for six years, and rightly so. The national audit companies that do the external audits for local authorities make regular reports about the state of the whole local government system and its financial well-being. I read those reports because they are important; they give you an independent look at the state of local government. They say clearly that a number of local authorities in England will soon not be able to fulfil even their basic statutory responsibilities because they have inadequate finance. As the external auditors say, that is not because there is profligacy in the way the councils are run; it is simply because they have inadequate funds to fulfil their responsibilities. This could be because the areas have high levels of need and deprivation to respond to but it could also mean that they have historically inadequate levels of funding; that is why fair funding is so important.

I understand why the Government have been reluctant to fulfil a fair funding review. Unless there is a bucketload of extra money for local government finance, which I doubt, it will require a re-spreading of the same amount of funding for local authorities. This means that there will be winners but there will also be losers. I guess that is why the Government have so far failed to tackle this thorny issue. I accept that it is not easy but it is essential.

The cause of this is partly the base level of council tax that each authority can raise. Band D is supposed to be the average across the country. However, in my authority, it is band A+, if you like. In the council area that I represent, 66% of the properties are in bands A and B. They cannot raise the same levels of funding from council tax that others can. It also means that people who are living in very modest properties are paying high levels of council tax. None of that is fair. I come back to fairness and levelling up because, if levelling up is to mean anything, it must mean—I say it again—more investment in the very areas that the Government’s White Paper identifies. Those are the same areas that are underfunded in terms of their core funding with which to deliver essential public services.

I support Amendment 63 and urge the Government to put something into practice—to do something. Even if it has to be phased in, there must be a better approach to the funding of local government than we have currently. I will put the same pressure on the Labour Front Bench that my noble friend did. If Labour gets into government, will it do fair funding? It is vital because, otherwise, a number of councils will no longer be able to sustain basic services.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, explained, this proposed new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish the fair funding review, which I take to mean the 2018 government consultation on fairer funding for local government, A Review of Relative Needs and Resources.

I hope to persuade the noble Baroness that publication of the review would not now serve any useful purpose. As I explained in Committee, the data on which the review was based are now historic. First, the review does not take into account the 2021 census and demographic data. Secondly, neither the data nor the consultation responses take any account of the events of the past five years, including, most significantly, the Covid-19 pandemic and the advent of high inflation. Both developments have profoundly changed our economic landscape. As the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, has pointed out previously, using outdated information is a fundamental issue in today’s system. Publishing the response to the fair funding review at this point in time would not help us to fix this problem.

--- Later in debate ---

I have been asked again by the Cadogan Estate to say that a consultation on the scheme took place, with information being sent to nearly 13,000 properties, but only 1,170 responses were received. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, for the two amendments in his name, which relate to a specific issue that he also raised in Committee. On the face of it, Amendment 64 is a general plea to make business improvement districts more responsive to the views of the residents that they affect.

The noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, has used as an example an area of London of which I know little, so I will not be able to respond or comment in any way on the specifics of that. However, on the generalities of business improvement districts and the amendment in the noble Lord’s name, business improvement districts play a significant role in economic development. They are a tool that local authorities can use to stimulate business enhancement in parts of the local authority district, so that is important.

Business improvement districts vary considerably across the country. Some, as my noble friend Lady Thornhill has told me, work very well, such as in her area of Watford. However, in some areas of the country they have been perhaps more disruptive and less effective. The noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, made a very important point about always taking local residents with you. That is important in a democracy: if you upset the local residents, I can tell you that they now have many tools by which to make their views known. I am really pleased that the noble Lord has brought the generality of business improvement districts and their relationship with residents that are impacted by them to the attention of the House in this Bill, along with the importance of always listening to local people and responding effectively to what they have to say.

I appreciate that in Committee the Minister was—how do I put this?—lukewarm in her response. I wonder whether today she could be tepid or warm in her response, because that would help resolve the issue that the noble Lord has identified. I am sure it will have to be replicated in other parts of the country, but not everywhere, because some BIDs work very well.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, for bringing both these amendments forward. It enabled a lot of thoughtful discussion in Committee and again now on Report.

It is disappointing that there has not been adequate consultation on the particular BID and the programme that the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, spoke about. I did some work in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea after the Grenfell disaster. The Grenfell disaster was literally the worst example of a council not listening to its residents. It had been told for many years of the concerns that residents had and had not listened to them. Of course, that has changed the way that many councils now listen to their residents—for example, through resident programmes. I had hoped that was the case there, but perhaps it is just this example where it is not. Let us be hopeful and optimistic that that is the case.

On these Benches we absolutely support the principle that residents should be engaged in key changes to their local areas, including business improvement districts. It is just as important that residents in an area are engaged as it is for the businesses participating in the zone concerned. We are in the process of a £1 billion town centre redevelopment in my area. Every step of the way, we have taken the trouble to consult extensively with residents. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on how there may be some more specific consultation for BIDs and how the Government might further consider that.

In relation to the other amendment the noble Lord spoke to, in principle we fully support the full engagement of residents in decision-making, although we have some concerns about the financial implications of the proposals to compel the use of outside agencies. I think the noble Lord used the term third parties—that might be a different independent third party, and sometimes could be interpreted as outside agencies and consultants, which are notoriously expensive when they do this work on behalf of councils.

I draw attention to the report pulled together by the RSA and the Inclusive Growth Network called Transitions to Participatory Democracy: How to Grow Public Participation in Local Governance. It makes a number of recommendations on growing the engagement of local people so that you have a more sustained participation journey, rather than these out-of-the-blue consultations on planning and other things happening at decision-making points, in which people come to the table with a negative view right from the start. It is much better if people feel that they have more permanent engagement with their local authority.

The report recommends that these routes should be developed over time, strongly based on meeting people and local organisations where they are and not expecting them to engage on council territory. We need consultation to take place earlier in the process—so that people are engaged in the design of schemes or projects and they are not produced like a rabbit out of the hat for people to comment on—and never when decisions have already been taken. If you have already taken the decision, do not tell people that you are consulting on it because they will see through that straight away. That is really important.

This has been a very useful prompt to think these issues through. We look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 20th April 2023 Lords Chamber

The only amendment I have not spoken to is that of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, who is right: where there are 20 mph limits, the traffic often does flow more quickly. On the other hand, there are areas with 30 mph limits that should probably be retained, unless you get complete gridlock; one thinks of arterial routes into towns. But that is possibly a debate for another day, and I doubt that the noble Baroness would necessarily agree with my analysis.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I was reflecting that we have barely mentioned levelling up in the last two Committee days. Yet my noble friend has helpfully raised the importance of relating everything we do to the levelling-up missions, which include references to accessible public transport in order to enable accessibility to employment. That was timely.

My name is on Amendment 468, which is about accessible railway stations. I will not repeat what my noble friend said because I cannot add anything, except that I endorse her praise of the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and my noble friend Lady Brinton, and their consistent determination to keep accessible public transport at the forefront of our thinking. If public transport is accessible to the least mobile, it is much better for everyone else, those who are mobile; it makes it better for everyone.

I will briefly speak to Amendment 240, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, because some planning issues are related to it. Everything he said is quite right. The NPPF, which we have mentioned several times, already has a policy on retaining public rights of way, cycle networks, bridleways and so on. Therefore, many local plans will incorporate them, including that of my own council, which

“will support development proposals that can be served by alternative modes of transport such as public transport, cycling and walking”.

The council says:

“The core walking and cycling network as shown on the Policies Map will provide an integrated system of cycle routes, public footpaths and bridleways that provide opportunity for alternative sustainable means of travel throughout the district and provide efficient links to urban centres and sites allocated for development in the Local Plan”.


I thought that all local plans would incorporate such policies, although, from what the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, said, this is clearly not the case. He pointed to the division of responsibilities for highways between the counties and districts, for planning purposes. Therefore, when plan-making, I hope the Government will have a requirement—they may already have one, but if so, it needs to be underlined—to incorporate the highways policies of the responsible council concerned. That would solve at least one of the problems raised.

The fundamental problem with a lot of our planning development policies—I raised this in a different context on the last Committee day—is implementing them. As with my council, we can have grand and worthy policies on retaining the public rights of way network, cycleways, bridleways and all the rest of it, but when that comes up against commercial development interests, I can tell noble Lords now that those interests always win. We have to find a way of balancing that better.

Of course, if a public right of way goes through a commercial developer’s site, it will want to adjust it, but this always has to be in the best interest of the public right of way as well; however, that often does not happen. For example, a development site in my locality abuts the M62, and a historic public right of way went through the middle of it. Of course, the developer did not want to retain it, and the proposal was to divert it so that it ran along the M62. Who would use that? Some of us managed to get it put elsewhere on the site—but that is what we are up against. This is my plea to the Minister, and it is a big challenge for all the wonderful policies we have discussed: how can we ensure that they can be implemented when they are up against commercial interests? That is the key because currently, commercial interests have the upper hand in the end, and in my experience they always win.

Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell me that all new planning applications are required to have an electric vehicle charging point, because that would make sense. My council requires this. This could go into the NPPF, and, if it is not possible—because flats are being considered—there could be a requirement for public provision in the locality of the development.

My noble friend Lady Randerson raised a big challenge about the differential VAT charges. This is outrageous: I had not realised that public charging points have higher VAT attached to them than domestic ones. If we are really going to encourage electric vehicle use, which we must, surely a tax incentive is one of the ways to do so. With those words I look forward to what the Minister says.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to make my debut on the LURB. I am sorry that it has taken so long, but I may be back again in due course, should there be more transport amendments. Today, it is my job to address this group of amendments, which relate to transport; there are four, and I shall address each in turn.

I start with Amendment 240, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, which relates to cycling and walking and to the role of active travel in local development. I think that all noble Lords agree that the Government recognise the importance of walking and cycling and the role that the planning system plays in enabling development in sustainable locations, supported by active travel infrastructure. It is already the case that national planning policies must be considered by local authorities when preparing a local plan and are a material consideration in all planning decisions. The Bill does not alter this principle and will strengthen the importance of those national policies which relate to decision-making.

The existing National Planning Policy Framework is clear that transport issues, including opportunities to promote walking and cycling, should be considered from the earliest stages of plan-making and when considering development proposals. The NPPF also states that policies in local plans should provide for attractive and well-designed walking and cycling networks with supporting facilities, such as secure cycle parking, drawing on local cycling and walking infrastructure plans. The NPPF also places environmental objectives at the heart of the planning system, making it clear that planning should protect and enhance our natural environment, mitigate and adapt to climate change, and support the transition to a low-carbon future. The Government have recently concluded a consultation on changes to the NPPF to ensure that it contributes to climate change mitigation and adaptation as fully as possible.

I always react with some trepidation when my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham shares his thoughts with your Lordships’ House. He has an enormous amount of experience in this area—and, it would seem, in most areas of government. He challenged me to explain why we think the guidance will achieve our aims. I believe that it is more than just guidance; the NPPF and the new national development management policy set out the Government’s planning policies for England and how they should be applied. These are material considerations in planning decisions. The power in securing positive change for communities is substantial and should not be referred to as just “guidance”.

There is another step forward—perhaps slightly towards where my noble friend would like us to be—with Active Travel England. Many noble Lords will know that Active Travel England was set up relatively recently, and its role will expand over time. It will become a statutory consultee on certain major planning applications from June this year. That means that local planning authorities will be required to consult ATE on planning applications, where developments meet one of the following minimum thresholds: where it has 150 residential units; where it is 7,500 square metres of commercial area; or where it is a site with an area of 5 hectares or more. Furthermore, ATE will also take an active role in supporting the preparation of local plans and design codes.

It is also worth reflecting that local plans must be put in place quickly, and so we must avoid imposing a plethora of additional statutory requirements which local authorities must have regard to, especially when clear expectations are already set through national policy. There is one other—

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I apologise to the Minister, but could she explain to the House where the balance lies between commercial interests and their development, and the policies that she has rightly described as very positive and as needing to be put into place? In my experience, the balance is currently in the hands of the commercial interests.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to intervene briefly to put this debate in an important context. Before I do so, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Best, on eventually achieving the victory which he sought when the 2016 Act was going through; it was not the best piece of legislation on housing that Parliament has seen. I agree with what the right reverend Prelate said—that we should unfreeze the local housing allowance or, if we cannot, increase the discretionary housing grant, to enable those who find that they cannot meet the rent to have more support.

I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, that “affordable” is a misnomer, but there is a fundamental choice that we have to make, which is: the higher the rents, the more social houses you can build; and the lower the rents, the fewer social houses you can build. That is simply because of the way that social landlords are funded. A Government decide to have a capital fund available for new builds. A Government of a different persuasion may have a higher figure than the current one but, whatever that figure, the number of houses that can be built is dependent on the rent levels which the social landlords can charge.

A Housing Minister has a choice: you can have lower rents, social rents or genuinely affordable rents, but you will get less output. When I had responsibility and was faced with this spectrum, I went for slightly more output but slightly higher rents, to meet the demand for new houses and to build more houses that would last 60 years. I recognise that others may choose to go the other way on the spectrum, but you cannot get away from the fact that this is the choice. If you want to have affordable rents reduced to social rents, the consequence is that you will have fewer houses. I make this intervention at the end of this debate just to put it in a slightly broader context.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I have two amendments in my name that I wish to speak to briefly. However, prior to that, I say that my noble friend Lord Stunell made an important point about how all the amendments here are trying to resolve the issue of what is affordable. So-called affordable homes are those built by the commercial sector as part of a development—a planning obligation—yet the challenge for us all is to provide homes at a social rent, which is roughly estimated as 50% of the market rent.

It is a tragedy for this country that successive Governments seem to have abandoned provision of homes for social rent in any large numbers. Local authorities have been severely constrained in building their own social housing, and the provision of homes for social rent has largely been left to housing associations. We then come to the conundrum which the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, just rightly pointed to—that the capital that housing associations receive from government depends on their flow of rental income. Therefore, do you have more or less? Either way, everybody agrees that there are insufficient homes for social rent.

About 30 years ago, my authority had 42,000 council houses at social rent—it now has 21,000. That is the scale of what has happened. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Stunell is absolutely right that about half of them are now back in the market as private rented properties at a higher rent for folk but without any of the support packages provided for homes for social housing rent within either a local authority or a housing association. That is a huge challenge that this country needs to tackle. One of the key factors in levelling up is a decent home—it is in the levelling-up missions. Millions of people in our country do not live in an adequate, safe home appropriate for their family, and we need to address that scandal.

On affordability, my noble friend Lord Stunell expertly laid out the issues, and I do not wish to say anything, except that obviously I totally support him. I wish to raise one issue about affordability that is a bit of a side issue. It seems that any property built as part of a commercial development which is deemed affordable should be affordable in perpetuity. My own council adopted that policy—I have to say as a result of pressure from my own party there—so that, when the house is bought, the 80% factor remains. The least the Government could do is to include that as part of a definition of affordability.

--- Later in debate ---

All citizens surely have a right to see legislation clearly in its current state. This amendment would place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that an up-to-date consolidated text is made available on the official website at all times. Would that not be appropriate and right? I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I have a lot of sympathy with the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, about conservation areas and permitted development rights. For residents who are fortunate enough to live in a conservation area, it is both a privilege and a responsibility. When the noble Lord was trying balance homeowners wanting to make appropriate changes—and sometimes inappropriate changes—and local planning conservation officers seeming to rule the roost over what is and is not appropriate, I asked myself, “Where were the local councillors in this mix?”. Where I am a councillor, I have conservation areas in my ward, and where there is a disagreement about what is appropriate, I ask for it to go to the planning committee. Then, it has a public airing, which is precisely what should happen. The planning conservation officer states one view and residents another, and a decision is made. One of the great purposes of planning committees is to air views, balance them out and come to a conclusion.

I also have concerns about always expecting to maintain the standards of a building that was created 100 or 200 years ago in wood and glass, when the rest of us are trying very hard to increase insulation, particularly of windows and doors. A couple of years ago, I visited a window manufacturer not too far from here which makes heritage windows from plastic. I could not tell the difference, even though I have an interest in conservation and heritage. In our regulations, we need to enable that to happen so that buildings remain appropriate for the time, while conserving the best features and personality of a townscape, which I know the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, wants to retain for people to love and enjoy in the future.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, for introducing the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook.

I just make a very brief comment about the issue of replacement windows. My concern comes from a property that I know; it is in a conservation area and the windows are basically falling to pieces. It is owned by a young couple who applied for planning permission to replace the windows with something very similar, but not like for like—they could not afford like for like. Of course, they were turned down because it did not fit under the planning regulations as they are currently set up. A couple of years on, the outcome is that the windows are falling to pieces and nothing is happening. The couple are stuck, and the windows look dreadful. That is not their fault; they cannot afford to do what the planning inspectors tell them that they have to do.

I am very pleased that these amendments have been brought forward, because they enable us to talk about these anomalies in the way that the planning legislation is currently set up. It tries to protect the look of a place, but if that means that something does not happen because the owners of the property do not have the resources or finances to be able to do it, the property starts to decline. We have the example of windows, but it can be so much more. These are quite specific planning issues, but this is something that needs to be looked at.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, in this debate. My contribution is quite modest compared to their overarching and sweeping criticism of Clause 99 but, just by way of flanking fire, perhaps I can say that it covers eight pages of the Bill, which is more than the whole of Part 1, which sets up the mission statements. That seems to me to be a wholly disproportionate application of drafting time, when we consider the level of detail not present in Part 1 and the level of detail here. That is perhaps the only point at which I would wish to challenge the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, in her request for yet more detail. I honestly do not think this Bill needs any more detail on street votes.

Nevertheless, I have tabled Amendment 253A, which aims to ensure that where approved neighbourhood plans are in place, they cannot be overturned by a street vote. It is, to that extent, rather in the same vein as Amendment 248, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Young. He set out that there should be a clear hierarchy between street votes and development plans so that local development plans trump street votes. My amendment takes a different approach to neighbourhood plans. It simply adds to the list of places where street votes cannot be held—which exists in the Bill—those areas that have valid neighbourhood plans in force. In other words, within areas where there is an approved neighbourhood plan, street votes are not to be an available mechanism.

Like the two previous speakers, I do not really get what value there might be in street votes as a concept. I see some places where they may create or might enable some worthwhile flexibility at a micro level below the reach of borough-wide development plans. However, I admit that I am struggling to imagine what a good example of that might exactly be. It has been suggested, by the Minister, apart from anybody else, that it provides the opportunity for low-level densification of homes in a street. I think the noble Lord, Lord Young, commented to some extent on that, but I will just pick up a point made by the noble Baroness about biodiversity.

One of the things that recent planning changes have brought into view is that gardens should not be paved because of the need to maintain natural drainage. The more the footprint of buildings is increased, the bigger the run-off and the bigger the risk of local flooding at the least. Therefore, that connection will sometimes be a consideration which needs to be taken into account.

It is easy to imagine some less benign examples of street votes, such as perhaps a west London street agreeing that sub-basements with cinemas and car parks would be perfectly fine there. If that was done on the basis of a referendum, the result of which—just to pick two figures out of the air—was 52% to 48%, there would not just be some discontented people living in neighbouring streets but perhaps substantial levels of discontentment in that street.

That brings me to ask a question about who gets to vote. Presumably they are people registered on the electoral roll. That is just as well, because in that west London street the big houses probably also have five or six servants—chauffeurs, cooks and chefs—and, of course, the let-out as far as the voting goes is that they are probably not UK subjects. The noble Baroness made a good point on behalf of renters: in a community, particularly an inner urban area where a transient population is normal, who votes, when they vote and what the qualification is to vote is important.

One of the many pluses of a neighbourhood plan, particularly the process leading up to its adoption, is that all those nook-and-cranny micro details can be considered and a consensus built as part of that plan. That is itself subject to a public endorsement and a referendum. It seems to me fundamentally wrong to have a situation in which such an endorsed, publicly recognised and approved plan, with a level of local public participation that far exceeds the adoption of a local development plan by a planning authority, could be overruled or subverted by random revocation of bits of it in the street votes.

My argument is straightforward. Essentially, where a valid neighbourhood plan is in force, all the work on microsites and flexibilities will have taken place already in drawing up that plan. Whatever the merits of the principle of street votes, they would be an unnecessary duplication of effort and expense within a neighbourhood plan area. My amendment avoids that overlap and the inevitable confusion it would cause in the local community if its democratically prepared neighbourhood plan was set aside, even if only in one part. I hope to hear that the Minister agrees with that and will accept my amendment.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I think we can say that there has been a less than enthusiastic response to the proposals in Clause 99, and I endorse everything said by the three previous speakers. Rather than laying out any other reasons in great detail, which other noble Lords have done, my questions for the Minister are these. First, what is the problem to which this is the solution? Secondly, what is a street? I know there is a clause defining a street, but I should really like to know whether Manchester Road in Huddersfield, which stretches for seven miles, counts as a street, or Halifax Road, which goes from Halifax to Dewsbury. Is 10 miles a street? I need to understand what a street is.

That leads to my third question. We have discussed at length in the past few days the purpose of planning and what is required of our planning system to enable development, but also to enable communities that work and to protect our environment. Currently, any planning application for more than one house needs a construction management plan but there is no reference to that in Clause 99. In any development of the sort that I think is being considered—back gardens or whatever—there is also the question of linking to the existing utilities, particularly water and wastewater removal in some areas. We need to know how sustainable that will be or whether there will have to be sustainable urban drainage to achieve it. Where I am now, nearly all the developments must have attenuation tanks built into them to do what they say: hold back the water to reduce the risk of flooding. All that would need to be thought about, as well as the issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, raised about biodiversity.

The Government, in their wisdom, changed permitted development rights of change of use from offices to residential areas. Because that could be done without proper process, one of the big issues that ensued concerned parking—or the lack of it—because there was no provision and no consideration had to be given to it, so none was applied for and there was a big problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

That is a helpful suggestion, which I am happy to feed in.

On Amendments 252 and 253, in the name of the noble Baroness, the Government recognise that leaseholders will often have an interest in proposals for street vote development. Leaseholders will be able to be part of a group that can bring forward a proposal for a street vote development order if they are registered to vote in a local council election at an address in the street area on a prescribed date. If a proposal passes examination, a referendum will be held on it. Subject to the outcome of consultation, the Government envisage making a provision so that individuals, including leaseholders, who are registered to vote in the local council election at an address in the street area, as well as commercial rate payers there, will be eligible to vote. Again, we intend to consult on this proposal and on our proposals for referendum approval thresholds as part of a wider consultation on the detail of the measure.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I apologise. The noble Earl said that commercial developments in an area would have a vote, but how would they be on the electoral roll? Clause 99 says they would be.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

It is not that businesses would be on the electoral roll. If I misspoke, what I meant to say was that residents who are registered to vote in a local council election at an address in the street area on a prescribed date will be eligible to vote as part of this arrangement, as well as commercial rate payers in the area.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

So could Tesco, for instance, have a vote, if there was a little Tesco Express on the street?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

The intention is that, if there is a commercial business paying commercial business rates, it should be allowed a voice in this process.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

This gets more interesting by the day.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

No doubt this will be the subject of further debate—

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

I appreciate the noble Lord’s question and his interest in that amendment; I understand why he felt he should have asked the question. My advice is that, despite its size, this additional schedule represents a minor and technical change, which is necessary to ensure the effective operation of the street votes process and to ensure that it is integrated into the wider planning system. However, I am happy to write to him with further and better particulars.

I hope that the Committee will feel more comfortable with the provisions as I have explained them, and that the government amendments will be accepted when they are reached.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Near the beginning of my speech, I asked the Minister if he would be able to define a street. Could he do so now?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

I am so sorry I omitted to reply to the noble Baroness; I will write to her. It is a question I ask officials myself. It is an issue which will be decided in the consultation because, as she rightly said, there will be instances where a street, as such, does not exist. For example, you might have a small community of houses where the owners or residents may wish to apply under this procedure. In short, this is an issue to be determined under the consultation.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock]

257B: Clause 101, page 124, line 2, at end insert—
“(aa) residents of the local area who may be affected by the application, and”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult local residents before determining an application under this section.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, my Amendment 257B is to Clause 101, by which the Government will centralise to the Secretary of State some of the most important planning decisions that will be taken in any locality. The example that I will use is that of the proposed use of former airfield accommodation for housing asylum seekers. I do not want to debate the principle of that today—it is a proposal by the Government. What I am interested in, and concerned about, is the proposal from the Government as to how such a decision will be made. This relates to some of the most important planning applications that will ever occur in a locality. As we have heard over the last few meetings of this Committee, there is a well-thought-through, well-laid-out and well-understood—on the whole—planning process to determine applications either for a new development or a change-of-use development. The proposal here is to try to bypass that, because it would be difficult.

We live in a democracy, and the whole purpose of a democracy is for the voice of the people to be heard and for decisions to be made, having heard the voice of the people—of residents. I feel really strongly about this. In my experience, the worst thing that happens in a locality is when somebody in authority tries to impose a solution. It never works—and the experience of the Government so far shows that this will not work. The proposal for Linton-on-Ouse airfield in North Yorkshire to be used for accommodation for asylum seekers had to be fairly rapidly rescinded because of local objections. There is a way of doing things—and, yes, it takes time, but time is a healer. It gives a way of hearing voices that are, at first, perhaps angry, but can then be made less angry, or perhaps even ameliorated, through discussion and hearing both sides of a proposal.

Currently what happens with any planning application, but particularly big planning applications is that, first, it is notified in a formal way and word gets round in informal ways. A timetable is laid out for how the planning application will be considered, including a period in which objections can be made by local people. Then there is an opportunity at a meeting of the planning committee to hear the proposal and any objections. I think that most planning committees now allow, and encourage, members of the public to speak to the committee so that their voices and concerns can be heard. If planning officers are involved, one of their skills is to try to find a way through a difficult proposal by hearing the voices of those who live in the locality and of the planning proposal applicant. They try to find a way through so that, while nobody will be totally satisfied, there is less dissatisfaction. The decision is made in an open way—it is webcast, these days, well reported and understood—and a list of planning conditions are laid out so that all the issues that local people are concerned about can be addressed.

--- Later in debate ---

However, regretfully, as has been shown by the current process for nationally important and urgent development, we must have a system in place which enables any Government to react quickly in circumstances where a development which by its nature must be delivered urgently and is in the national interest can be delivered. Creating a system which mirrors what we have already will not benefit our communities when we need to make planning decisions urgently. With these reasons, I hope that I have persuaded the noble Baroness of why I cannot accept this amendment.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his careful response to the concerns that have been raised. I said at the outset that I understand that some planning decisions must be made rapidly in the national interest.

However, unrestrained power for an undefined purpose of national importance, as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said, is at the heart of this. The Executive are taking too much power without being clear on why an urgent decision is needed. If the Government had come forward with a speeded-up process for urgent decisions, shortening the planning process because something is urgent but still enabling people to have their voices heard, I would be more inclined to support that, but not them just saying that, basically, the Secretary of State can make the decision.

I end with this because it is near—well, nearish—me. Linton-on-Ouse was an abject failure of this process. A decision was made to use that accommodation. Nobody was asked, nobody was told. Lots of people said, “Oh, right, we’re not having this then”, as they do in Yorkshire and no doubt do elsewhere. They decided to have a public meeting and put an end to it, and that is exactly what happened, whereas with thoughtful, informed decision-making, the Government may have been able to get to a solution. The Minister’s proposal that this is the only way to get a timely, proportionate, faster and more effective route has not been borne out in practice.

I get upset when the phrase “illegal migrants” is used. The people coming across the channel are asylum seekers. If some of them have their asylum applications refused, they will at that point be illegal migrants, but otherwise they are asylum seekers.

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 257B withdrawn.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, this is an extremely important debate with a large number of amendments of great importance. Having recently been recruited to the rapidly increasing cohort of the over-80s, I am entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Best, and his amendment. Certainly the Liberal Democrats support the case that has been made.

I was interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, had to say in relation to his amendment about making an assessment for student accommodation. As a resident of Greater Manchester, I understand the issue very clearly. I am sure that the Minister will want to tell us about how it is possible to have such a requirement applied in a proportionate way, bearing in mind that for a neighbouring planning authority such as High Peak it may be a very small consideration, whereas for an authority such as Manchester or Salford it is very significant.

I wonder if I might impersonate the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in respect of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and ask where the leasehold reform Bill is, of which the Government have spoken so much and delivered so little. I shall leave my remarks there. I think we need to hear from the Minister not simply that she does not particularly like the amendment that the noble Baroness has tabled but that there is actually a positive plan by the Government to tackle the issues the noble Baroness has identified.

I want to focus my remarks on Amendment 219 and Amendment 218, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. Amendment 219 would require local planning authorities to have a local plan that reaches or exceeds the requirement for housing prescribed by the Secretary of State. Amendment 218 would nail this down further by requiring strict conformity with the Secretary of State’s targets, using a method of calculation specified by the Secretary of State. We should be clear that, taken together, these amendments would mean that local land allocations for housing would essentially be taken away from local planning authorities and placed back in the hands of the Secretary of State. This would be a reversion to the statutory situation that obtained at some very distant time in the past—some 12 months and three Prime Ministers ago. It is a policy position that was denounced by the previous Prime Minister as Stalinist, and was this week repudiated by the current Prime Minister when speaking on the BBC. He said he saw an urgent need for change to the existing policy, assisted materially by conversations he had had last summer with Conservative councillors all over the country, who spelled out to him its consequences and the damaging impacts it was having locally.

A close reading of the two amendments suggests that, actually, they may seek to go slightly further back, to something that is even more Stalinist than the preceding Prime Minister was suggesting. The drafting of Amendment 218 appears to say not only that falling below the target would not be permitted but neither would exceeding it, because it has to be in strict conformity with the targets that have been set by the Secretary of State—not a house more, not a house less.

Noble Lords who are proposing this pair of amendments are certainly quite right to point out that the current situation suits nobody, least of all the tens of thousands of families on council waiting lists or the many others for whom a house purchase is hopelessly beyond their means and for whom renting can only ever be an inadequate, insecure and expensive option, given the current size and nature of the housing stock. They are also right to point out that the current policy uncertainty has paralysed local plan decision-making, slowed site allocations, and infuriated the development and housing industries.

We need more homes urgently. Specifically, we need many more social homes for rent. If money was switched from the Help to Buy programme to investing in those homes, as we on this side have often advocated, that would make a start, but the supporters of these two amendments need to explain in more detail how going back to the status quo ante will deliver the outcome that they desire. Not once did the system to which they are now encouraging us to go back deliver 300,000 net new homes a year, or even near it. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, drew that to our attention. The old system was not delivering, so reinstating it seems unlikely to work miracles. Indeed, I shall quote the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in respect of another matter he spoke about: repeating something that you know does not work is verging on madness.

There are even more Stalinist options available, and maybe these two amendments point the Government in that way. There is no doubt that a centrally imposed national five-year plan for housing construction could deliver such numbers, but only provided there was state funding for anything over the 150,000 or so homes that would be funded by the private sector—and with the proviso that the party in government that put this policy in place was ready to forego its local democratic representation on the shrivelled local planning authorities that would be left.

There is an alternative—one that has proven to work in practice over the last 10 years, one that produces more land allocated for housing than the local plans have previously done for that area, and one that has popular consent, validated by a public vote locally. It is an alternative that meets local housing needs, has local popular consent and routinely exceeds government housing targets. You might think that that was a far better policy option than resurrecting a system of failed top-down targets that will not meet local housing needs anytime soon, raises huge opposition, and is constantly gamed and warped by developers, politicians and local interests, while Ministers in Whitehall can only stand around, flummoxed and frustrated at the failure of the plan to deliver. I am referring to neighbourhood plans, and here I need to redeclare my interest as a member of a neighbourhood planning forum. Now that neighbourhood plans are seen as a success—this was debated to some extent earlier in our proceedings—everybody claims to have invented them. I say only that it was quite lonely at the Dispatch Box in 2010, steering them through in the Localism Act.

There is a later group of amendments in which I shall have more to say about neighbourhood plans—I am sure noble Lords will be delighted by that news—and the impacts of some of the clumsy proposals in the Bill, which I think will damage and hinder their prospects. However, for this debate, I look forward to hearing the Minister set out what the Government’s plan for reaching 300,000 new homes will actually be. If it is not going to be Amendments 215 and 218 from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, or spending absolute shedloads of money on a massive state investment programme, or facilitating a much-expanded neighbourhood planning programme, what on earth is it going to be?

Leaving the Bill as it is, as the Government would obviously prefer, may well be seen as their best expedient short-term fix for the forthcoming local elections. They may even hope that it might be a middle-term fix for the general election next year. I do not think it will achieve either of those things, but one thing is certain: it will definitely not be a long-term fix for the homes that are vitally needed in this country. Leaving the Bill as it is will provide no help at all for those stuck on endless housing waiting lists, for those desperately saving for a deposit at a time of rising interest rates, or for those stuck in overpriced short-term lets with no hope of rescue. It really is time for the Government to set out their plans. I look forward very much to hearing a constructive reply from the Minister.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this group of amendments exposes the conundrum at the heart of planning for housing. At this point, I repeat my interests, as in the register, as being a councillor in Kirklees, with its up-to-date local plan, and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. My noble friend Lord Stunell is of course right to say that the simple statement of a number of new house builds per year has failed and will continue to fail: top-down diktats are the last resort of a failed policy. As the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, helpfully reminded us, there are more than 1 million unbuilt homes with current planning consents. That seems to me to indicate that a top-down planning policy is failing to produce the number of new home builds that the country needs and wants.

Amendment 207 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, points to a challenge in housing development that is considered far too rarely: housing and planning policy should have a focus on fulfilling need. There is ample evidence of which housing units are needed, such as those for older people. As my noble friend Lord Stunell has said, we know that there is a desperate need for housing at a social rent. There are current applications from over 1 million people for social housing. Their chances of success are very limited indeed, as successive Governments have continued with the right-to-buy policy while ignoring the need to build replacements. The challenge of supplying housing that meets expressed need is not being addressed by the changes to planning policy in this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, as we have heard, these amendments relate to housing need and the homebuying process.

I will address Amendments 207 and 219A together. Amendment 207 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, seeks to enable the Secretary of State to include older people’s housing needs assessments in documentation related to local plans and require that local authorities consider the needs for housing for older people when preparing such plans. Amendment 219A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, seeks to enable the Secretary of State to require local planning authorities to have regard to the housing requirements of the student population, developed in conjunction with local higher education providers, when preparing their local plans. I recognise the noble Lord’s personal knowledge of this subject.

I entirely understand the sentiment behind both amendments and offer words for the comfort of both noble Lords. I believe I can first do so by highlighting that national policy already sets strong expectations in these precise areas. The existing National Planning Policy Framework makes it clear that the size, type and tenure of housing needed for different groups in the community, including older people and students, should be assessed and reflected in planning policies. In 2019, we also published guidance to help local authorities implement the policies that can deliver on this expectation. Therefore, as regards student housing, we already have a clear policy in place, backed up by guidance, to deliver solutions designed locally. Any proposals to amend this would be considered as part of our review of the National Planning Policy Framework once this Bill receives Royal Assent.

I listened with a great care and respect to all that the noble Lord, Lord Best, said to draw attention to the housing needs of older people. The Government are absolutely on his wavelength in that regard. He was right to point out that there should be a variety and diversity of housing options for older people, as underscored by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough. To further improve the diversity of housing options available to older people and boost the supply of specialist elderly accommodation, we recently consulted on proposals to strengthen the existing policy by adding a specific expectation that, when ensuring that the needs of older people are met, particular regard is given to retirement housing, housing with care and care homes. We know that those are important typologies of housing that can help support our ageing population.

Furthermore, it would be remiss of me not to point out that there is already a provision in the Bill setting out that the Secretary of State must issue guidance for local planning authorities on how their local plan and any supplementary plans, taken as a whole, should address housing needs that result from old age or disability. This is a key statutory provision.

So, again, we already have a clear policy in place on this issue, and we are proposing, as I have explained, to strengthen it to further support the supply of older people’s housing. I hope that this provides the noble Lord, Lord Best, with the assurances that he needs to withdraw his Amendment 207 at this stage.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his explanation of what is already in the policy and how it is going to be strengthened, and the national planning policy guidance. However, so far that has not brought forth anything like the numbers that are needed, so perhaps the Minister will be able to explain how that policy—which is very worthy and which I support—can be put into practice?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

I say to the noble Baroness that I will try to do so as I go along. First, though, I will address Amendment 210, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, which would require local authorities to adopt policies to ensure that the marketing of housing accurately describes the nature of the tenure. I listened to all that she said about the need to review, or indeed do away with, leasehold tenure, and I hope she will forgive me if I do not repeat what I said on that subject in one of our earlier Committee debates. We shall also be debating Amendment 504GJG in the name of my noble friend Lord Moylan on leasehold reform later on in Committee.

Buying a home is the largest investment that many of us will make in our lifetime, and we all want to be sure of what we are buying before we commit to purchase, so I absolutely understand the motivation behind the amendment. However, we do not believe that local plans have the legal remit to specify how property agents can market property in a local area. Even if they could, such an approach would create a complicated patchwork of requirements which would vary between one local planning authority area and another. That would be very difficult for property agents operating on a regional or national basis to navigate, and it would be confusing for buyers as well.

That is not to dismiss the concern that the noble Baroness has expressed—in the levelling up White Paper, the Government committed to working with industry to make sure that buyers have the critical information they need to know, including tenure type, lease length and service charges. The Government have also signalled our intention to legislate if this is required. We are currently considering options which will set a common approach to all property listings across England and Wales, providing certainty for buyers, sellers and estate agents, and we will set out further information in due course.

I turn next to Amendments 215 and 218, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley. These amendments both relate to local authority housing need, and this is where I hope I can answer the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. Amendment 215 seeks to require a local plan to secure a sufficient supply of housing to meet or exceed the authority’s area requirement for housing over the plan period. The amendment also sets out that an area’s housing requirement must be derived from the housing targets and standard method prescribed in guidance by the Secretary of State. Amendment 218 seeks to set out in legislation that local authorities must have regard to any housing targets and the Government’s standard method for calculating housing need when preparing their local plan.

While I entirely understand the sentiment behind these amendments, the proposals would impose unnecessary constraints by seeking to put into primary legislation matters that are already addressed effectively, I contend, through national policy and guidance. My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham made the point, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that national planning policy already sets out that local authorities should make sufficient provision for housing, including affordable housing, and that they must take this into account when preparing their local plans.

Additionally, again in response to the noble Baroness, policy and guidance set out how local authorities should establish their housing requirements, and they make it clear that the standard method for assessing local housing need should be the starting point for establishing housing requirements in the plan-making process, in all but exceptional circumstances. That is not a straitjacket and nor is it laissez-faire; our planning policies already allow authorities to choose to plan for more homes than required to meet need, and we have consulted on proposed changes to national policy designed to empower local authorities to go further where that is right for their area.

It is right, however, that local communities can respond to local circumstances. To introduce more flexibility to take account of local circumstances, we are proposing some changes through our consultation on reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework. These are expressly designed to support local authorities to set local housing requirements that respond to demographic and affordability pressures while at the same time being realistic, given local constraints.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, that we will be talking about neighbourhood plans later this evening if we get there—I hope we do, otherwise on Thursday—and we can return to the issues that he has raised on that topic. But I would just like to make a general point about housing targets: local housing need is not a housing target. The standard method for assessing local housing need is used by councils to inform the preparation of their local plans. Local areas are then free to take into account constraints and opportunities when determining their actual housing targets such as green belts, AONBs, and so on, that prevent them allocating enough sites to meet need. There are some councils that choose to plan for more homes than their local housing need number; nor does the local housing need method dictate where homes should go. It is up to councils to decide what sorts of homes can be built where.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness. The Malvern Hills are of course an outstanding place of beauty in the West Midlands, and it is important that the trust is allowed to do its job as effectively as possible. This is yet another example of the way in which the Boundary Commission has been forced do its work, because of the constraints put upon it, where it goes across natural boundaries. In the case that the noble Baroness raised, the management of the Malvern Hills Trust is vital. It is also clearly important that residents have confidence in the arrangements of the trust and in the fairness of any levies they may have to pay. I hope that the Minister may be prepared to take a look at this and possibly come back on Report with a sympathetic response.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful. The problem has a wider resonance than the Malvern Hills Trust, although that is important. Coterminosity of local government and parliamentary boundaries is important, as is coterminosity of local government and National Health Service boundaries and, in this case, of the integrated care boards. If the Minister has any influence in other government departments, I ask her to impress on them the significance of residents who may be split between integrated care boards, like residents where I live in the Kirklees district of West Yorkshire, who are now being moved into a new Wakefield parliamentary constituency. This creates more problems than we sometimes recognise. Coterminosity and looking at the local implications of the lines we draw on a map are important and ought to be done only following detailed consultation with local people.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for bringing this to our attention. As she knows, I know the Malvern Hills area very well; it is beautiful. It is important that the Boundary Commission respects local boundaries and allows organisations such as the Malvern Hills Trust to operate as they are intended.

Does the Minister agree that one problem we have at the moment is that the Boundary Commission cannot carry out interim or minor reviews, as it simply does not have the resources to do so? That means that any kind of review could take up to 20 years to look at a problem or something that is not ideal, which is clearly not an ideal situation. Perhaps the department could look into this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I support these amendments and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for bringing them in front of noble Lords today. I want to focus on just one aspect of this. It is about not just whether the Government agree to these amendments and facilitate all the action which noble Lords have already spoken about but whether they back away from the current position, which is putting a ceiling on the ambition of local planning authorities in achieving net zero, and indeed in trying to set a purpose that is in any way in alignment with the nationally set targets of getting to zero carbon by 2050.

Many local authorities are straining at the leash to make their communities zero carbon and to ensure that they take steps to protect the well-being of their residents from flooding and extreme weather events, and from the costs and harm that they can see happening now and foresee coming in the coming decade or two if they do not take vigorous action to tackle climate change and mitigate the worst consequences of it. Unfortunately, time and again, via the Planning Inspectorate or government pronouncements, local planning authorities are prevented from taking those actions by the imposition of a national framework which is not in alignment with the equally national statutory framework to reach zero carbon by 2050.

If the Minister feels that, somehow or other, the formulation of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, is not the right one, that is fine, but can she, in the first instance, say that she and her Government will not continue to deliberately suppress the ambition of local authorities to achieve that national target and come forward herself, or encourage her Government to come forward, with a way to facilitate progress along the lines the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, has so well set out today?

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I totally agree with the amendments in this group and thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for bringing our attention to this issue before we start addressing the clauses that concern national and local planning policy.

Strategic planning depends and rests on planning legislation such as this and on national and local planning policies. We need to provide the tools in planning legislation and at national planning policy level to produce the focus and levers that we require at local level to pursue net zero—which I have not heard a voice against in this debate so far. We all know how important it is, but we need the levers and tools at local level to achieve it.

That is not going to be as simple as it sounds. Planning is a forward-looking approach: it is for new development or change to old development and does not do as much for the existing built environment. I hope that when we discuss the national management development policies the Government will indicate where they will provide a strong policy in favour of achieving net zero through planning legislation and policy. Currently, the National Planning Policy Framework has the goal of

“presumption in favour of sustainable development”,

which is about 10 to 15 years old, and it was the start of the journey towards achieving a firm commitment to tackling climate change and achieving the Government’s aims of zero carbon by 2050. We need a step change in planning policy if we are to achieve that. Unfortunately for the Government, the tools they put in planning legislation and policies are cross-departmental if they are going to achieve anything.

For example, housing development requires highways infrastructure. Is such infrastructure going to enable more traffic? Even if we have transferred to electric-generated vehicles, that will still create considerable carbon emissions, both in the production of the vehicles and in the production of the electricity, for the foreseeable future. What is the policy going to be there?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 179 and 271 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, seek to introduce a duty for planning authorities to consider climate change when developing planning policy and in making planning application decisions by adding a “purpose of planning” provision to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill and a complementary duty in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The Government recognise the great challenge of climate change and that the planning system must address this effectively. Through the Climate Change Act 2008, the Government have committed to reduce net emissions by at least 100% of 1990 levels by 2050. We have also committed to leaving the environment in a better state than we found it. We passed the Environment Act, which sets ambitious, legally binding, long-term targets to restore nature. The Government published their second environmental improvement plan in January this year, setting out the actions that will drive us towards reaching our long-term targets and goals.

Section 19(1A) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 already sets out that local planning authorities must design their local plans

“to secure that the development and use of land in the local planning authority’s area contribute to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change”.

This is restated in the Bill and is found in proposed new Section 15C of the 2004 Act, to be inserted by Schedule 7 to this Bill. Similar requirements are included for other types of plans, such as waste and mineral plans and neighbourhood plans.

Alongside this, the National Planning Policy Framework is clear that planning policies and decisions should support climate change mitigation and adaptation, and that plans should be prepared in line with the objectives and provisions of the Climate Change Act 2008. The framework also makes it clear that plans and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment more broadly. As a matter of law, the framework must be taken into account when preparing the development plan and is a material consideration in planning decisions. Its effect on decisions will be enhanced through this Bill, through the provision made for a suite of national development management policies that will have statutory force.

More broadly, the National Planning Policy Frame- work couches the role of the planning system quite firmly in the terms of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development, recognising the environmental, social and economic dimensions of this and the inter- dependencies between them. It is not clear that a statutory purpose for planning would add to this in any meaningful way. We recognise that more can be achieved, though, and that is why the Government recently consulted on immediate changes to the framework relating to renewable energy and sought views on carbon assessments and other changes, which would strengthen the framework’s role in this vital area. A full review of the framework, taking the responses to this consultation into account, will take place following Royal Assent, and we will review the strategic objectives set out in the planning policy to ensure that they support the Government’s environmental targets under the Environment Act, the net zero strategy and the national adaptation programme.

A number of noble Lords mentioned the Skidmore review. We will publish a response to it very shortly. As committed to in the net zero strategy, we intend to do a fuller review of the NPPF to ensure that it contributes to climate change mitigation. Therefore, while I appreciate the spirit of these amendments, the Government do not feel able to support them, given the existing legislative obligations and current and future requirements in national policy, which will be given added force as a result of other provisions in this Bill.

Amendment 179A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, looks to define the purpose of planning and the meaning of “sustainable development”. The National Planning Policy Framework is clear that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. At a very high level, this can be summarised as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. As part of achieving the three overarching objectives of sustainable development—economic, social and environmental—the framework sets out policies on good design, sustainable transport, an integrated approach to the location of housing, economic uses, and community services and facilities. It recognises the importance to health, well-being and recreation that open spaces and green infrastructure provide. It also contains policies for how to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places.

So that sustainable development is pursued in a positive way, at the heart of the framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. This means that all plans should promote a sustainable pattern of development that seeks to meet the needs of the area, align growth and infrastructure, improve the environment, and mitigate climate change and adapt to its effects. It also means that the strategic policies should provide for housing needs unless protected areas or assets of particular importance provide a strong reason for restricting development—for example, green-belt land. To reiterate, the framework must, as a matter of law, be taken into account when preparing development plans and is a material consideration in planning decisions.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I accept what the Minister said about the presumption in favour of sustainable development. She listed the things that have to be balanced, but the issue is how that balance takes place. In my experience as a local councillor, climate change is often at the bottom of that balance; economic development and the need for growth and jobs are at the top, and housing development is there, but climate change is much less important in the eyes of planning policies, planning inspectors and local plans. Can the Minister explain how the climate change element will be given greater importance and priority?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, to begin with, I do not agree that local authorities across the UK are not taking net zero and sustainability seriously. We know that local authorities across the country are making great strides towards our net-zero future. There are some brilliant examples of local action, innovation and excellence in this area, so I do not agree with the noble Baroness. When we get national planning policies that make these issues important nationally, councils will have to take them seriously and align their local plans with them. I would not want anybody to think that local government is not taking this seriously, because it certainly is and it is doing a huge amount to deliver our net-zero targets.

In December we published a consultation on updating the national planning policy, focusing largely on changes to housing policy that we intend to make in spring. This consultation closed on 2 March this year. We also sought initial views on some wider changes, which we will take forward into a fuller review of the framework. This fuller review will consider the scope to go further on a range of areas, including ensuring that the planning system capitalises on opportunities to support the natural environment, respond to climate change and deliver on the levelling up of economic opportunity—so there is more to come.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

As a Scot by birth living in England, I support my noble friend the Duke of Montrose in his Amendment 181. It is good that in this clause, as my noble friend said, the Government are committed to consulting in specific circumstances. However, too frequently we are not seeing the results of the consultations in a timely fashion, particularly before any regulations under this part of the Bill may be drafted and come before the House. Therefore, I lend this amendment my strongest support.

My noble friend also raised collaborating with the Scottish Parliament with a view to obtaining legislative consent. We have had two recent regrettable circumstances where the Scottish Parliament—and in one case, the Senedd—withheld their consent. This could be avoided if discussions took place with the relevant committees of the Scottish Parliament at the earliest stage and throughout the course of the Bill. I am thinking particularly of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, which has exercised the House at quite some length, and the recent Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill. The withholding of legislative consent could have been avoided by the Scottish Parliament if the Government had liaised with them and the relevant committees at a much earlier stage.

With those remarks, I support all the amendments in this group, particularly that in the name of my noble friend the Duke of Montrose.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, Part 3, Chapter 1 of the Bill, entitled “Planning Data”, asks more questions than it answers. I will be grateful if the Minister can answer some of them.

First, what is the purpose of requiring an approved national planning software? Is it so that the Government can more readily access planning data from across the country? If so, to what purpose do they want to put the data that they acquire in that way?

Secondly, how many different planning software systems are in operation at the moment? Digitising planning is a complicated operation, so you would not expect that many but, if there are, have local planning authorities already expressed a clear preference to use a single system? This takes me to the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, in that, if the Government are requiring a single approved planning software, there would be considerable costs attached to local planning authorities transitioning to a new software system. You would want to balance those costs against the benefits. The Bill makes no obvious benefit of using a single system. Another issue is about compatibility. If the current software systems are compatible, is this a solution seeking a problem? There may not be a problem if they can already speak to each other.

My third concern with Clause 79, and the stand part question expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, is that planning applications have to be retained for a long time. I cannot remember for how long; I think it is 30 years, but it may be longer. If that is the case, all previous planning applications going back a certain length of time would have to be put on to a new system, so that the systems could talk to each other. As all noble Lords know, there are planning applications made on the same place time and again and in different forms. I want to understand the purpose of this: why and who benefits?

Another of my concerns is this. I am in favour of digitising; I think it has huge benefits for many people, particularly planning professionals, in this case. It would be much easier to have it all online. However, if it is going to be a digital-only system, as seems to be the thrust of this group of clauses, the Government will be guilty of digital exclusion.

The Government must recognise two things. First, many people access all their digital needs only through a mobile phone. Accessing a planning application, with all its complexity, through a mobile platform will not provide the level of detail that they want. Secondly, many parts of the country still do not have either sufficiently good broadband or mobile signal. Digital exclusion could be a growing issue, especially in planning. People get involved in planning applications, big and small, and I am sure that the last thing the Government want is to exclude residents for different reasons—accessibility or knowledge of use.

I have asked many questions, but I hope the Minister is able to answer them. While digitising planning systems has many positives, they have to be weighed against some of the many negatives that exist.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for her valuable contribution to this debate and for focusing our attention on these provisions. In the light of her remarks, it is probably best for me to start by explaining the importance of Clause 79.

Too often, planning information is hard to use for all the purposes that it should serve. Clause 79 is designed to address this problem. Planning authorities often receive large amounts of information which requires manual intervention to make it usable. Re-entry is then required to use that information later in the system. These manual tasks take valuable time away from planning authorities performing their core role of making decisions that matter to communities.

There are three key effects of this clause. First, it works with Clause 78 to ensure that complying with data standards does not create a new bureaucratic burden for planning authorities receiving information and then having to render it compliant. Secondly, it gives planning authorities the power to require information in a manner that best suits their systems and the data standards to which they are subject. Thirdly, it protects against the risk that some may attempt to use the requirements under Clause 78 to inconvenience local authorities’ decision-making by deliberately submitting information in a problematic format that is difficult to extract.

Clause 79 also sets out the process that planning authorities must follow to exercise their powers. Publication of a notice on the planning authority website or through specific communications will be required to inform participants of what planning data will be subject to data standards when it is submitted to a planning authority. In circumstances where the data fails to comply, a notice must be served specifying the reasons for rejection.

I will deal briefly with the power of planning authorities to refuse information as non-compliant. There is no obligation for planning authorities to refuse non-compliant information. However, for the reasons I have just outlined, we expect planning authorities to accept such information only exceptionally. The Committee will see that we have taken steps to protect those who are not able to submit using the means specified by the planning authority or who cannot comply with the data standards in that submission. Where the provider of information has a reasonable excuse, information cannot be refused. Planning authorities will be under a duty to accept—

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise for interrupting. I wonder whether the Minister has any statistics about the problem that these clauses are trying to solve. What is the extent of the difficulty such that, when applicants submit their planning applications to the planning authority, they then have to be manually entered or have to use a different system? Do we know the extent of that problem?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

We believe the problem to be quite considerable. I do not have statistics in front of me, but I will undertake to consult the department and see whether I can put some flesh on these bones, if the noble Baroness and others would find that helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I thank the noble Earl very much for that information. The danger then is that, if an old software system containing planning applications from before the new software was introduced is incompatible and is therefore not transitioned across, it will not be readable by the new system for future use. That issue ought to have been considered.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

That is a very relevant point. The point that has been made to us quite forcefully is that a lot of the software that is already in use is clunky and outdated, and that somehow a solution needs to be found. Clearly, the state in which systems are at the time any new system comes into play will vary from local authority to local authority. I will investigate that point further and, if I can elucidate the issue, I will gladly do so.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 20th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, government Amendment 165 and the consequential Amendments 508 and 509 seek to give police and crime commissioners, including mayors who exercise these functions, and the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime the same powers to dispose of surplus land as local authorities.

The Government’s general principle is that public bodies should dispose of surplus land at the best possible price reasonably obtainable. However, we recognise that selling land at less than best consideration can sometimes deliver wider public benefits, which is why there is a long-standing framework under Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972 for enabling local authorities to dispose of their land for less than best consideration. Under this framework, the Secretary of State’s consent is required, but there is a general direction granting consent if the undervalue is below £2 million.

Prior to 2011 and the creation of police and crime commissioners, police authorities were covered by Section 123, but that is no longer the case. While police and crime commissioners now have broad powers to dispose of land as they see fit, there is no specific provision relating to disposal at less than best consideration. This perceived gap in police bodies’ powers was raised in the other place, and I know that this matter concerns the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. Having now explored the issue further with the Home Office, the Government agree that police and crime commissioners should have the same disposal powers as local authorities. Therefore, this amendment extends the scope of Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972 to cover these elected police bodies.

These amendments will give police and crime commissioners greater certainty that they can dispose of land at less than best consideration where doing so will deliver wider public benefits. It will further empower police and crime commissioners to act in the interests of their local communities. The associated consent framework—with consent to be given by the Home Secretary in the case of police and crime commissioners —will increase transparency and public accountability.

For the reasons I have outlined, I hope that these amendments are welcome and that noble Lords will support them.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the government amendment, which concedes a principle of public bodies—the police—being able to use less than best consideration for land no longer needed. I am unashamedly seeking to extend that, as a result of the MP for Twickenham, my honourable friend Munira Wilson, introducing in the other place the idea of enabling public bodies to dispose of land for less than best consideration. That was already available in a limited form but the idea here is that it is out of date because of the change in land valuations—that is what the Minister said.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I totally agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, said about his Amendment 474 and the complexity of the system. It is difficult for businesses to negotiate the terms which determine their viability; business rates cannot be negotiated; and the multiplier has risen substantially in the past few years, making the costs to businesses unaffordable in many cases.

Amendment 428 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Shipley addresses a principle of business rates rather than the nuts and bolts. The key to levelling up and realising one of the ambitions of the White Paper—vibrant and successful town centres and high streets—lies in business rates. Too many town centres across the country are blighted by empty, boarded-up shops, which then become less attractive to local people wanting to shop there, causing a downward spiral.

I accept that the purpose of town centres is changing, as in fact it always has done. The balance of provision in town centres is increasingly shifting from the sale of goods towards services such as hair salons, nail bars and the like. However, the growth of e-commerce has put enormous pressure on traditional retail. This is where Amendment 428 comes in, because it would require a fundamental review in principle of business rates.

These are the reasons. The Government call it “bricks versus clicks” and “the tax imbalance” on the government website, which then refers to business rate revaluation, which actually does very little to redress the imbalance. I will give an example of one of the great e-commerce providers, Amazon. Its provision is in out-of-town warehouses and their rateable values are very low. An Amazon warehouse near me in Doncaster is paying rates at £45 per square metre—on average, because things change according to what is provided in a warehouse—whereas a small town centre shop near me has rates of £250 per square metre. We should think about that differential. The massive warehouse is providing retail goods, as is the small shop, but there is this huge disparity between the rates they are being charged, putting the town centre retail shop at a huge disadvantage.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, mentioned in an earlier group that the Government are tackling this by reducing town centre business rates by 20% following the revaluation. I always get cross about the use of percentages, because they are ratios, so whether they are percentages of a large number or a small number makes a very big difference. A 20% reduction on this £250 per square metre still leaves them paying £200 per square metre. However, although the Government have raised the rates for e-commerce by 27%, they are still paying only £56 per square metre. The disparity is still enormous, leading to an unfair competitive advantage for the e-commerce sector.

The Government have rejected the idea of an online sales tax, and I can understand why. It will be complex. However, I urge the Minister to respond positively to my suggestion that the Government use the existing business rates system to provide for much fairer competition between e-commerce and retail in physical shops. E-commerce businesses have a huge advantage. Not only are their business rates low but some of them also manage not to contribute much taxation to the country. They lead to significant increases in the volume of traffic, moving the goods between warehouses or from warehouses to pick-up sites or people’s homes. Yet, if they use electric vehicles, which is a good thing, they are not contributing much to the upkeep of the roads. Whichever way you look at it, e-commerce retail is at a considerable advantage. That is not in line with the Government’s ambition, which I totally support, of having vibrant town centres. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, referred to incentives to help out-of-town warehouses. I think I have given the answer to that. The business rates for these e-commerce sectors must be in line so that there is fair competition between the two ways of providing retail goods.

Amendments 168B and 169, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, make a good case for the retention of rates income by district councils. I will listen carefully to the Minister’s response to that argument. On Amendment 169, it will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say, but I understood that there is already a grace period for uninhabitable buildings to be made habitable during which they are exempt from council tax. Maybe that is not the case, but I remember taking it through this House and I understood that to be the definition then.

It would also be helpful for us all to understand the definition of empty homes, empty properties, empty dwellings, because it is not always as it seems. Maybe the Minister will put me right, but my understanding is that empty properties are not empty if they are partially furnished. There is a whole debate around definitions of empty properties and uninhabitable dwellings that we probably need to understand more closely with regard to these amendments and the previous group in relation to council tax on holiday lets, short-term lets and second homes.

So that is my proposition to the Minister. We need a fundamental review of business rates because retail is changing fast. If substantial change to level the playing field is not made, the ambition for vibrant town centres will fail. I beg to move.

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, I was pleased to sign Amendment 474 tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. I also support the other related amendment in this group, Amendment 428, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock.

Regeneration of high streets and town centres is particularly important in the context of levelling up. I cannot stress enough how important a thriving town centre and high street are for the morale of a city, for its togetherness and for its onward development. Many high streets and town centres in the regions, including in some areas in Derby, where I live, are struggling with low occupancy and empty premises. This must be resolved urgently if we are truly to level up the regions and bring back the economic dynamism that is required for further developments.

I know that the Government get this, and their plans for enhanced compulsory purchase powers and high street rental options could form part of the solution here. However, in my role as co-chair of the Midlands Engine All-Party Parliamentary Group, I have canvassed many local stakeholders on what would really make a difference to high street regeneration, and the theme that comes at the top of the list time and time again is business rates.

The current structure of business rates makes it simply unviable for businesses to set up in certain locations. To expand on what the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said, a property was being marketed on East Street, Derby last year at a lease of £35,000 per annum. It had a rateable value of £112,000 and rates payable of £56,000, so the rates were significantly higher than the rent. Another example, from the British Property Federation, is a property in a Hull for which the business rates bill was around three times higher than the rent a property in that location could reasonably demand. There are further cases of businesses not being willing to renew leases on their properties, even at zero rent.

--- 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 Hayman of Ullock, for setting out in Amendment 168B her suggested redistribution of the income raised by the council tax premium from upper-tier councils to district councils. The proposed premium will provide all councils, including district councils, with the opportunity, where they set a premium at the maximum level of 100%, to raise double the revenue from each second home in their area.

Revenue from council tax is essential for a wide range of councils, providing them with funding to make available a range of public services which best fits the needs of the local area. Under this amendment, in an area with two tiers of councils the district council would be able to retain all the income raised by the council tax premiums. This would disturb one of the key components of the council tax system—that local authorities should calculate their council tax charge for local services on the same basis as each other, with equal access to the revenues generated. The long-term empty homes premium has been in place since 2013 and has followed this long-established principle. We trust councils to make their own decisions on where their funding should be spent, and we do not consider it appropriate to engineer the system to direct part of the proceeds of council tax to one particular type of authority in some parts of the country.

Different communities will have their own set of challenges and solutions to second home ownership and empty properties. For instance, this may be through additional funding for transport or education, which falls within the remit of county councils. The current approach provides flexibility for a range of councils and other authorities to generate additional income, which can be used as they see fit. If a council feels that funding should be put towards a particular goal such as housing, this should be discussed with the other authorities in the usual way.

A change in the distribution method for the council tax premiums would also create an imbalance between two-tier areas and areas covered by unitary authorities. For example, in a single-tier area with a high number of second homes, such as Cornwall, the council would be required to share the proceeds of the premiums with the other precepting authorities, such as the PCC or the fire and rescue service. However, in a two-tier area with a high number of second homes, such as Norfolk, the amendment would mean that all additional income was retained by the district council. Notwithstanding the second part of the noble Baroness’s amendment, there would be no obligation to enable precepting authorities to benefit from the increased income. This may be advantageous to the district but would prevent the income being spent on services provided by other authorities in the area that can benefit the local community, such as road maintenance and better care for the elderly.

I turn to Amendment 169, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. We discussed earlier in Committee that the purpose of Clause 76 is to provide councils with an opportunity to apply a council tax premium on second homes. As with all properties, second homes may be in a variety of different conditions. For the purposes of Clause 76, however, a second home would be caught by the provision only if the property was substantially furnished. Indeed, this is an important factor in differentiating such properties from those that might be impacted by the long-term empty homes premium, as set out in Clause 75. Where such properties are substantially furnished, I would not envisage that they are likely to be in a condition to require significant work as a result of dilapidation. Therefore, the premium council tax on a second home applies only where it is furnished. However, in specific circumstances the local authority has tax relief powers as well.

Notwithstanding that potential distinction, I can reassure the noble Baroness that the clause already makes provision for the Secretary of State to make regulations that exempt certain classes of property from the effects of the second homes premium. Similar powers are already in place for the long-term empty homes premium. Obviously, before making any regulations the Government would wish to consult on any exemptions and to provide everyone with the opportunity to say what should—and, perhaps, what should not—be exempt from the effect of the premium.

The noble Baroness’s amendment also proposes a right of appeal against the imposition of a second homes premium. I can reassure her that, under Section 16(1) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, council tax payers already have the right of appeal against any calculation of amounts they are liable to pay, including any premiums.

Finally, Amendments 428 and 474 were tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. The Government are of course aware of the pressures facing businesses, including those on the high street, and have acted to support businesses up and down the country. As noble Lords are no doubt aware, the Government have only recently concluded a comprehensive review of the business rates system. A final report on the review was published at the Autumn Budget 2021, alongside a package of reforms worth £7 billion over five years. The review recognised the importance of the system in raising funds for critical local services in England, worth around £22.5 billion in 2022-23, and concluded that there was no consensus on an alternative model that would be of sufficient scale to replace business rates.

At the Autumn Statement 2022, the Government went even further and announced a range of business rates measures worth an estimated additional £13.6 billion over the next five years. As part of that package the Government announced that the tax rate will be frozen for a further year. This is a real-terms cut to the tax rate, worth around £9.3 billion over five years.

In addition, the retail, hospitality and leisure relief will be extended for a further year and made more generous. In 2023-24, it will provide eligible businesses with 75% off their bills, up to a maximum of £110,000 per business. This is worth an estimated £2.1 billion to ratepayers, many of which are on our high streets.

Furthermore, in response to the concerns of businesses in England, the Government will, for the first time and subject to legislation, introduce a transitional relief scheme for the 2023 revaluation. This will be funded by the Government and is expected to save businesses £1.6 billion. This will mean that the 300,000 ratepayers—

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I apologise to the Minister for interrupting her reply, but she seems to be listing all the ways in which the Government are providing help to businesses via different reliefs for their business rates payments. If the business rates system is so bad that it needs substantial relief from the Government for those businesses to survive—and the amounts that the noble Baroness referenced were substantial—I can only conclude that the business rates system, as it applies to businesses in town centres, is broken. That is the reason for the argument that I have made, and why I hope that the Government will accept that business rates need a fundamental change; otherwise, the Government will be continually asked to provide relief to enable businesses just to survive.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I think I explained to the noble Baroness that we went out for extensive review—the issue is that we and local services need business rates—and there was no consensus on how they might be changed and made different, such that a similar amount of money would be coming in so that local areas could provide services. We tried but came to no consensus.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 27th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, as we start to examine those parts of the Bill which address local government and devolution powers, we might welcome the fact that the Bill addresses the long-standing asks of councils and their representative bodies for greater devolution, and that there is more flexibility in the proposed structure of combined county authorities than we might previously have envisaged. Nevertheless, we had hoped for a Bill that was far more ambitious and open to ideas when looking to address the imbalance of power in the UK.

As we have often heard in your Lordships’ House, the UK today is the most centralised state in Europe and there is too much in the Bill that seeks further powers for the Secretary of State to intervene. I welcome very much that the Secretary of State accepts that the national challenges require place-based solutions—at least, it appeared so from the White Paper. However, I feel strongly that Part 2 would better deliver this if accompanied by greater powers and fairer funding so that leaders can support the local economic recovery according to the needs of their own areas.

We have pointed out before in your Lordships’ House that, without a comprehensive and fair funding system across local government which would properly empower local authorities to deliver what is needed to support, sustain and develop their communities and economies, any steps taken towards devolution will have a hollow ring. Even worse, if funding mechanisms are driven by the current competitive bidding pots, which favour areas that are able to spend the most on shiny bids, they will run counter to the whole levelling-up agenda. I was grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for saying that the sheer number of funds have become onerous and that we certainly need to look at that. There is a further danger in this “bidding bingo” way of funding local areas: it is yet another way of imposing the Government’s policy on growth and infrastructure in local areas and does not make for true devolution in any sense of the word.

We may have wished that provisions for reorganising local government had been the subject of a separate devolution Bill, an issue I have raised before in your Lordships’ House. Given that this does not appear to be on the horizon, we will be seeking amendments to transfer greater powers to local areas. I welcome the implicit recognition that devolution can drive economic, social and environmental development in local areas, but questions remain over whether the specific model of combined county authorities is right for every area, and whether all the current constituent parts of local government will have their importance recognised and their voice heard as the new structures develop. Local residents and leaders will always know best their own areas and the powers they need to deliver on their ambitions. Amendments for this part of the Bill will aim to allow greater flexibility for towns, cities, counties and the people who live in them to determine their own future.

Amendment 60 is a probing amendment to discover what a CCA can include as part of a two-tier council area—will all or only part of it be allowed? The amendment is designed to help us understand whether the Government will prescribe the nature of a CCA area to include all constituent councils. This has been tabled because there has been significant confusion about the geography of CCAs and what is and is not in scope. For example, does the CCA have to include the whole of an upper-tier authority area? In the case of my home county, Hertfordshire, must it include the whole of the county? The Minister will know that this is complicated: in some areas, counties already include unitary areas, and some county areas have enormous populations and significantly diverse demographics.

In previous devolution rounds, we have seen a confusing spectrum of scope—from being instructed on what will be in and out geographically, to documentation saying that it is for local government to decide. The second option is clearly preferable to all of us, but even when that is the stated initial intent, the goalposts are often moved during the bidding rounds to be more prescriptive than was initially thought.

Amendment 99 probably belongs better with the group of amendments relating to consultation on CCAs. If consultation is needed for the formation of a CCA and/or its dissolution, as we contend in other amendments, should there not also be consultation when a CCA is to be amended? Later regulations could determine the qualifying parameters for this, so that extensive consultation is not necessary for minor changes. This and similar amendments seek to determine the principle of public engagement on local government structures. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, is quite right to table this amendment to explore the area that can be included in a combined county authority. As I understand it, a combined county authority is a bit of a misnomer. Last Wednesday, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said in response to an amendment that a CCA could include, for instance, the unitary authority of Wiltshire and the city unitary authority of Swindon. Equally, when I asked her what would happen in Devon, she said quite clearly that the county and district authorities of Devon and the unitary authority of Plymouth would be included. These are not necessarily combined county authorities: they are unitary and county and district combined authorities—if that is determined, we hope, by the people who live there and the councillors elected to represent them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments relates to the area of a combined county authority, the new type of local government institution being provided for in Part 2 of this Bill. Provisions in this part support the delivery of the local leadership mission of the levelling-up White Paper, to enable by

“2030, every part of England that wants one”

to

“ have a devolution deal with powers at or approaching the highest level of devolution and a simplified, long-term funding settlement.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I am sorry to interrupt so early in the Minister’s response, but could he define more clearly what the “highest level of devolution” actually means?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

If the noble Baroness will bear with me, I shall do my best on that.

Noble Lords will be aware that 10 combined authorities have been established since 2011 in our city regions. However, we recognise that such authorities might not be so appropriate for non-metropolitan areas. The new model of combined county authorities is more appropriate for non-metropolitan areas, many of which have two-tier local government. It enables the establishment of a single institution covering a functional economic area, or whole county geography, which would be a suitable institution to provide effective leadership over an appropriate geography to qualify for a devolution deal.

I take on board the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, about local government funding, but it might be helpful if I added a little to the information I gave the Committee in the last group of amendments. Our intention is to set out a plan for streamlining the funding landscape, as I mentioned, to provide greater flexibility for local authorities and make it easier to navigate opportunities for growth. This will include streamlining local growth funds, reducing inefficiency and bureaucracy and giving local government the flexibility it needs to deliver for local economies. As part of this work, we expect that there will be fewer small competitions. Where competitive funds do exist, we will look to streamline bidding and support greater alignment between revenue and capital sources. We will also consider the monitoring and evaluation requirements to ensure that places have robust, proportionate, ongoing monitoring and evaluation plans for the impact and delivery of investments and spending.

Amendment 60, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, seeks to allow part of a two-tier county council area to be included in a combined county authority, rather than the whole county council area. This would not be consistent with the policy we set out in the White Paper, whereby we will devolve to an institution covering a whole county geography or functional economic area. I will come on in a moment to the rationale for that model. In a combined county authority, such as the intended East Midlands CCA, the upper-tier councils within the area covered by a combined county authority are the constituent members of the CCA. There is no upper-tier council that covers part of a two-tier county council’s area; the only upper tier council is that two-tier county council, whose area covers a wider geography. As such, as the two-tier county council will be the constituent member of the combined county authority, the whole area that the council covers must be part of CCA’s area.

Moreover, allowing part of a two-tier county council’s area to be part of a combined county authority would not be consistent with the levelling-up White Paper’s principle of devolution being to institutions covering functional economic areas or whole county geographies, over which a number of functions should be exercised for maximum effect. Splitting the responsibility for such functions could also lead to discrepancies—

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Can the Minister explain, then, where the geographies of a county area do not coincide with the geographies of an economic or travel-to-work area? Often, they do not. What I have heard is that you can either have a functioning geography of a county and its two tiers, or the alternative, but not a mixture of the two.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

I am pleased that the Minister has raised the East Midlands. On the northern tip of the East Midlands there is Chesterfield and north Derbyshire. Most businesses in that area would look into the South Yorkshire Combined Authority in terms of their business, and not into the county combined authority. It seems to be an administrative boundary designed down here in Whitehall rather than a true travel-to-work area. How would the north Nottinghamshires and Chesterfields be affected by this when, in reality, the economic performance and activity is actually into the South Yorkshire Combined Authority?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I will make just one or two comments on this group. I have listened very carefully to this and the previous group and I think we have an opportunity for the Government to clarify a number of issues around consultation and, indeed, referendums. I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, said about referendums. What is needed is a statement from the Government, hopefully before Report, on what the nature of consultation should be. What would be deemed to meet a minimum requirement or threshold for there to be an official consultation?

Secondly, the Government need to be absolutely clear what their own powers should be in relation to a consultation: what they can require of a local authority or set of authorities. I welcome the fact that this discussion is taking place; it is really important. We have discussed before in recent years during the passage of previous Bills what local people have a right to expect of their consultation. I, too, in Newcastle, have been through a mayoral referendum, and the same thing happened. The decision was not to have a mayor, but, of course, we now have a mayor of the North East Combined Authority—for which, in fact, there was no referendum. Our referendum was within scope; I ask the Minister: are referendums out of scope?

Turning to Amendment 62, I was struck by one or two other very important issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, which the Government need to be a bit clearer about. The first was also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock: travel-to-work areas. It all depends how big your CCA or other combined authority is geographically. A very important issue is raised in Amendment 62: whether the Government are thinking in terms of each CCA having a single economic hub. In a number of areas that would not be suitable. In my own part of the country, several travel-to-work areas apply. Hopefully, that point will not be forgotten by the Government.

Lastly, on Amendment 63, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, made another very important point about the duty to co-operate. When during previous Bills we have debated the duty to co-operate, the Government have always been very positive about having that duty placed clearly on the face of the Bill. But a CCA is not just being required to co-operate with a neighbouring CCA, but with all the other bodies that may relate to it. Given the ability of the public sector to operate across boundaries, both geographical and in terms of responsibilities and powers, it matters that the duty to co-operate is made absolutely clear at the outset.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I will just make one or two additional comments to those of my honourable friend Lord Shipley, the main one concerning Amendment 126 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, about public consultation. I have been involved in a number of statutory instruments on the establishment of metropolitan combined authorities where the public consultation involving “the public” has been minimal, but it was agreed to be satisfactory because it enabled other local institutions—be it businesses, local council representatives or the LEPs—to respond. That has been labelled “public consultation”.