Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 23rd October 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 13B in lieu—

13B: Clause 9, page 9, line 30, at end insert—
“(7) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations establish a process for non-constituent members who are local authorities to become full members.””

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I remind the House of my interests as listed in the register as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and of the District Councils’ Network. Before I speak briefly to the amendments in this group, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for all his time and careful consideration of the outstanding issues we feel remain in this Bill following its consideration in the other place. We also add our best wishes to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, for a speedy recovery.

Amendment 13B relates to the ability of combined county authorities to agree, as a part of their devolution deal and, if they wish, by local consensus, that district council members be full voting members of the CCA. We have discussed this at length both in Committee and on Report, but there has been no movement on the Government’s part. In a debate in the other place, many Members spoke of the important role districts play in exercising their powers relating to planning, housing and economic development to further the economic growth of their areas. To take these key decision-makers out of the frame would be tantamount to shooting devolution in the foot before it has even got off the ground, not least because in unitary areas where councils have all the powers that districts have and the powers of county councils, they are represented on CCAs.

In the debate in the other place, MP after MP from two-tier areas spoke of the value they place on the work done in relation to development by their district councils. Sir Julian Lewis quoted the Conservative chairman of Conservative New Forest District Council, who supported our original amendment:

“District Councils hold levers which are indispensable in creating jobs, improving economic opportunity, addressing skills shortages, tackling inequalities and reviving local pride—precisely the outcomes at the heart of the levelling up … Bill … It simply makes no sense that districts should be excluded from these new devolution deals”.


Sir Julian appealed directly to the Minister, saying that his local district council will not be

“sidelined or excluded by the Government’s refusal to accept Lords amendment 13”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/10/23; col. 228.]

Yet the vote went through to disagree with the Lords amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, we have been over this issue almost ad infinitum in Committee. We are not in Committee anymore; we are at Lords consideration of Commons amendments. I hope the noble Lord would agree that we are past the stage of arguing the niceties in the way he invites me to do.

Finally, in his Motion ZE1, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, seeks to insist on his original amendment. I can only reiterate the points in my opening that PCC powers would transfer to an elected mayor only after that individual has become democratically accountable at a local level. The example he sought to cite as a fait accompli is nothing of the kind, for the simple reason that there needs to be an election before the Mayor of the West Midlands could hope to become a PCC. If the transfer is to happen in the West Midlands, the mayor could exercise the PCC functions only if elected to do so at the next election, so there is no compromise of the democratic mandate of the elected mayor to exercise the functions. The choice of who would exercise the PCC functions in the West Midlands would remain in the hands of the people of the West Midlands if the transfer were to happen.

Commencement at Royal Assent enables the Government to adhere as closely as they can to the Gould principle of electoral management, whereby any changes to elections should aim to be made with at least six months’ notice. As the noble Lord knows, the Government wish these provisions to have legal effect in time for the local elections in May next year. His amendment would frustrate that policy intention. I hope he will forgive my pointing it out, but doubtless he will have noticed that the Government’s majority on this issue in the other place was very substantial: 153. I hope that on reflection he will be content to accept the assurances I have given and will not move his amendment in lieu.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Lansley, highlighted the confusion at the heart of the Government’s position relating to district councils on combined county authorities. The Minister’s contention is that there is local discretion to give districts a vote, while his statement was that only upper-tier authorities should be full members. I am not satisfied that the Government continuing to repeat this assertion that CCAs should be made up of upper-tier authorities only when their core business is not housing, planning or economic development but social care, children’s services and highways makes it right or advisable, and neither does it meet the key principles of democracy or devolution. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Motions K, S, T, U, Y, ZG and ZJ. In light of the growing need for collaboration across the United Kingdom on pressing matters such as climate change and energy security, and to ensure that the UK remains an attractive place to invest and deliver major infrastructure projects, there are substantial benefits to maintaining an effective framework of powers across the UK.

I am pleased to inform the House that, following positive discussions with the Scottish Government, the Government tabled amendments on 28 September to Part 6 of the Bill and related provisions in Part 3. Subsequently, the Scottish Government recommended that the Scottish Parliament provides legislative consent for Part 6 on 11 October. This is a significant milestone on the road to a new, more effective framework for environmental assessment, and it is testament to the strength of the partnership between the UK and Scottish Governments.

In respect of Part 6 and related provisions in Part 3, the Government tabled Motion T to disagree with Lords government Amendments 102 and 103—made on Report in the Lords prior to the agreement having been reached with the Scottish Government—and proposed amendments in lieu, in the House of Commons. Via Motions K and T, these amendments give effect to the position that has been agreed with the Scottish Government and give Scottish Ministers concurrent powers to make environmental outcome reports regulations and associated guidance where they have competence to do so. These amendments also provide assurance that the consent of Scottish Minsters would be required for environmental outcome reports regulations that fall within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament or fall within the regulation-making powers of the Scottish Government.

The Welsh Government had already indicated their support, and the Senedd subsequently passed a legislative consent Motion on 17 October. Through Motions S and ZG, the Commons disagreed with Lords Amendments 90 and 285, putting forward Amendments 90A and 285A in lieu, to support the position with the Welsh Government.

These amendments include a change requested by the Welsh Government, which will bring Clause 222, which makes exceptions for environmental outcome reports provisions to general restrictions on the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru contained in the Government of Wales Act 2006, into force two months after Royal Assent and inclusion of reference to the Environment (Wales) Act 2016.

There are also a small number of technical amendments, bringing various parts of legislation into the scope of the Bill, which are necessary to maximise interoperability across the devolved Governments. These are reflected in government Motions U, Y and ZJ.

I hope that noble Lords will agree with the positive positions that our amendments, and those made to strengthen amendments proposed by the Lords, allow the Government to take, reflecting on the constructive intergovernmental work that has taken place to agree them. I beg to move.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, these are technical amendments to align Scotland, Wales and England, so we have nothing further to add.

Motion K agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

I am grateful to noble Lords for their comments on this group. I thank my noble friend Lord Young for his kind words on government Amendments 288A, 288B, 288C and 288D. He asked about his Motion in relation to leaseholders who have paid remediation costs since losing the protections. Like my noble friend, the Government are concerned about leaseholders who have paid a significant service charge where they have lost the protections upon extending their leases. Those who have paid out remediation costs while outside the protections may be able to bring a claim for unjust enrichment.

I should point out to your Lordships that we are not aware of this issue being raised with us by any affected leaseholders, so it may well be theoretical in nature—my noble friend may contradict me on that. That said, if we do come across any cases where remediation charges have been paid and are not returned, the Building Safety Act contains a power to make secondary legislation that we believe enables us to provide a bespoke remedy to this issue. If cases do come to light, we will consider carefully whether that is the right thing to do.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 18th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[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 ---

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I added my name to Amendments 267 and 268 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell. I think perhaps I should also have added it to Amendment 265A which he so ably introduced. There is very little that I can add to what he has said, so I will be brief.

As the noble Lord said, this is do with reputation, the disruption of potential reorganisation, a loss of momentum—which I might call continuity—and, finally, whether this lays open the opportunity for diluting the process which we agreed in the Building Safety Act and which one believes is still important today.

There are two things that I would like to point to. Part of the justification for what the Government seek to do seems to be a need to keep their options open, if I can put it that way, in relation to the awaited second Grenfell inquiry. Of course, we do not know when that will come in, but the fear seems to be that it will make recommendations that the Government will need to move resolutely to deal with. However, to try to foretell, forestall and provide for that by the process of taking the Building Safety Regulator function out of HSE and putting it in a place as yet unknown or undefined seems entirely premature. I am with the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, in the sense that does not aid the cohesion of the Building Safety Regulator function going forward.

The second thing that concerns me is that we already have two standards for dealing with what might be described as a defect. One is specified in the Building Safety Act and the other, which is not worded the same, is the standard of remediation under the pledge that constructors will sign up to. There are concerns, in particular because, under remediation schemes to which a lot of firms have signed up, they will still be using their own approved inspectors to sign off that work. We know what has happened since approved inspectors were brought in under the Building Act 1984. It amounts to marking their own homework. While I am sure that in many instances that is being done diligently, we would not be where we are now had that been done effectively, conscientiously and objectively. There are concerns that the Government’s proposals here leave too much wiggle room. I am with the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, on all three of his amendments, which I think afford valuable safeguards that we should take real notice of.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, before commenting on the specific amendments in this group, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, for responding so thoroughly to questions that were raised on this issue following our previous debate on this subject and the debate in July on the statutory instrument on the Building Safety Act.

Amendment 264 clarifies that the functions of the new regulator are those of the Health and Safety Executive. This was one of the points on which we requested clarification. I hope the Minister can clarify in response to the points made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, what the new regulator will look like.

My noble friend Lord Rooker’s amendments would introduce a requirement on the new regulator to report on electrical safety for tower blocks awaiting remediation. That seems a very reasonable step in the light of previous discussions, and we hope the Minister will confirm that this falls into the remit of the regulator.

My noble friend also suggested, in his further amendment to Clause 223, that a new electrical safe register be introduced and, in particular, that electrical installations and testing be subject to the same level of rigour as gas installations. I cannot think of any reason why that should not be the case. I hope that, should she not clarify it today, the Minister will take that back to her department to be discussed with the new regulator.

Concerns expressed in Amendments 265A, 267 and 268 are that provisions made under the Bill could be revoked by regulation. Amendments 265 and 266 perhaps deal partially with that, but they may not be strong enough to deal with the concerns about provisions in the Building Safety Act. We note Amendment 265A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, relating particularly to the potential for government to use regulations to amend the provisions of the Building Safety Act. We would be seriously concerned about that, so, if the noble Lord chooses to test the opinion of the House on that topic, he will have our support.

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

My Lords, I thank your Lordships for the points raised during the debate. I shall first address the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, in relation to Clauses 223 and 224.

I want to make a clear and unequivocal commitment: this Government have no intention of using the powers in the Bill to amend the statutory committees set up under Sections 9 to 11 of the Building Safety Act 2022. The Building Safety Act already provides full and appropriate powers for the Secretary of State to make changes to those statutory committees, if needed, on the basis of a recommendation from the building safety regulator. It would be unnecessary for this Government or a future Government to attempt to use the powers under this Bill to alter or repeal the regulator’s statutory committees when good and appropriate powers exist for just that purpose. Any Minister not using these powers correctly could rightly expect to be asked to justify their use.

I turn to Amendments 264A and 264B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, which raise the important matter of electrical safety. The Government take the issue of electrical safety very seriously, and we have already legislated to mandate electrical safety checks to protect residents in the private rented sector. The Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) Regulations came into force in 2020. They require private landlords to have their electrical installations inspected and tested by a qualified and competent person at least every five years. As noted, we have already consulted on extending these requirements to the social housing sector, and have asked for evidence and views on whether owner-occupied leasehold properties within social housing blocks would also benefit from mandatory electrical installation checks.

I am advised that the level of risk involved between gas and electrical work is not the same. With the benefit of circuit breakers and protective devices, an electrical system can be designed to shut down in milliseconds. An automated interruption of supply can disconnect an electric current and protect users from the risk of electric shock or fire.

With regard to Section 21 of the Building Safety Act 2022, which the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, raised, I shall make some further comments. Specifically on Amendment 264A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, I ask the noble Lord to note that, under Section 21 of the Act, the regulator has a statutory duty to

“carry out a cost-benefit analysis of making regular inspections of, and testing and reporting on, the condition of electrical installations in relevant buildings”.

Our focus so far has been on the competence and supervision of the person carrying out electrical work as the appropriate way forward. I note the extensive technical analysis raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, relating to electrical safety. We will write to him once we have had an opportunity to consider this.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

277: After Clause 226, insert the following new Clause—
“Levelling-up and the Vagrancy Act 1824Within 90 days of this Act receiving Royal Assent, a Minister of the Crown must publish an assessment of the impact of the enforcement of sections 3 (persons committing certain offences how to be punished) and 4 (persons committing certain offences to be deemed rogues and vagabonds) of the Vagrancy Act 1824 on levelling-up and regeneration.”Member's explanatory statement
This means that a Minister must publish an assessment of the impact of the enforcement of sections of the Vagrancy Act 1824 on levelling-up and regeneration.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, the Vagrancy Act 1824 was initially intended to deal with injured ex-servicemen who had become homeless after the Napoleonic Wars. What was their crime after serving their country? I will quote from the Act. It was

“endeavouring by the Exposure of Wounds or Deformities to obtain or gather Alms … or … procure charitable Contributions of any Nature of Kind, under any false or fraudulent Pretence”.

This essentially means that ex-soldiers were begging, and the Act was brought in to stop it.

The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, committed to repealing the Vagrancy Act 1824 within 18 months in March 2022. In the debate on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill in 2022, he said:

“The Government agree that the Act is antiquated and no longer fit for purpose. That is why we have brought forward amendments in lieu to consign this outdated Hanoverian statute to history”—[Official Report, 22/3/22; col. 764.]


“Hear, hear”, we all thought.

My noble friend, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, noted in May this year that this Act, which refers to the homeless as

“an idle and disorderly Person … deemed a Rogue and Vagabond”

to be committed to the “House of Correction”, is still being used to criminalise “more than 1,000” homeless people a year. We are told that the 200 year-old Act cannot be repealed because there is nothing to take its place and that it is a slow and complex process to bring an alternative forward. I quote the Minister again from 2022. He said that

“we must balance our role in providing essential support for the vulnerable with making sure that we do not weaken the ability of the police to protect communities who play an important role in local partnership approaches to reducing rough sleeping. We must ensure that the police have the tools that they need to effectively respond to behaviour that impacts negatively on communities and to protect all individuals”.—[Official Report, 22/3/22; col. 764.]

I had a quick check on the College of Policing website. It shows more than 15 pieces of legislation which give police and councils the powers they need to tackle anti-social behaviour and aggressive begging. This includes the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, community protection notices, public space protection orders, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, rapid intervention for PSPOs and dispersal powers. In relation to begging, there is the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and the Public Order Act 1986. So, frankly, it is incredibly disappointing that, in spite of amendments put before the House to this Bill, the Government have refused to use the levelling-up Bill to confine the Vagrancy Act to history, where it belongs, before its 200th birthday.

Fundamentally, this is a levelling-up Bill, and the treatment of vagrancy in our communities is a levelling-up issue. It is an issue that should not be the subject of legislation made nearly 200 years ago when the world, its values and our country were very different places. Incidentally, that was the year when New York’s Fifth Avenue opened for business and Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony had its premiere in Vienna. Why do we still have on our statute book an Act that seeks to penalise the homeless against the measure of an Act forged in what was another world?

Our Amendment 277 and its consequential Amendment 304A require a Minister to publish an impact assessment of the enforcements permitted in the Vagrancy Act against the Bill’s stated ambitions for levelling up. We hope that this will concentrate the Government’s mind on ensuring that street homeless people in Great Britain in 2023 will be treated with compassion and given the help they need to tackle the underlying issues that have led to their homelessness, and not confined to the punishment regime of an Act which has no place in modern Britain.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for his response, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for her comments. The Minister repeated the assertion that the Vagrancy Act will be repealed at the earliest opportunity. I do not know quite what “earliest” means in the Government’s mind, but it is certainly longer than the amount of time it has taken since the original commitment to repeal the Act.

The fact is that this Act is still being used to penalise homeless people every day in this country. I am not convinced that this is going to move quickly enough without some further steps being taken, so I would like to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, if nobody is getting up, I will just let the Minister and my Front Bench know that I agree with the content of all three speeches I have just listened to. My message to the Front Bench is that things have to be done differently. The noble Lord, Lord Mawson, did not just invent this system; it has virtually been his life’s work and it has been a success. It is not like the good old days and the bad old days; we have to learn lessons and do things differently. The present arrangements have not worked.

In the last Labour Government we made mistakes, but we are in a different world now, by and large. There is going to be a general election, when there may or may not be a change of Government, but there ought to be a change in policy about the way that these issues are dealt with. They cannot all be one size fits all, which is the apparent view of the present Government, whether of the public or the private sector. Partnership, good leadership and a willingness to share responsibilities is the only way to success.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, and his fellow signatories to the amendments in this group. As we have heard, they refer to very important issues relating to how such a complex and far-reaching Bill should be implemented.

There was much discussion earlier about the wasteful and partial way in which the levelling-up fund was implemented so that, instead of making a real contribution to levelling up, it became a beauty contest of who could spend the most on consultants to put their bids together. There is no better example of the rationale for close and careful consideration of how the Bill will work in practice. I hope the Government will pay close attention to the wording of these carefully considered amendments, to how they will ensure cross-departmental working—which is not a feature of this Government nor of past Governments—and to the committed devolution of powers and funding, which will be necessary to deliver any meaningful levelling up. But I fear that this might have to wait for the Labour Party’s “take back control” Bill.

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 282A and 282B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, raise the important matter of ensuring that the right approach is taken in giving effect to the changes that would be made by the Bill. I understand that he was unable to move his amendments in Committee, as he had intended, and my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook is grateful for the engagement that she had with him on them.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 13th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[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.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, before I talk about the amendments, I take this opportunity, on Back British Farming Day, to pay tribute to and celebrate our wonderful farmers across the country—a big thank you to them.

I draw noble Lords’ attention to my interests in the register: I am now vice-president of the LGA, vice-president of the District Councils’ Network and a serving councillor in both Stevenage and Hertfordshire.

As the Minister mentioned, the government amendments in this group are technical and consequential and I do not intend to comment on them other than to link some of his comments to the other amendments.

My noble friend Lady Young’s Amendment 227A is a sensible proposal that those organisations charged with providing supporting advice to planning applications should be able to recover fees for that advice directly from applicants. For too long, the weight of providing specialist advice has fallen on the public purse or on the budgets of hard-pressed third sector organisations, as my noble friend outlined so clearly. Anyone looking at this from the outside would consider that to be unreasonable. I hope that the Government will consider my noble friend’s amendment and take it seriously. Indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said that there should be full cost recovery for NSIPs. We need to think about that amendment and the one that I will talk about in a moment and how we create a level playing field in this respect.

Amendment 235 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Young, seems to me the no-brainer of the Bill. For many years, the LGA has been campaigning for local authorities to be able to charge full cost recovery in relation to the actual cost of processing applications. A government report proposed this in 2010, following a consultation by Arup that demonstrated the extent to which councils are undercharging for planning under the current fixed-fee system. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, quoted the figure, which was from 2021; I expect that it is a lot more now and probably way over £250 million a year.

Of all the problems in the planning system, this seems the simplest to resolve. Over time, it would enable authorities to recruit the number of planners that they need and it would shift the cost burden of planning from the local taxpayer to the developer, who, after all, will receive the benefit of the application. I can only quote from my experience of a major town centre regeneration scheme. There were two years of planning discussions on the scheme and then literally a vanload of papers for the application when it came in, and we have just three planners in my local authority. That shows the kind of pressure on the system. Local authority budgets are more hard-pressed than they ever were, so it is hard to imagine why the Government would not accept that full cost recovery should be a basic principle of planning and that it is up to local authorities to charge their own costs.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

228: After Clause 124, insert the following new Clause—
“Infrastructure Levy and Permitted Development LegislationWithin 120 days of this Act being passed, a Minister of the Crown must publish a review of the interaction between the Infrastructure Levy and Permitted Development Legislation.”Member's explanatory statement
This means a Minister of the Crown must publish a review of the interaction between the infrastructure levy and permitted development legislation.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I beg to move the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman. During Committee, we expressed in detail our concerns about the impact that the permitted development regime had on our town centres, on the availability of commercial property, and on the provision of often poor quality and unsustainable homes in unsuitable locations, and, most importantly for the purpose of discussion of this amendment, about the fact that permitted development does not require the usual contribution from developers to local infrastructure or provision of affordable housing. This is an excellent deal for developers but an appalling one for the community. Not only have those in such communities been unable to have their say on whether or not the development takes place, or on how the impact of the development on the area can be mitigated—and neither have their democratically elected representatives—but they have also to absorb the impact of the new development with no infrastructure to support it.

Our amendment would require a Minister to consider this urgently and to publish a review within 120 days of the Bill being passed. We hope this would ensure that Ministers keep in mind that development without any contribution to the local area or mitigation of the impact is unfair on everyone—except the developers, of course. I was very grateful to the Minister for taking time during recess to meet me to discuss the issue of permitted development, among other key planning issues. She explained to me that there is likely to be a consultation taking place on infrastructure levy on permitted development, with a view to some changes, particularly in the permitted development of office to residential accommodation, so that there would be some infrastructure levy contributions considered. I look forward to hearing her response today on how this has developed.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 243 in the name of my noble friend Lord Northbrook, who cannot be in his place today and has asked me to do my inadequate best to represent his views.

This amendment would remove the permitted development right to convert business premises outside a designated town centre into a café or restaurant. Surely if a developer in a quiet residential area wants to turn, for example, an estate agent’s office into a McDonald’s that will be open throughout the night, it should need planning permission to do so. Is that not a wholly reasonable proposition?

We were told in Committee that my noble friend Lady Scott said

“it remains the case that planning permission is required to change use to or from a pub. This ensures that local consideration can be given to any such proposals, in consultation with the local community”.

Surely local communities should have a say in the establishment of new cafés or restaurants in residential areas, not just pubs.

Several speakers in Committee mentioned the importance of breathing new life into our high streets. I emphasise from the start that the intention of my noble friend Lord Northbrook has always been to limit the permitted development right in residential areas, so the amendment has been recast from Committee to take account of this point, so that it applies only outside a designated town centre.

In Committee, my noble friend Lady Scott objected that the legislative approach of the amendment was flawed, so the amendment before your Lordships now has been recast to transfer responsibility for drafting the relevant wording to the Government. I hope that is a small task that my noble friend would be prepared to accept.

--- 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 Taylor of Stevenage, for moving the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. The Government also appreciate the importance of the interaction between the infrastructure levy and development which is granted planning permission by so-called permitted development. This means, of course, development of a class for which planning permission is granted under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015—SI 2015/596.

As noble Lords are aware, most permitted development rights do not fall within the scope of the existing system of developer contributions. The infrastructure levy aims to capture more value than the existing system, and the Bill has been designed to help achieve this aim. This includes having the ability to capture land value uplift associated with permitted development, subject to provision that is made in the infrastructure levy regulations.

Our recent technical consultation sought views on how the levy could be charged on permitted development to expand the scope of developments for which levy contributions may be sought and allow local authorities to capture more value for infrastructure and affordable housing where currently little or no contributions are collected. It will take time to analyse the technical consultation responses, to undertake further review and consultation, and to develop policy as a result of that, before drafting regulations. However, I accept that this is a matter of considerable importance to the House.

We do not propose to accept the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, which would require a review to be published within 120 days of the Bill being passed. We can instead commit that the Government will publish a report on how the levy will work in relation to permitted development at an appropriate point when the policy is developed. This will set out the interrelationship between the levy and permitted development. The Government will commit to doing this on or prior to the day that the infrastructure levy regulations are laid, so that the interaction between the levy and permitted development can be clearly understood. I hope that, with these clear reassurances, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, will be content to withdraw her amendment.

Before I move on, the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, seemed pretty concerned about permitted development rights. He ought to be aware that nationally permitted development rights make an important contribution to national housing delivery. In the seven years to March 2022, they delivered more than 94,000 houses, which represents 6% of the overall housing supply in that delivery period.

We want to make sure that the existing conditions and limitations that apply to permitted development rights and allow for the change of use to residential property are fit for purpose. So far, we have done this and we continue to. As I said, there is an ongoing consultation, which closes on 25 September. Any changes subject to its outcome will be brought forward via secondary legislation.

I move on to Amendment 243. I thank my noble friend Lord Lexden for putting this forward on behalf of my noble friend Lord Northbrook. The amendment seeks to restrict the flexibility of premises within Class E—the commercial, business and service use class—to be used as cafés or restaurants. As a Government, we believe that restaurants and cafés are important parts of our high streets, town centres and other parts of our country, such as towns and villages, and we do not want them to be limited. In addition, the general permitted development order cannot be used to place limits on the operation of a use class. Therefore, once again, we cannot support this amendment.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her assurances and therefore beg leave to withdraw Amendment 228.

Amendment 228 withdrawn.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Report stage
Thursday 13th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab) (Valedictory Speech)]

My Lords, for the last two years a very nasty, cruel war has been waged only two or three thousand kilometres to the east of here by the Russians who attacked Ukraine quite gratuitously under the orders of Mr Vladimir Putin, the President of the Russian Federation. He is a man who, I think everybody knows, identifies with the most imperialistic Russian traditions of former tsars such as Peter the Great and Catherine the Great.

We could have flinched from our responsibilities when this invasion took place but we did not, and I congratulate the Government on the strong line that they have taken in support of Ukraine and the good example they have set, which has been followed by many other members of NATO, in supplying vital arms to the Ukrainian forces. It is very important to respond to aggression because, if one does not, one will quite clearly have more of it.

My reason for speaking today is that there has been a very important meeting in Vilnius over the past few days in which the leaders of NATO have set out the kind of policy we should adopt in relation to Ukraine over the coming months and possibly longer. I am glad to say there has been a large measure of consensus and some important developments—very important is the fact that Sweden has now joined NATO. Sweden is an influential country, much respected throughout the world, and a great asset to us in this difficult situation.

The other countries—most recently France and Germany, in the last few days—have also agreed to supply new weapons, which is very important. The West generally has shown that it will not be ignored in a matter of this kind, which threatens the fundamental sovereignty of the peoples of Europe and the peace of our continent. We must always remember—we learned it in the 1930s, of course—that aggressors invariably come back for more, and what one must never do is give in to them. What is very important is that we do not conduct ourselves in such a way as to send a signal to Mr Putin that he can get away with invasion with impunity and that he can alter the frontiers of Europe quite deliberately at his own behest. That must never happen.

There is something personal that I should mention. If I am alive today, it is thanks in large part to the remarkable work of the medical profession. I pay tribute to all those who work in it, most particularly in the NHS. My father was a GP all his working life and was devoted to the founding principles of the NHS. My eldest son has volunteered for years with St John Ambulance, and he gives me graphic and often disturbing accounts of what life is like on the medical front line. The emergency intensive care and trauma teams at Nottingham’s Queen’s Medical Centre defied the odds when they saved my life after my near-fatal car crash three years ago. I am eternally grateful to them, together with the wonderful rehabilitation team in London, who got me back on my feet.

I am gravely concerned at reports of insufficient numbers of staff and hospital beds, plummeting staff morale, crumbling buildings and other problems which beset the NHS. The Government owe it to the country to do whatever is necessary for the health of the nation, and the time for taking urgent action on this matter is now.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great honour and privilege to follow a characteristically eloquent speech from my noble friend Lord Davies of Stamford. After so many years’ service in both Houses since 1987, we owe him a great debt of thanks for the work he has done for the people of this country and for our country. It is my great sadness that I have known him for only such a short time. I was appointed as his Whip just a few months ago. It is a great regret that we have not been able to get to know each other better during that time but, as my noble friend sets off on what I hope will be a long and peaceful retirement, I hope we can keep in touch. I thank him greatly for all the things he has done during his time serving the people of the country.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I listened with much regret and enormous respect to the valedictory speech of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford. He served as Member of Parliament for Grantham and Stamford for 23 years—for the vast bulk of that time on behalf of the Conservative Party. It did not take long for him to make his mark in the other place, as was evidenced by the Guardian naming him parliamentarian of the year in 1996. The BBC named him Back-Bencher of the year in the same year.

The noble Lord served in the shadow Cabinet in the early years of the last Labour Government and demonstrated there his very considerable political and personal abilities. I remember how shocked and saddened his Conservative colleagues were at his decision to leave our ranks, but then how proud we were on his behalf and that of his family that his manifest abilities were recognised by his appointment in the Labour Government as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Equipment, a position he held for two years and one which I know he greatly enjoyed.

In your Lordships’ House, the noble Lord has been a doughty and persuasive debater, an assiduous support to his party and a most congenial parliamentary colleague. We wish him well in his retirement.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear!

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for those words. I say to my noble friend Lord Davies that there is of course a special place in our hearts for those who see the light, and we are very pleased that the other side’s loss was definitely our gain. We too wish him a long and happy retirement.

Back to the levelling-up Bill—and I thank the Minister for clearing up the long-standing anomaly relating to the Common Council of the City of London—my Amendment 62 would require the Government to publish a draft devolution Bill setting out their plans for comprehensive devolution across the United Kingdom to empower all local authorities in a wide range of areas where we know they do not currently have the powers to act for their communities in the way that we know that many councils are keen to do. These powers could include a whole range of areas that would enable councils to support local economic growth and help to rebalance and equalise living standards, potential and opportunity across the UK to ensure that every area gives its residents the best chance of contributing to the post-pandemic, post-Brexit economy, and would bring some much-needed hope back to every corner of the UK.

The PACAC report governing England from last October set that out very clearly. The key question this raises is whether decisions are being made in the right place to provide effective government to the people of England. We found that the dominant reason for continued overcentralisation is a prevalent culture in Whitehall that is unwilling to let go of its existing levers of power. The trouble with the way that the levelling-up Bill deals with devolution is that it imposes the long arm of Westminster in selecting the chosen few who will benefit from additional powers. In many ways, that has the potential to add to the complexity instead of making the lines of responsibility and accountability clearer. Surely the devolution agenda has now demonstrated that decisions are best taken in the local interest—for local people, by their local elected representatives. That view was backed up in the Institute for Government’s recent report, How Can Devolution Deliver Regional Growth in England?, which argued that councils should have greater responsibility for transport, skills and planning to enable them to better support their areas.

The draft Bill would set out plans to ensure that the Westminster apron strings were untied for good and a new relationship of mutual respect and trust—of course, with the appropriate mechanisms for local accountability—could exist between government and local authorities. That would see an end to the expensive and wasteful bidding bingo to which local authorities are currently subjected just because they have ambitions to make things better for the areas they represent and their local people.

Additional powers could relate to, but not be limited to, housing; energy; childcare; transport, including buses and trains—we have an amendment on bus transport in a later group; and skills, training and employment. Many of those areas will require intense and effective partnership working, but councils are no stranger to that; the financial constraints that councils have been under in recent years have meant that almost nothing can be achieved without working across the public and private sectors and between all local agencies. This would require a new relationship of mutual respect and trust between local and central government.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

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

My Lords, Amendment 64 in the name of my noble friend Lord Northbrook concerns a review of business improvement districts. I have listened very carefully to this debate and the debate in Committee. We want BIDs to work with and alongside residents and members of the local community. It is important that the projects and activities that a BID delivers benefit the local area and encourage more people to visit, live and work there. Residents and members of the community are not prohibited in legislation, as I said in Committee, from being consulted on a new BID proposal. I know many BIDs that include many stakeholders, including the communities they serve. There is nothing to stop a local authority doing that.

It is clear that we need to explore how BIDs can work better with residents and communities, but I do not believe that legislating for a review in this Bill is the right approach. I therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw this amendment, but with my reassurance that I will take this away and consider the proposition of a government review of the BID arrangements. I would welcome further conversations with interested noble Lords to take this forward.

On Amendment 65, there is a statutory framework, and clear rules for consultation already exist in some areas, such as planning. There is also a statutory publicity code which is clear that all local authority communications must be objective and even-handed. There is support and guidance for local authorities on how they should do this. As I said, councils also carry out non-statutory consultations to allow residents to shape local decisions and plans.

I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, that this should not be a one-off; it works much better when local authorities have a good ongoing relationship and conversation with their communities. It is then much easier to deal with issues such as those my noble friend Lord Northbrook raised in Kensington and Chelsea, because it is a continuation of an ongoing conversation. I encourage all local authorities to look at how they can do that better. Greater involvement for local people can be only a good thing. We do not think it is for the Government to tell councils how to do it. Most councils know how to do it; they know what works best in their area and get on with it.

I agree with the noble Baronesses opposite that the concern over the requirement for all consultations to be carried out by third parties is that it would impose additional costs on local authorities and may encourage less consultation and engagement rather than more because they just cannot afford it. I therefore hope my noble friend will agree not to press his amendment.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 3rd May 2023 Lords Chamber

No doubt if the principle of these amendments—widening and clarifying the purposes of the green belt —is supported in the Committee, we could come back at Report with a middle way between these amendments; or if they were persuaded that this is a fine thing to do, the Government might come forward and table their own amendment at Report. I hope that the Minister will be able today to commit to the real need for widening the objectives of the green belt to meet the broader objectives for our land which the Government are already committed to. Perhaps the Minister could give us some indication, if bringing this into statute is not supported by the Government, of how and when they intend to review and expand the objectives of the green belt. I beg to move.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to the amendment submitted in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock, who does not yet have London-style transport in Cumbria and so unfortunately this evening has had to leave to get her last train. I hope she will get there eventually.

Green-belt land makes up nearly 13% of England’s land, as my noble friend Lady Young has said, yet there is no statutory basis or even guidance for the role of green belts in contributing to net zero and environmental targets. This is a major problem, and almost certainly contributes to public confusion about what is green belt, what is a green-field site and what is green space.

Contrary to public perception, the green belt is not protected for the environment. There is no green-belt policy with weight directing or requiring that green-belt land be green or valued for its environmental quality. The laudable fundamental aims and purposes of the green belt designation within the National Planning Policy Framework are focused on protection and separation to keep land open, preventing urban sprawl and regenerating cities, not on the quality of the land itself. With no standard of environmental quality expected, there are many parts of the green belt which are left to deteriorate and become threatened due to “scrappy bits of land” being targeted by developers.

This point was summarised squarely in the report of the House of Lords Land Use in England Committee, which noted that

“policies to improve its beneficial and multifunctional use are lacking. Central to this is the disconnect between planning policy which is responsible for green belt, and the range of emerging policies which seek to improve the benefits we get from nature”.

As my noble friend Lady Young said, there is disconnect between planning policy and all the environmental policies that we are thinking about.

Our green-belt land must work harder. We know that green belts, which make up 13% of our land, are potentially a spatially protected reservoir of natural capital assets and ecosystem services. The green belt’s multifunctional uses and benefits could be enhanced to increase the connectivity of woodlands and hedgerows; to restore wetlands and grasslands; to create new habitats and enhance biodiversity; to clean our air and water; to improve soil quality; to increase sustainable food production; to provide cooling to counter the urban heat island effect; to provide physical and mental health benefits for citizens; to protect our communities from floods and storm surges; to store excess water; to recharge our aquifers; and, crucially, to sequester carbon. In short, there is now a strong case for a more proactive and socially productive role for our green belts.

The existing aims and purposes of the green belt are as crucial as ever but, unless they are widened to include environmental quality—including biodiversity and climate change adaptation and mitigation—and recreational access for public health, green-belt land will have no anchor purpose to give material weight for greening. Nor will it provide an explicit link to the emerging nature policies such as local nature recovery strategies, biodiversity net gain delivery sites, local nature recovery networks and proposed wild-belt designations, which we discussed in our debate on a previous group of amendments.

The Government clearly recognise the importance of greening green-belt land, as referenced in the levelling up White Paper, the Bill before us, the Environment Act 2021, the 25-year environment plan and the Environmental Improvement Plan 2023. This was reinforced in, among other things, the Committee on Climate Change’s recommendations for mitigation and adaptation, the Dasgupta review and the post-2020 global biodiversity framework at COP 15. Public Health England has also identified the role that green spaces, including green belts, play in raising levels of health and well-being, reducing health inequalities and improving social cohesion.

In effect, almost 13% of England’s land could contribute to an integrated and holistic solution to the challenges posed by climate change, urbanisation, human health and biodiversity loss, while also strengthening urban and ecological resilience. Our amendment seeks to establish this. It sets out how, in order for green-belt land to play an integral role in meeting national environmental and health objectives and targets, there needs to be a clear, weighted policy with statutory backing and a new purpose that includes, but is not limited to, environmental quality and access to nature. The “not limited” part ensures that this is in addition to the existing fundamental aims and five purposes, and would not replace them.

The amendment would ensure the consideration and identification of further legislation and policy steps in relation to the green belt. It addresses the key barrier to the Government’s objective to green the green belt, and does so through direct consideration of widening its fundamental aims and purposes with regard to its role in contributing to the national environmental agenda.

To support the implementation of this Bill, my amendment asks a Minister of the Crown to publish a report on the possibility of further legislation to widen the purpose of green-belt land in relation to its environmental quality and access, in addition to strengthening related existing and proposed policy provisions. This can be achieved through secondary legislation. This amendment also seeks to ensure that green-belt land policy aligns with and contributes to the Government’s legislative agenda on net zero and biodiversity. In short, the policy needs teeth through recognition in legislation, national policy and the national development management policies. Ultimately, this will direct local authorities to consider green-belt land as an available and critical resource to use in response to climate change, biodiversity loss and demand for access to nature for recreational and health objectives, beyond the benefits of keeping land open.

This report is important as there are a number of parallel consultations and changes across legislation and policy that all relate to or impact green-belt land. The report would consider the recommendations holistically and avoid some of the contradictory outcomes that we have seen in the past. The Bill’s policy paper recognises the imperative

“to make the Green Belt even greener”.

A first step is recognising that statutory purposes for nature recovery, climate change and access to recreation need to be delivered through legislation, which will be considered and proposed through this report.

The amendment represents an opportunity to provide clarity on what this legislation should look like, such that it can align with and contribute to the Government’s environmental policies, targets and delivery mechanisms to address the climate and biodiversity emergencies. As such, we urge the Minister either to consider accepting it or to look at bringing forward a similar amendment on Report.

Amendment 295, moved by my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone, would provide the statutory basis needed. As she said, it would transpose the existing purposes of green-belt land from guidance in the NPPF into statute, and would add new purposes with regard to climate change, biodiversity, natural capital and public access. This addition to the current fundamental aims and purposes of the green belt would update it to realise the Government’s agenda for greening green-belt land and enhancing its multifunctional uses and benefits to contribute to the Government meeting their targets and pledges, such as 30 by 30 and the 25-year environment plan. We strongly support my noble friend’s amendment.

[Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)]

My Lords, I speak in total support of Amendment 295, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and Amendment 312E in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. I want to add a few brief points to theirs, focusing specifically on why these amendments giving protection to the green belt are so important for our nature in England and the UK and for meeting the targets that we have signed up to both nationally and internationally; those were alluded to in the previous two speeches.

Even though green belts were originally designated as a way to keep clear spaces between cities and stop urban sprawl, they have taken on another role. We cannot ignore that fact. They have become incredibly important refuges and corridors for England’s biodiversity and wildlife.

We have heard about the multiple other ecosystem services and natural capital services that green belts provide, so I will not repeat them, but there is one point that I want to make: we are often told that most people have no access to the green belt, so they do not get the physical and mental well-being benefits of it—but they do, because they can see it. Being able to see green and see nature has been shown in some cases to be as physiologically and psychologically important as being in nature. Therefore, being able to have a view of nature from the city is as important as having access. Access is also fantastic, but it is not a reason to do away with the green belt. So while green belts started as one thing, they have changed to provide something else. They have become much broader in this. They have become green spaces that are critical for nature and ecosystem services.

So what is the problem? Why are we all standing here speaking about green space and the green belt? As has been alluded to, green belts are under huge pressure right now. I tried to dig down to understand why they are being put forward for housebuilding; surely the protection we have in place already is enough. Well, it is not, because in the National Planning Policy Framework you are allowed to change the use of green-belt land under exceptional circumstances. Our housing crisis and local authorities’ need to meet housing targets are being used by many counties up and down the country as an exceptional circumstance. That is why there is now so much pressure on the green belt: it is the use of that phrase, “exceptional circumstances”. This is certainly the case in my own city, Oxford, where around 8% of the green belt on the edge of the city is in the local plan but most of our housing development will be on other counties’ green-belt land. We have sort of shifted the problem out from the city boundary.

In a recent report, the countryside charity CPRE beautifully illustrates the trend of increased pressure for housing on the green belt. Between 2015 and 2020, the number of housing units completed on greenfield land within the green belt was around 17,700, but there are currently 260,000 homes proposed in advanced local plans. So, in a matter of three years, we have this massive increase of people looking to the green belt to solve their housing problems.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

We have reached what the Times once described as the “End of the peer show” show. I rise to speak to Amendments 296, 297, 298, 299 and 301, which are tabled in my name. I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, who have co-signed the amendments. The amendments are all to do with tree protection orders, which are one of the few legal tools to protect important woods and trees, particularly with a stress on individual trees. Local planning authorities can use TPOs to protect what are known as amenity trees where they believe that it is expedient to do so. The provision was established 70 years ago, but it has some weaknesses and I think that it is true to say that the vast majority of our ancient and veteran trees have no real legal protection at the moment.

Trees outside woods provide valuable ecosystem services for people and habitats for wildlife. A single oak can support more than 2,300 species, some of them found only on oak trees. Many important trees—ancient and veteran trees—are in urban or semi-urban areas and three-quarters of them are outside legally protected wildlife sites. The system is not working because over the past 150 years 50% of large trees have been lost from, for example, eastern England due to urbanisation, agricultural intensification and, increasingly, tree disease.

Local communities often care very much about trees that are local to them. They may not be special trees in the scheme of things—they may not be ancient, veteran, rare or hugely important—but they are important to local people in local terms. The problem is that, in the absence of real protection through TPO processes, all that local people can do is mount public campaigns and literally stand in the way of the felling of some of these trees. Noble Lords will have seen in the newspapers the causes célèbres—Sheffield and Plymouth—where valuable mature street trees have bitten the dust. That shows that if local people can only campaign in the face of inappropriate felling, they do not often win.

A recent case in Wellingborough illustrates what often happens. In March, more than 50 lime trees were approved to be cut down for a dual carriageway, despite being protected by tree protection orders, and 20 of them were chopped before local people even knew about the proposals. They then took action, the felling was paused and there will now be a period of consultation, which should have happened first. It should not be like this, so we need to do something about the TPO legislation.

Amendment 296 is about penalties for non-compliance with TPOs and supports their enforcement. It would create a single offence for the breach of a TPO to bring fines into line with the potential profits of contravention, so that it is no longer simply regarded as a legitimate business expense to flout a TPO, which in many cases is how folk who cut down trees inappropriately regard it. It would align the penalties with those in similar situations, such as in the protection of ancient buildings. It also addresses a key issue in the present legislation, which is that is it not always possible to prove at the time of a prosecution that an action is likely to destroy the tree, which is one of the criteria for a successful prosecution. If you are not facing dead trees felled on the ground but are trying to stop inappropriate felling, it is not always possible to show that the planned action is likely to destroy the tree.

Amendment 297 is on the definition of “amenity”, which is the basis on which TPOs can be proposed. The Court of Appeal has defined this very narrowly as the pleasantness or attractiveness of a place, but after 70 years the definition of amenity needs to change to encompass a wider range of benefits, much as the definition of green belt needs to change to encompass a wider range of benefits. There are distressingly frequent occasions where planning authorities or, indeed, planning inspectors define visual amenity as the only justification for the observance of a TPO, yet other planning authorities are much more innovative and use a range of factors beyond visual amenity in deciding to protect trees through TPOs. Amendment 297 aims to standardise this and make it more common for local authorities across the board to ensure that issues other than simply the pleasantness and attractiveness of a place come into play. The appearance, age or rarity of the tree, its importance for biodiversity and its history, the science behind it all and its recreation and social value should be included in the amenity definition.

I am sure that the Minister will tell me that Amendment 298 is unnecessary because this is already possible, but it would underline for local authorities that the power to create TPOs can be exercised more generally in the public interest. Although some local planning authorities are proactive about protecting trees that are important for communities, too often trees are protected only when they are threatened by development rather than in a strategic way that takes account of how those trees contribute to the community setting. Amendment 298 would empower and, I hope, encourage local authorities to apply TPOs more proactively to ensure that important trees are protected.

My local authority, which I rarely compliment, has a proactive approach to TPO creation. Our tiny village of 35 houses has, I think, the biggest density of TPOs in the universe, because we are a distinctive, remote, tree-covered village in the north Bedfordshire Wolds, a wold being a rolling tree-covered hill, and there are not many hills or tree-covers in Bedfordshire. In the 1980s, the local authority had the vision to go around slapping TPOs on practically everything, including some very ordinary and scruffy trees, if I may say so, but it has meant that our village has preserved its important historic and visual resource of the trees that make that landscape and the community what they are. I hope that Amendment 298 would encourage more local authorities to think in that strategic and innovative fashion.

Amendment 299 would remove the exemption that prevents dead and dying trees and dead branches from being eligible for protection by TPOs. Dead wood is one of the most important biodiversity habitats provided by ancient and veteran trees. The retention of a range of deadwood habitats is vital to support the good management of these trees. I saw a wonderful example in Greenwich Park—I am sure noble Lords want to hear about Greenwich Park at this time of night. An ancient yew tree was so on its last legs that it fell apart in the middle and lay there. Greenwich Park had the foresight not to remove bits of it but just left it. The dead branches formed great wildlife habitats but, even more, a habitat within which a new yew tree grew from the centre. That is what we should be seeing from our dead wood. At the moment, the minute a bit dies, it is exempted from the TPO and can be chopped off and taken away, so we want to see Amendment 299 change that. Obviously we have to be careful about circumstances where dead and dying trees are likely to be a danger to the public, but I am sure that that can be done through guidance.

Lastly, Amendment 301 would introduce a duty to consult publicly prior to the revocation of a TPO. At the moment a local authority is required to consult before it designates a TPO, but it can take that designation away the following day without so much as a cheep to the public. It does not have to give a reason and there does not have to be any transparent process for revoking a TPO. You can understand the public’s concern if the first they know about a withdrawal of protection is the chainsaws moving in. The amendment asks for there to be a similar, publicly transparent consultation process for the revocation of a TPO.

I hope that the Minister might look kindly on TPO designation being tightened up. TPOs are really important for local people, for trees, for biodiversity, for our heritage and culture, and for communities, and they could just be that little bit better with these minor tweaks. I hope the Minister can support them.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone. Anyone who has been a councillor will know only too well the passion and emotion in both directions that arise from trees. I still bear the scars from a public meeting where there was a discussion between the council tree surgeon—he has long since retired so I can talk about him—and a resident of my ward. The resident was insistent that the council had the wrong types of trees in the streets and that that was causing all sorts of problems. He went on and on about street trees and how we should not have put forest trees in streets. The tree surgeon listened to him for quite a long time as he got very irate, and eventually turned round and said, “Well, when you think about it, Len, all trees are forest trees initially”, which took a bit of the sting out of it.

I often feel that the world is divided into those who love trees and want them everywhere and those who will campaign equally tirelessly to have a tree chopped down when they feel it is getting in the way of their light or it drops leaves on their nice tidy garden. However, we seem to have reached an attitude that says, “Chop it down and then face the consequences”. That just cannot be right. Conversely, the beleaguered local authorities that have to deal with diseased trees often find themselves subject to the most enormous outpouring of vitriol when dealing with trees that would infect other trees if they did not. It is important that these issues are managed and communicated well. We think the amendments suggest ways of making the process more consultative and effective.

The figure that my noble friend Lady Young gave of 50% of large trees being lost—I know there have been some serious tree disease issues and they have caused some of that, but not all of it—is staggering. TPOs are made and managed by our local authorities, and they protect individual trees and groups of trees or woods that are of particular value to local communities. TPOs prohibit the felling of and damage to trees without the written consent of the local planning authority. They are no longer valid if removing the tree is part as Iof an approved planning application.

Trees can be vital to the general character of an area and can be at the heart of particular historical or architectural interest at a site. When I was a young girl growing up in a new town, there were woods at the end of almost every road—and bluebell woods are particularly lovely at the moment. Those woods are important to local people.

The fact that a development proposal will require changes to trees can be a material consideration in whether to give permission for those works. Individual trees or groups of trees within or outside a conservation area can be offered protection by a tree preservation order issued by a local planning authority where it is expedient to do so in the interests of amenity. We believe that trees needs more protection, as afforded by the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Young.

The single offence for a breach of TPOs seeks to ensure that

“all fines are commensurate with the potential profits of contravention”,

but it is not just about profit. Sometimes there is an attitude of, “Well, if I chop it down, it’s gone. They can’t do anything about it. I might get a fine for it but I’ll still be able to do whatever it is I wanted to do with that land”. I do not think we can tolerate that; there has to be some kind of commensurate punishment for that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, the previous group of amendments has set the scene for this vital amendment, which we support. Development close to ancient woodlands can have a devastating effect. In 2021, Defra made three commitments to improving the protection of ancient woodlands and veteran trees, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, said. One of those commitments was to amend the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2021

“to require local planning authorities to consult the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities if they are minded to grant permission for developments that might affect ancient woodland”.—[Official Report, 26/10/21; col. 706.]

The Woodland Trust has seen a welcome reduction in major developments that are within ancient woodland and result in direct loss. However, there are indirect impacts, including the spread of invasive species, as well as the impact of pollution on wildlife and the ecological condition of ancient woodland—all of which are still prevalent. Natural England’s advice on providing buffers—space between development and ancient woodland boundaries—is all too often not upheld.

Ancient woodland has taken centuries to reach maturity and can be destroyed in days. The Woodland Trust has provided a very pertinent case study of an indirect impact on an ancient woodland: the building of 100 houses, including development of footpaths, within the ancient woodland of Poundhouse copse, including a drainage scheme right next to it, despite standing advice that drainage should not be within a buffer zone. This has led to a mix of direct loss of woodland and indirect impacts such as hydrological impacts. It is necessary to think and act very carefully when planning and implementing developments near ancient woodlands, in order to protect them for future generations. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I add my thanks to those of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, to my noble friend Lady Young for her tireless commitment to the environment, very well demonstrated in these three groups of amendments that she has put before the Committee today.

According to the Woodland Trust, ancient woodland covers just 2.5% of the UK and is protected because it is an irreplaceable habitat. Such woodlands are rich in wildlife and a vital component of the British landscape. My noble friend outlined with great clarity the provisions she had been assured in October 2021 would be incorporated in forthcoming planning law. The Government’s own planning guidance on ancient woodland says:

“Ancient woodland takes hundreds of years to establish and is defined as an irreplaceable habitat. It is a valuable natural asset, important for … wildlife (which include rare and threatened species)—there is also standing advice for protected species … soils … carbon capture and storage … contributing to the seed bank and genetic diversity … recreation, health and wellbeing … cultural, historical and landscape value. It’s any area that’s been wooded continuously since at least 1600 AD. It includes … ancient semi-natural woodland mainly made up of trees and shrubs native to the site, usually arising from natural regeneration … plantations on ancient woodland sites—replanted with conifer or broadleaved trees that retain ancient woodland features, such as undisturbed soil, ground flora and fungi. They have equal protection in the National Planning Policy Framework. Other distinct forms of ancient woodland are … wood pastures identified as ancient … historic parkland, which is protected as a heritage asset in the NPPF”.


If all that is genuinely the Government’s position, why would they not want to support my noble friend Lady Young’s amendment? It is a very important issue, and we urge the Minister to accept the amendment.

[Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)]

My Lords, I too fully support Amendment 300 proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. A number of the points that I wanted to make have already been made, so I shall be brief.

One key thing we keep losing sight of in the discussion about ancient woodland is the many additional services that ancient woodland provides to our landscapes and to nature. The first one, which we did hear about, is carbon sequestration. I looked up the figures for carbon sequestration, and although ancient woodlands will not sequester as much carbon as something like Sitka spruce, for example, they are able to store huge amounts of carbon, both above and below ground. In particular, the fungal communities below ground can store up to 40% more carbon as a result of having these mycorrhizal assemblages. That is really important, because 36% of all woodland carbon is currently stored in these ancient woodlands.

There is a second role I want to flag up. Something that often gets forgotten about is the role of those woodlands in providing really important pollination services. So often, when we look at ancient woodland, it is a patch of trees surrounded by a sea of agricultural land. Some 80% of our crops in this country need pollination services, and pollinators need habitats and foraging places—that is what those ancient woodland patches provide. Without them, you then have to bring in lorries with pollinators in them. We do not want to go down that route. There is very good evidence—not from the UK but from other places in Europe—that if you remove a patch of ancient woodland the yield from the crops is significantly reduced. We need to bear that in mind

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Northbrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 312 obliges the Secretary of State to amend the general permitted development order to make a change of use from business premises to a café or restaurant subject to planning control. Regulations made in 2020 amended the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 by introducing, in Part A of Schedule 2, a new class E—“Commercial, Business and Service”—covering, inter alia, shops, offices, cafés and restaurants. Change of use from any part of this class E to any other part of class E is permitted development so, for example, a shop or an office may now change its use to a café or restaurant without requiring planning permission.

This will have a number of undesirable consequences in quiet residential areas. For example, planning permission may have been granted for a change of use of a building, or part of it, from residential to office without any objection, and the office may now change its use to a café or restaurant without planning control. On the face of it, there would be nothing to stop, say, an estate agent turning into a McDonald’s, open throughout the night, providing it did not sell alcohol. LPAs would no longer be able to use planning policies to regulate or prevent such activities.

If a café or restaurant wishes to sell alcohol, it needs a licence to do so under the Licensing Act 2003. I take comfort from the ability of local authorities to refuse permission by virtue of the specified licensing objective of the prevention of public nuisance. However, noise nuisance and disturbance from customer parking, loading and unloading, waste disposal and odours can be as disquieting from unlicensed as from licensed premises, and they are now impossible to control by planning policy.

My suggested solution is to amend Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the GPDO, entitled “Changes of use”, by inserting a new class BB—commercial, business and service to restaurant or café—with the text as follows:

“Development is not permitted by Class BB from a use within Class E (a) or (c)-(g) (commercial, business and service) of Schedule 2 to the Use Classes Order, to Class E (b) (the sale of food and drink principally to visiting members of the public where consumption of that food and drink is mostly undertaken on the premises)”.


The Minister responded in a letter to Richard Drax on 31 August 2022:

“We have created a new ‘Commercial, business and service’ use class (Class E). This encompasses offices, shops, restaurants and other uses which are suitable in a town centre. Changes of use within the class does not require planning permission. The new class also allows for a mix of uses to reflect changing retail and business models, allowing businesses the ability to adapt to changing circumstances and respond to the needs of their local communities more easily and quickly. However, it remains the case that planning permission is required to change use to or from a pub. This ensures that local consideration can be given to any such proposals, in consultation with the local community”.


I believe that local communities should have a say in the establishment of new cafés and restaurants, not just pubs. I beg to move.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, this group of amendments is another indication of why we believe it would have been better to bring forward a dedicated planning Bill rather than trying to amend some of the interconnecting pieces of legislation that have overcomplicated the planning scene in the last decade and have certainly had some undesirable effects because unintended consequences have not properly been taken into account. The noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, has eloquently described some of the impacts of widening the use classes so that local people and local authorities no longer have much control over what takes place in their own high streets. We get a proliferation of betting shops and things that people do not really want to see so much of in their high street.

I will give just two examples of permitted development. In Hertfordshire, over 750,000 square feet of economic and commercial space has been lost to permitted development. These developments are delivered with none of the community engagement and consultation that go on with standard planning applications, and they then often result in the infrastructure needs of the development being ignored. This has had the longer-term impact of alienating communities from development altogether, as they see housing developed in unsuitable locations and with no consideration of the proximity of any local facilities. One of the worst examples of this is in Harlow new town. Harlow, like Stevenage, has a commercial and industrial zone deliberately segregated from its residential areas. This was part of the master-planning for first-generation new towns. A permitted development saw a housing development conversion in the middle of this commercial/industrial area, leaving its residents feeling isolated from community facilities and other neighbourhoods.

The other example has been in relation to the creation of houses of multiple occupation from family homes in residential streets, putting unreasonable extra pressure on local resources and creating often far more transient populations, which has disrupted previously settled neighbourhoods.

There seems to be something very perverse in pursuing this permitted development regime at the same time as withdrawing the requirement to set housing targets. The former allows often substandard housing to be developed without the benefit of infrastructure funding, funding for social and affordable housing, or adequate consideration of the needs of the local area. It can put unnecessary pressure on public services in that area and create further pressures on housing as local people are priced out of reasonable developments or forced into poor conversions that are totally unsuitable for family living.

My Amendment 312F calls for a review of this permitted development regime to properly gather data on what it has delivered in terms of: achieving housing targets; importantly, the quality of housing delivered; the impact on heritage and conservation areas; the overall carbon impact since permitted development expanded to demolition; the relative costs to local authorities of dealing with processing permitted development compared with full planning consents; and how it is intended that permitted development sits within the role of the national development management policies.

We are also interested to learn from the review how the Government assess that a permitted development has contributed to levelling up. The feeling of the local government community is that permitted development has done the exact opposite of levelling up and driven a coach and horses through the rigour of the planning regime. That is why the Local Government Association’s comment on this issue was that

“if the Government is serious about strengthening the role of Local Plans, they should also urgently revoke permitted development rights”.

Amendment 312J refers to the totally inconsistent way in which Article 4 directions have been applied across the country. Such directions restrict the scope of permitted development in relation either to a particular area or site or to a particular type of development anywhere in an authority’s area. They can be used to control works that could threaten the character of an area of acknowledged importance, such as a conservation area. Article 4 directions are not needed for listed buildings, which are protected under different legislation, but noble Lords will remember the Harlow example that I gave earlier. Stevenage, which also has a segregated area for commercial and industrial uses, successfully argued that an Article 4 direction should apply to that area so that we were not faced with permitted development housing there, isolated from all our community facilities.

However, the Government have threatened to remove the provision of Article 4 directions altogether and have applied them inconsistently in different locations. Our Amendment 312J asks that a statement be laid before both Houses, setting out how the Government intend to achieve consistency in the application of Article 4 directions.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to support my noble friend Lord Northbrook and to reflect on the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, from the Opposition Front Bench.

First, I want to say something about the high street because, during my time as a constituency MP in the other place, I campaigned tirelessly to put more life into the high streets of two local towns in my former constituency. One of the things that we looked at was trying to make sure that the flats and areas above shops were converted into units, modernised and taken on by the local housing association to make use of those potential dwellings. The local housing association had great success in doing this. It moved people into the high street so that, at all times of the day, there are people around and it is much more vibrant than it was in the past, when it went completely dead at about 5 pm.

Trying to put more life into the high street is incredibly important; supporting the enterprise and wealth creation agendas is equally important. That is why the Government made these changes to permitted development, as my noble friend Lord Northbrook outlined. I can see why they were keen to have more flexibility between the different classes—offices, cafés, restaurants and other businesses—so that, without having to go to the local planning authority to get planning permission, you could just use permitted development to change an office or a charity shop, for example, into a café, a restaurant or whatever.

However, as my noble friend pointed out, the problem is that that works perfectly well in a high street context—I do not think anyone would object to that—but it is different when you have a corner shop, an estate agent or a charity shop in a residential area. This occurs quite regularly; I can think of examples of it in East Anglia. When a small estate agency, for example, in a mainstream residential area closes down, it could easily become a café under these permitted developments. I do not think that anyone would object to a café but, if it was a restaurant such as a McDonald’s, you could have a great deal of extra traffic and disturbance. The whole ambience of that residential area could fundamentally change very quickly.

What the Government have done here has the right intentions but we are looking at unintended consequences for some residents in some parts of the country. This is why I think it was not good enough when the Minister in the other place said that everything was okay because if it was a restaurant selling alcohol, or a pub, the licensing laws would kick in in those specific areas that my noble friend outlined. If it is something like a McDonald’s or a Costa—not that I have anything against McDonald’s or Costa; in the right place, they are excellent retail outlets that bring a great deal of pleasure to different communities—we have to be on the side of the residents.

As the noble Baroness pointed out, making sure that we have the trust and engagement of local communities is incredibly important. We are all for—certainly this side of the House is passionate about—enterprise and the wealth creation agenda. At the same time, if we lose the support of communities and, through unintended consequences, make their lives miserable, it would be a step backwards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Amendment 312, in the name of my noble friend Lord Northbrook, seeks to prevent the movement of premises being used as shops, banks, gyms, offices et cetera within (a) and (c) to (g) of class E to be used instead as cafés or restaurants in (b).

I take this opportunity to make clear to noble Lords that vibrant and diverse high streets and town centres are vital to communities, as places where local people shop, use services and spend their leisure time.

The Government introduced the commercial business and service use class in 2020 to support our high streets and town centres, enabling them to respond quickly to changes in consumer demands. This use class includes a wide range of uses commonly found on our high streets, such as shops, banks and offices, as well as services such as creches and health centres. Movement between uses within the class does not constitute development and therefore does not require planning permission. Thus, this class provides flexibility to move between such uses and allows for a mix of such uses to reflect changing retail and business models, and to avoid premises being left empty.

We believe that restaurants and cafés are an important part of our high streets and town centres. Such uses support high street vitality, attracting people to the high street to shop and spend their leisure time, and we would not want to limit them. My noble friend’s amendment seeks to restrict the flexibility of premises within the commercial, business and service use class to be used as cafés or restaurants. However, a permitted development right cannot be used in this way to limit movement within this use class. The legislative approach of this amendment is therefore flawed and we are unable to support it.

I turn next to Amendment 312F in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, which seeks to require the Secretary of State to publish a review, within 12 months of the Bill achieving Royal Assent, of all permitted development rights. Permitted development rights are a national grant of planning permission that allow certain developments, including building works and changes of use, to be carried out without an application for planning permission having to be made. Permitted development rights have been a well-established part of the planning system for many years, supporting homeowners and businesses. In recent years, new permitted development rights have been used to support housing delivery. The rights are helping deliver much-needed additional new homes, including more than 94,000 homes in the seven years to March 2022.

In response to comments about the quality of some of the homes delivered, we commissioned research into the operation of the rights, published in July 2020. We subsequently legislated to ensure that all new homes delivered under permitted development must, as a minimum, meet the nationally described space standards and have access to adequate natural light in all habitable rooms. In addition, the current consultation on the infrastructure levy seeks views on the circumstances in which it may be appropriate to apply the infrastructure levy to permitted development.

We continue to keep permitted development rights under review, so this amendment is not necessary. It would also be impractical, as it would require a disproportionate review of 155 separate permitted development rights, all within the 12 months proposed. On these grounds, we will not be able to give this amendment our support.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful for the response, but it seemed a bit equivocal around permitted development rights and the infrastructure levy. Can the Minister give us some more clarity? Is it under consultation still? One of the important problems with permitted development is that is has not attracted any infrastructure support whatever or any percentage of affordable housing. For example, if an office building is converted into luxury flats, there is no infrastructure provided and no requirement to provide affordable housing that sits alongside it. This is a very important message for the infrastructure levy that it should incorporate permitted development.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

It is in the current consultation. I assure the noble Baroness that we will be taking account of the consultation responses on this.

I turn next to Amendment 312J, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, which seeks to require the Secretary of State, within 60 days of the Bill achieving Royal Assent, to make a statement on the use of Article 4 directions by local authorities, and to explain the reasoning behind occasions when they may be modified by the Secretary of State and their resulting consistency.

It may be helpful if I briefly explain Article 4 directions. Permitted development rights are a national grant of planning permission. These allow certain building works and changes of use to be carried out without having to make an application for planning permission. Where it can be clearly evidenced that a permitted development right will cause unacceptable harm to a particular area, local authorities can make an Article 4 direction. This stops development proceeding under the permitted development right and requires that a planning application is submitted.

While Article 4 directions are consulted on and made locally, the Secretary of State has the power to modify or cancel an Article 4 direction. He will intervene where he considers that there are clear reasons for doing so, most particularly where he considers that they do not comply with national policy, as set out in paragraph 53 of the National Planning Policy Framework. This policy requires that all Article 4 directions should cover the smallest geographic area possible. Where they relate to a change from non-residential to residential use, they should be made only to avoid wholly unacceptable adverse impacts. All other Article 4 directions should be necessary to protect local amenity or the well-being of an area. Local authorities must notify the Secretary of State when they make an Article 4 direction.

When it is considered that an Article 4 direction as made by a local authority does not comply with national policy, officials have worked with the local authority to agree a revised Article 4 direction. Between 1 July 2021, when there was a change in national policy, and 3 May 2023, modifications have been made to Article 4 directions from 10 local authorities to ensure that they comply with national policy. I hope that noble Lords will be reassured that there is consistency in Article 4 directions that is ensured by the statutory process, policy and guidance. The Secretary of State exercises his power to intervene where there are clear reasons to do so, and in a consistent and measured way. With these reassurances, I hope that noble Lords will agree that Amendment 312J is not necessary.

To conclude, I hope that I have said enough to enable my noble friend Lord Northbrook to withdraw his Amendment 312 and for the other amendments in this group not to be moved when reached.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

313: Clause 124, page 157, line 22, leave out “a” and insert “an optional”
Member’s explanatory statement
This is to probe whether the infrastructure levy could be optional.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am almost sorry to come to a very complex group of amendments at this stage of the evening, but this is an important part of the Bill. We have had lots of discussions about housing, and this is about how the infrastructure levy fits into that picture. The key issues to which this group responds were powerfully set out by my noble friend Lady Warwick earlier today, and they have been discussed extensively in earlier groupings.

The significant number of amendments in this group reflect our discussions about the ability of the levelling-up Bill in general, and the infrastructure levy in particular, to deliver the levels of affordable housing needed. I apologise for the repetition, but this is not helped by the Government’s abandonment of national housing targets, under pressure from Back-Benchers in the other place. There remain a number of unresolved issues in relation to the provision of affordable housing with the infrastructure levy, and a great deal more clarity is needed about just how IL, Section 106 and CIL fit together to deliver affordable housing for the future. It is vital that we all understand this so that we can begin to make an impact on the housing crisis.

Is it the case that the first call on levy proceeds is to be affordable housing, because the costs of affordable provision are to be netted off from the levy payment, with what is left over being used for all the other infrastructure required? This residual may not be sufficient to pay for all that is needed. Just in today’s debates, we have heard about so many different aspects of funding that will be needed from the infrastructure levy. In practice, local planning authorities may find themselves juggling affordable homes and infrastructure to decide what the levy can fund, as they do now with Section 106 and CIL.

Is it the case that, where infrastructure is delivered in kind, it is subject to the levy backstop amount to ensure that any shortfall in the value of the infrastructure delivered in kind is made whole to the full infrastructure levy liability with cash? Homes for the North, in its very helpful briefing, cited Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities figures that developer contributions funded 47.3% of all affordable housing provision between 2021 and 2022. DLUHC figures also show that in the year before the pandemic, nearly 80% of Section 106 developer contributions were generated to support affordable housing provision. Therefore, we must have clarity going forward about how this will be funded for the future.

With construction costs subject to the significant inflation we have heard about, and with the financial burden on housing authorities for retrofitting energy-efficiency measures to social homes, the ability to fund new social and affordable housing through developer contributions becomes ever more challenging. Homes for the North believes that, even if the infrastructure levy is prioritised for affordable housing, its research demonstrates that basing the IL on historical levels of provision through developer contributions will not deliver levelling up but will replicate spatial inequalities.

Our Amendment 313 is a probing amendment to determine the extent to which the infrastructure levy is optional for local authorities. Leaving the other two regimes of CIL and Section 106 in place as the infrastructure levy is introduced has the potential to increase the complexity of the landscape with the associated legal process and valuation challenges. There is also a danger that the new system will take time to introduce and bed in, and therefore the potential reduces for achieving affordable homes to the scale and in the timescale we need through this route as the transition occurs.

I understand that the Government wish to adopt a test and learn approach to the introduction of the infrastructure levy—we heard from the Minister about that this afternoon—but would it not have been preferable to have tested that before putting it into law, instead of afterwards? With all three systems remaining in place, is there likely to be further uncertainty for developers that will capitalise on the difference in implementation from place to place? Noble Lords across the Committee will be concerned, as we are, about any delays this may introduce to the essential delivery of housing to mitigate the housing crisis.

My Amendment 317 refers to the introduction of pilot schemes for the infrastructure levy—although this is probably shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted—as we feel that it is essential to see whether there are unintended consequences of the introduction of the IL, and to ensure its impact is evaluated and assessed before it is rolled out across the country.

Amendment 321 in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman attempts to resolve the confusion about whether it is intended that the infrastructure levy delivers the infrastructure discussed under a previous group of amendments—the first group—and then Section 106 continues to deliver the affordable housing required from the development. This is not clear from what is in the Bill about the infrastructure levy.

We absolutely agree with my noble friend Lady Armstrong that there must be a distinction between the Government’s term “affordable housing” and social rented homes. Her Amendment 322, and Amendment 323 in the names of my noble friend Lady Hayman and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, refer to that point. As we have discussed previously, local authorities know their own housing need best and must be able to specify that they need social rented housing where that is appropriate.

There has been much debate in local government and planning communities about the difference between levy-funded infrastructure and integral infrastructure, and in what circumstances developers can be required to deliver on-site affordable housing and/or in-kind funding for off-site housing. Amendment 326 in the names of my noble friend Lady Warwick, the noble Baronesses, Lady Watkins and Lady Thornhill, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford would place in the Bill the right for local authorities to determine the delivery of on-site housing through an in-kind levy payment. We support the proposition of exemption for developments containing 100% affordable housing to have special treatment under the infrastructure levy regime—Amendment 327 and our Amendment 328 refer to this.

The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, are proposing a similar exemption from the infrastructure levy liability where this relates to farm buildings that support food security. We agree with this where such buildings would be likely to accrue an infrastructure levy, as it is essential for food security that farms are able to diversify.

Amendment 332 in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, would make strategic housing and market assessments compulsory and link them to the setting of the infrastructure levy. I confess that I am a big fan of strategic housing and market assessments. We understand the principle behind this amendment, as it would put rigour into the process of determining what housing is needed and the role that the infrastructure levy plays in delivering that. It will not be solely the responsibility of the infrastructure levy to deliver affordable housing though, so we look forward to hearing from noble Lords about the benefits of making this compulsory. We are generally very supportive of SHMAs, but they can be complex in local authority areas where land availability is limited, and planning for affordable homes has to take into account travel-to-work areas across more than one local authority boundary.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 20th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 240 in the names of my noble friends Lord Berkeley and Lord Hunt, the noble Lord, Lord Young, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. Before I turn to the specific amendments in this group, I will mention the very helpful discussion which took place in Grand Committee on Monday on the Built Environment Select Committee’s report on public transport in towns and cities. The committee’s recommendations were very helpful to our consideration of this Bill. I thank the chair of that committee, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and his predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, the members of that committee and all those who gave evidence.

The Minister—the noble Baroness, Lady Vere—was part of that discussion so there is no need for me to go through all the points relevant to the Bill, which I am sure she will pass on to her colleagues in the Transport team and the DLUHC team. However, it was the overwhelming view of the committee and all noble Lords who took part on Monday that a formal link should be introduced between local plans and local transport plans. In view of the amendments in this group, it is important to record that strongly held view today.

Can I say how much I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, about the importance of transport to the levelling-up agenda? Like the noble Lord, Lord Young, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, I too am very pleased to see the Minister responsible for transport here today to respond to the debate. As the fortunate resident of a town designed with 45 kilometres of cycleway built into it, it is unthinkable to me that planning for cycling and walking, and considering at local plan stage the infrastructure needed to support that, would not be in the Bill and intrinsic to the planning for our communities. If this amendment is accepted—I really hope it will be—then the subsequent NPPF or whatever is going to succeed that will need to take account of the anomalies that occur in these aspects of planning in two-tier authorities. My noble friend Lord Berkeley referred to that earlier.

Generally these can be resolved through good liaison between authorities, but consideration should be given, as responsibility for both transport and rights of way sit with county councils, as we have heard, whereas the local plan is the responsibility of the district council. It will also need to be clear in terms of rights of way improvement plans that the responsibilities for maintenance—should it be necessary—ransom strip land purchase and so on remain the responsibility of those authorities which currently hold them. To be clear, the fact that a planning authority includes them in its local plan does not necessarily incur any additional financial or legal responsibility for these matters than existed previously. Concerns about lack of co-ordination through the National Planning Policy Framework were referred to by my noble friend Lord Berkeley, and including this provision in the Bill might encourage authorities to work together where that is not the case already.

In relation to Amendment 468 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Randerson, I echo comments about the tireless work of the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Grey-Thompson. It is very important to clarify that this should apply to all railway stations, including retrospectively. I know that is a difficult issue and how it works together with other disability legislation, such as the Disability Discrimination Act, should be clearly identified. There are already some provisions in there but I do not think it goes as far as we would want it to and the proof of that is what we see in our local railway stations. We heard many of examples of that during the debate.

It is, of course, crucial that we do all we can to make our rail system accessible, safe and user-friendly for all passengers. Indeed, we will never make the quantum leap in switching from private car travel to public transport that we need to reach zero carbon without such measures. I come back to the Built Environment Select Committee’s inquiry into public transport, which has very clear recommendations on this subject. As the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said, progress has been painfully slow on this to date and we need a bit of a rocket under it to get it going again. The very helpful introduction of things such as senior railcards is of far less use if you need to navigate several flights of stairs to cross even from one platform to another.

Amendment 470 in the names of my noble friend Lord Berkeley, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, requires the Secretary of State to facilitate the accelerated rollout of EV charging points for domestic and commercial customers. I strongly support this very laudable aim but there are still unresolved issues. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, have both identified, we are already seeing inequalities develop in EV charging provision and we need to watch out for that very carefully, particularly in the context of the Bill.

Then there is the issue of technology and whether it is settled enough yet to encourage the considerable cost of a UK-wide rollout. Many of us in this Chamber will remember the issues around VHS and Betamax. That is the classic example of when, if you jump early to the wrong technology, it can be very expensive indeed. Many noble Lords referred to improvements in very fast charging facilities and the way that picture is developing so rapidly. It is difficult to know when that will settle. The noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to the difference between fast and slow chargers, and we need to make sure that we get the most up-to-date provision wherever it is possible.

Secondly, in terms of domestic provision, the complex issues referred to by noble Lords by this afternoon of on-street charging must be resolved. For those fortunate enough to have a drive or land at the side of their property where charging points can be installed, it is not such an issue, but if you live in a terraced street and in housing where that is not so easy to do, it is. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, rightly made the point that this should not interrupt easy walking access for residents. For properties with no adjacent parking, installation of EV charging points can prove expensive and very disruptive in terms of cable laying and so on. My noble friend Lord Berkeley raised this issue too; we have to be concerned about it. Lastly, I have a slight concern that giving this responsibility in legislation to the Secretary of State will simply result in it and potentially the resultant cost and headaches being transferred to local authorities. That is something we need to think carefully about.

I also agree with noble Lords who have said that National Grid really has to get its act together on this issue. Even in developments I have been engaged with in my own borough, it is very often National Grid that really holds things up on many of the measures that we want in levelling up and regeneration. We need to work on how National Grid can respond more quickly to these developments.

No doubt, all those issues could be considered and resolved and there is clearly an urgent need to accelerate the provision of EV charging. My noble friend Lord Berkeley mentioned 8,000 public charging points. This is woeful. The noble Lord, Lord Young, mentioned that this has been flagged up for over 30 years now. We can all remember talking about this many decades ago, so surely it is time now that we made urgent progress.

I turn now to Amendment 482 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. At the moment, some local authorities do a very good job of making the case to residents in their communities for reducing speed limits, and I pay tribute to campaign organisations such as 20’s Plenty for Us that are producing fantastic support on that. In addition to the points that have been made about it, I also mention that the reduction in pollutants at lower speed is a key issue here as well as the other benefits in noise pollution, safety for other road users and so on.

We believe that this is an area where decisions are far better taken locally so that benefits can be explained fully as the change is implemented. I pay tribute to Hertfordshire County Council, which has worked very closely across the county with local councillors and their communities to develop an evidence base, introduce consultation with members and the communities that they represent and then put appropriate funding allocation in place, first on a pilot basis and then more widely across the county. That is a very good example, and it was lovely to hear another example of how the Welsh Labour Government are leading the way in this respect.

Amendment 486 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, refers to the need for the Government to update Parliament on progress against their EV infrastructure strategy, which was published in March 2022. Irrespective of the comments I made earlier about the complexities of introducing EV charging, at the very least the Government should be delivering against the strategy they have set for themselves. The disparity in provision from place to place is as important as the sheer number of charging points available, so we certainly support the amendment.

[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—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My apologies for also interrupting the Minister. I know that she has not been part of previous discussions on the National Planning Policy Framework with regard to the Bill, or the sequence of events as to when we will see the finalised version of the NPPF, but noble Lords have expressed concern that we are being told that some things are going into one, while other things are going into the other. Because we will not see the finalised version of the National Planning Policy Framework before the end of Committee—unless the Bill goes on even longer than it already has—we have concerns that we will not understand what is going into one and what is going into the other. I repeat that point again, because it is very important to some of the previous points under discussion in earlier days in Committee about how the two fit together.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

Indeed, I am aware that those conversations have been happening and, as a Transport Minister, perhaps I had better not add anything further. However, it is worth highlighting that the Government are taking forward other policies for cycling and walking, which I believe will be helpful to local authorities in thinking about how cycling, walking and active travel are taken into account when it comes to local development. The Manual for the Streets guidance is incredibly important and is being updated. We are also planning to refresh the guidance supporting the development of the local transport plan.

It is also worth noting the tens of millions of pounds that the Government have awarded to local transport authorities to upskill the capacity and capabilities of their staff to ensure that things happen. For example, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned her council in Kirklees, where things all seem to be tickety-boo. Therefore, I would expect other local authorities to look at that council to try to emulate that because, essentially, we want local decisions to be taken locally—that is at the heart of this matter.

I turn now to the amendment on railway accessibility in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. I appreciate the contributions made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, providing details of specific areas where we need to make improvement. Improved access to the railway is a key priority for the Government. The Transport Secretary is committed to funding transport infrastructure improvements, including improvements to stations to make them more accessible for disabled passengers. The Department for Transport has already invested £383 million under the Access for All programme between 2019 and 2024, and there is more to come.

The Design Standards for Accessible Railway Stations, published in 2015, set out the standards that must be met when new railway infrastructure or facilities are installed, renewed or replaced. Noble Lords may question the date of 2015 and say that it is a little while ago, but I reassure them that the process is being set out at the moment as to how the standards will be refreshed.

Noble Lords will also be aware that the Government have now completed an audit of all stations across the network. That data will be shared with Great British Railways; it will be made public; and that will be very helpful for ensuring that as many people as possible who are less mobile can travel. I accept, however, that some stations remain less accessible. Can we fix them all at once? I am afraid we cannot, but I would like to reassure the Committee that all stations, regardless of size and location, are eligible for funding under the Access for All programme.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

The noble Baroness would probably decline to make a comment on that at this moment, as that would take us far away from the area of accessibility, which is under consideration today. However, the noble Baroness asked whether progress had been made. So far, step-free accessible routes have been delivered at 200 stations, and smaller-scale access improvements have been made at 1,500 stations. We have made progress; there is much more progress to come; and we are absolutely committed to making it.

Amendments 470 and 486 relate to the charging of electric vehicles, I share all noble Lords’ concerns about electric vehicle charge points and how important they are as we decarbonise our transport system. The first of the two amendments seeks to amend the Electricity Act 1989 to add an explicit reference to electric vehicle charge point provision in addition to the need to

“secure that all reasonable demands for electricity are met”.

The Electricity Act 1989 already requires the Secretary of State to give regard to securing that all reasonable demands for electricity are met. This requirement already includes the charging of electric vehicles. We therefore believe that the amendment is unnecessary, and indeed that it might be unhelpful to other equally critical areas of the decarbonisation effort such as, for example, heat pumps. In carrying out this duty under the Electricity Act, the Secretary of State works closely with Ofgem, as the independent energy regulator is responsible for regulating network companies to ensure that sufficient grid capacity is built and operated to meet consumer demand. Of course, we work very closely with Ofgem as price controls are developed, so that our work aligns to meet the needs of customers, including electric vehicle users.

We are investing £3.1 billion for network upgrades to support the uptake of electric vehicles and heat pumps. This is significant upfront funding and, combined with an agile price control system for net zero-related expenditure, it will enable the investment in the network infrastructure needed to facilitate heat and transport electrification.

There were a number of questions around the provision of charge points themselves. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked about new homes. We laid legislation that came into force in June last year requiring most new homes and those undergoing major renovation with associated parking in England to have a charge point or a cable route for charge points installed from the outset. We estimate that this will lead to the installation of up to 145,000 new charge points across England every year.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked about home and business charge points. The Government have supported the installation of about 400,000 of these charge points. Of course, there will be many, many more out there that have been installed without government support—and, to my mind, long may that continue.

I turn now to the second of the two amendments on charge points, which relates to reporting. I do not believe that this amendment is necessary, because I am pleased to confirm that the Government routinely publish monthly and quarterly EV public charging device statistics. These are broken down by device speed category, region and local authority area. The latest report outlined that, as of 1 April, there are more than 40,000 available public charging devices, of which more than 7,600 are rapid or above charging devices—a 33% increase. We also routinely publish the number of devices funded through government grant schemes. As I pointed out, many more will be installed that are not funded by the Government, and we would not necessarily be able to find out where they are. If there is further information that the noble Baroness would like about public charging points that we might reasonably be able to gather, I would be very happy to discuss this with her further. I have noted the other comments on EV charge points and will reflect on them further.

Finally, I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, about a blanket reduction on restricted roads from 30 to 20 miles per hour. I noted some of the comments from the noble Baroness, and I agreed with some of them. None the less, I am not convinced that a blanket application of this lower speed limit is appropriate because, again, it would undermine local decision-makers’ ability to set the most appropriate speed for the roads in their area, based on local knowledge and the views of the local community. Actually, I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, agrees with me. Indeed, she seems to agree with me for England but not for Wales, where it is not something that a local authority can decide.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I believe there was widespread consultation from the Welsh Government with Welsh local government in terms of doing this. I have that in my notes, but my notes are a bit scribbly and I missed it out. May I just make the point that the Welsh Government, as they always do, have consulted very widely with Welsh local government on this?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

That is fantastic to hear, and I am sure that all local authorities 100% agreed with the Welsh Government in that regard.

The second element to this is that a blanket approach would be—

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

241A: After Clause 93, insert the following new Clause—
“Meaning of “affordable housing”: affordable rent(1) In Annex 2 of the National Planning Policy Framework (glossary), in paragraph (a) of the definition of “affordable housing” (affordable housing for rent) omit “or Affordable Rent, or is at least 20% below local market rents (including service charges where applicable)”.(2) As soon as reasonably practicable and within two months of this Act being passed, the Secretary of State must publish a revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework, replacing the Affordable Housing for Rent definition with one based on incomes not market rates.”

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 241A, I shall speak also to my Amendment 500 and comment on other amendments in this group.

I should declare from the outset that social housing is a topic very close to my heart. As a new-town child, when I was growing up, more than 30,000 of the 38,000 homes in my town were built and managed by the development corporation and later taken over by the council. Almost everyone I knew lived in a council home. They had been built in self-contained neighbourhoods with large amounts of green space, schools, health facilities, shops and so on all within a 10-minute walk. They were mostly two, three and four-bedroom family houses with gardens. Sadly, as land values have increased, that type of development is all too scarce.

As noble Lords will be aware, the introduction of right to buy not only took a scythe to housing stocks but, particularly in the new towns, disrupted the community cohesion brought about by shared housing tenure. Those 30,000 homes that I mentioned earlier have reduced to just over 8,000 now. The figure for the UK is that there are around 1.5 million fewer council homes now than in 1980. Councillors’ inboxes are full—permanently—of housing cases. Surely the generations who benefited from right to buy cannot just pull up the ladder behind them. From the experience of my councillor surgeries, they had not anticipated the impact on their children and grandchildren, never mind all the other young people for whom private renting, let along buying homes, is fast disappearing over their financial horizon.

Just yesterday, we had a shocking report from the National Housing Federation, setting out the impact of overcrowding, particularly on the life opportunities of young people. The findings of its report say that more than 300,000 children in England have to share beds with other family members. Some 2 million children live in cramped conditions with little or no personal space. Ethnic minority households are three times more likely to be overcrowded than white households. More than one-quarter of the parents living in overcrowded homes who were questioned by researchers said that they regularly had to sleep in a living room, bathroom, hallway or kitchen.

The family featured in the National Housing Federation press release, Joanna and her daughter Deni, were forced to seek council help when private rented accommodation became too expensive. Joanna had never been able to afford a two-bedroom property but, with rents soaring, now struggles to afford a one-bedroom flat. Deni, a talented musical student who is on the Royal Opera House programme for promising singers, has shared a bed with her mother for the whole of her 10 years and spends school holidays sitting on that bed while her mother works from home.

My own casework contains hundreds of housing cases a year, around 70% of which relate to homelessness, overcrowding or affordability. Shelter, which does such magnificent work in this area, held an independent commission which pointed out that we have lost 1.5 million social homes since 1980 and recommended that government rediscover publicly built housing as a key pillar of our national infrastructure by building 3.1 million new social homes over the next 20 years. That is a very ambitious target, especially when we note that only 6,463 more social homes were built last year, and 500 of those were by my local authority. After the Second World War, local authorities built more than 126,000 social homes a year. The biggest barriers are land and funding. Shelter, IPPR, CPRE, National Housing Federation, Onward and Create Streets all call for reform of the Land Compensation Act 1961, so that landowners are paid a fair price for their land without hope value. We will discuss this when we come to future amendments. Local government has also argued for many years that we should retain 100% of our right-to-buy receipts. We welcome recent developments on that front but, had it happened decades ago, we would not have seen the catastrophic impact on housing stock levels.

The Resolution Foundation’s Housing Outlook report for the first quarter of 2023 stated that, although mortgagors had been affected by rising interest rates,

“private and social renters are much more likely to report falling behind or struggling with their housing costs”.

It also said that,

“worryingly high numbers of … renters report signs of material deprivation and are resorting to sometimes unsustainable strategies to manage their housing costs”.

They include borrowing money, using savings or not heating their homes. The ONS deems rental properties affordable if a household does not spend more than 30% of its income on rent. In this country, only the east Midlands and the north-west had rent prices affordable to those in the lower quartile of household income.

There are also key financial drivers to the provision of social rented homes. First, the rent paid by social renters is recirculated to improve stock, build new homes, develop specialist housing and so on. This is sometimes the case with good private landlords, but not always. Secondly, it makes no sense to subsidise higher private rents through the benefits systems. A rapid increase in social housing stock would generate savings, as there are stark contrasts in rent levels. The figures for my area are indeed stark, with social rent for a two-bedroom property at £110 a week and private rent at £235. The local housing allowance is just £195. The amount that councils spend on temporary accommodation has increased by 71% in the past five years and now costs more than £1 billion a year.

I hope that I have set out clearly the issues and the impact that housing supply is having on the affordability of housing. My Amendment 241A is included to remove from the NPPF the spurious term “affordable housing” from rented properties that are 20% below market rent. In many areas, that would be far from affordable. For many families on low incomes, the only affordable housing is social rented housing.

Amendment 242, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and Amendment 242ZA, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, attempt a comprehensive redefinition of the term “affordable home” to ensure that there is a link between median incomes and the definition of affordable homes, with that definition then enshrined in regulations. We support this proposal in principle and would want to work with the sector to ensure that there is a much more meaningful definition included in legislation and in the National Planning Policy Framework.

Amendment 262 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, highlights the specific issues of affordable housing in national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. The issues around these were clearly elucidated by my noble friend Lady Hayman yesterday—I am sorry, on Tuesday. The weeks go by with this Bill, I am afraid. She quoted the former chair of National Parks England, Carl Lis, who warned that young people and national park staff are being forced out of their communities, in part by the high prices driven by exclusive holiday homes. She also referred to a statement by the Secretary of State in the other place on 21 March in which he pledged planning changes to the Bill to ensure that restrictions would be put in place on conversions of homes to Airbnbs. Failure to act on this important issue will see the continued decimation of communities in our most precious landscapes, as increasing numbers of homes are bought for second homes and converted to Airbnb use. Local councils must be able to use the planning system in the best interests of their communities. I hope that this amendment and that submitted by my noble friend on Tuesday, or a version of them, will be accepted to achieve the Secretary of State’s aim.

Amendment 286 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, suggests bringing forward the requirements of the future homes standard to June 2023. In view of the protracted progress on the Bill through your Lordships’ House, this may prove a tad ambitious, although, of course, we hope that these can be implemented as quickly as possible. The second part of this amendment would grant powers to local authorities to determine for themselves what percentage of affordable homes is needed. We absolutely accept this in terms of devolution principles, but I just echo my noble friend Lady Hayman’s comments on Tuesday that, although we must be serious about meeting the affordable housing need, we also need to consider that communities need mixed tenures in housing.

We support Amendment 438 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Shipley. I remember the absolute horror with which the original announcement of this measure was greeted by my colleagues in local government in 2012. Some London boroughs rightly pointed out that every property in their housing stock would exceed the threshold. We welcome the fact that the Government have already committed that they will scrap this policy, so perhaps incorporating this amendment is a quick and easy way to do so.

Lastly, I turn to my Amendment 500. Mission 10 in the White Paper is the key mission relating to housing. While its ambition in terms of improving the quality of rented property is admirable, in other ways it looks at housing through the wrong end of the lens: it sees levelling up only through the point of view of property ownership. For millions of people on housing waiting lists, in temporary accommodation, sleeping on their friends’ sofas or, as in a case I dealt with yesterday, having to conduct access visits with their children in their car because they have nowhere to live, the prospect of a safe, sustainable home with a secure social housing tenancy would meet their immediate aspirations of levelling up. That is why we hope the Government will recognise the absolute importance and value of social housing and use the opportunity of the Bill to commit to building the numbers we need. I beg to move.

[The Lord Bishop of Leeds]

My Lords, I shall speak in support of Amendment 242 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell. I do so having consulted the Bishop of Chelmsford, who leads for the Church of England on housing but is unable to be here today. It is clear, I think, that we need to rethink what genuinely affordable housing is and how an adequate supply can be delivered. In London, the south-east and many other areas across the country, the current affordable housing for rent definition of 20% below market rates makes little difference to those on a median income, let alone those in most need. Without redefinition, we will continue to work under the illusion that homes classed as affordable are helping to solve the housing affordability crisis, when for the most part they are not.

Of course, we need a multifaceted approach to solve the lack of affordable homes. I was interested to learn from the Bishop of Chelmsford that Vicky Ford MP has been addressing this in relation to Chelmsford. During her 10-minute rule Bill debate on 22 February, she spoke to the shortage of affordable housing we face locally and nationally. Her Affordable Housing (Conversion of Commercial Property) Bill would apply affordable housing obligations to conversions of commercial property to residential occupancy. The Bill is due its Second Reading in the Commons on 26 May, and we certainly hope that it will make some progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I cannot give that assurance because we have not yet published them, but from everything I know of where the Bill is going with planning, we are encouraging local authorities to make those local decisions within the national framework, and I do not expect any further constraints on local authorities in that regard.

This is probably the right time to also bring up the issue that the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, raised about transparency and viability. We agree with many of the criticisms of the misuse of viability assessments. That is why we are introducing the infrastructure levy, which removes the need for viability assessments as part of the planning permission process. If we take it out of the process, I hope we will not have this argument in the beginning. I have had many arguments over viability in the past. If we take it out of the system, I hope that will stop in future.

Moving to Amendment 438, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, I understand why he has put forward his amendments. While I appreciate totally the sentiment behind them, we do not believe this would be the correct legislative vehicle for this policy. The Government have provided public assurances that they will not require local authorities to make a payment in respect of their vacant higher value council homes in the social housing Green Paper and stand by that commitment. The Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill does not address the topic of social housing, and the Government do not wish further to complicate such a complex set of legislative measures. However, the Government remain committed to legislating on this issue at an appropriate time in the future. I can provide assurances at the Dispatch Box to the noble Lord that the provisions laid out in Chapter 2 of Part 4 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 have not been brought into effect and this Government have no intention of doing so. The provisions lack a regulatory framework to underpin the policy, and therefore there is no risk of local authorities being subject to them before we are able to legislate in the future. I hope this reassures the noble Lord that the Government remain committed to the decisions set out in the social housing Green Paper and that provisions will be made in future for this revocation to be issued. I hope the noble Lord will feel able not to move the amendment.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to noble Lords for such an interesting debate on a crucial topic central to the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill. As a result of the discussions we have had, the National Housing Federation’s figure for people in need of social housing is now 3.8 million—that is 1.6 million households. That is around 500,000 more households than the 1.16 million that are on official waiting lists. We all know the reasons for that: not everybody who is in need of housing will necessarily want to spend the next 20 years on a housing waiting list. In so many areas it is impossible to see people ever being housed as a result of those housing lists.

I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds for his important comments, particularly about us needing to understand what genuinely affordable housing means. It certainly does not mean the definition that is used in planning at the moment. I agree with his comment that we are under an illusion that housing built under the “affordable homes” category will resolve the housing crisis—it will not. I totally support his comments about unfreezing local housing allowance levels, which would be an important step. Over many decades, we have seen sticking-plaster approaches to tackling the housing situation in this country, which consequently continues to deteriorate.

The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, rightly said that all of the amendments in this group are aimed at the same destination. Neither in renting nor in homes for sale does “affordability” mean what it says on the tin. We are all trying to make sure that we do what we can in the Bill to change that to some extent.

It is misleading to say that the Help to Buy schemes, which the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, mentioned, will tackle the issue for those most in need of housing. Taking a little risk, I will mention a conversation I had with a former Conservative Minister, who said, “I don’t know why you keep banging on about social housing, Sharon. Everyone can afford to buy a house under our Help to Buy scheme”. That is clearly not the case. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, quoted his noble friend who said that, in Southwold, the affordability ratio is 17:1, and 13:1 after a 20% discount. That is the case in quite a lot of the country, although not everywhere.

More than 50% of social homes have been transferred into the private rented sector, which is a great grievance to those of us who deal with the impact of that. Where that rent is paid by universal credit or other benefits, instead of DWP paying—I shall use the figures I quoted earlier—£110 a week rent for those properties, the public purse now pays £235 a week for them. That does not make any sense at all, so we need to do all we can to address this situation.

As ever, I was pleased to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Best, about his amendment. I thank him for reminding us about the Affordable Housing Commission report, which is very good and we all need to take account of it. I am afraid I found the Minister’s comments on the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Best, a bit disappointing. None of us, including the Government, want this measure. The noble Lord, Lord Best, called it an “obnoxious” and “offensive” legislative provision, which it is. He pointed out that it has hung over local government since 2016. We could use this legislation to get rid of it. Why do we not do that? Under that legislation, local authorities were expected to raise the rent to market levels where tenants improved their financial situation. When that happened, it greatly concerned me that this would not benefit local communities or our housing stock but would tip into the bottomless bucket in the Treasury. It is time that that provision was scrapped. I absolutely support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Best, about local decisions being taken on right-to-buy discounts. That measure is way past time, and we should absolutely have it.

The noble Lord, Lord Young, spoke about unfreezing local housing allowance, which I agree with. He also mentioned discretionary housing payments. In many local authorities, the allocated amount of discretionary housing payment runs out in Quarter 1, and then various bodies, including government advisory bodies and Citizens Advice, often send tenants to their councils to request discretionary housing payment, when in fact it has run out in the first three months of the year. That is simply because of the cost of living crisis and the level of rents that are putting so much pressure on those discretionary housing payments.

--- Later in debate ---

Criticisms were made of this clause at Second Reading but, given the scope of the Bill and the length of time allowed to Ministers for winding up, my noble friend was understandably unable to address them then. I know he will want to do so today. I think I have said enough to indicate that, in the words of Sir Humphrey, this is a brave initiative. I beg to move.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Young. I will speak to our Amendments 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256 and 257 in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman. A number of those amendments echo the concerns of the noble Lord. It is important to place on record that the clause to which amendments in this group refer was not in the Bill when it was debated in the other place, so it has not had the kind of scrutiny you would expect for a proposal of this kind. Therefore, it is right that your Lordships’ House gives this clause and the amendments submitted very careful consideration.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Young, that the progress of this proposal straight into primary legislation is unusual to say the least—I would call it inexplicable. I have much sympathy with his comments that, were the street votes part of a consideration that the planning and development committees took into account, that might be a different issue. However, from the proposal in the Bill it seems that they are intended to sit outside that.

In recent decades, changes to the planning system have meant that local people and, on occasion, local councillors have felt that they have little say or control over what happens in their area due to a combination of permitted development, changes to use classes—meaning, for example, that there is little to stop your high street being dominated by betting shops and vape stores—the prevalence of conversions to houses of multiple occupation, which puts particular pressure on infrastructure and parking and can change the character of neighbourhoods, and the hollowing out of so many coastal and rural areas as family homes become holiday and Airbnb lets. We have heard powerful advocacy for the role of neighbourhood forums and town and parish councils in previous debates on the Bill. There is undoubtedly something of a community engagement vacuum in the delivery of new homes which the advocates of street votes believe they can help fill.

As a member of the Co-operative Party, a sister party to the Labour Party, and a former chair of the Co-operative Councils’ Innovation Network, I have spent more than 10 years promoting and supporting greater engagement of residents and communities in the decisions taken on their behalf, so we absolutely support the principle sitting behind the street votes proposition. I am very grateful to Samuel Hughes from Create Streets, who took a great deal of time to brief me and my noble friend Lady Hayman and kindly provided us with a background briefing on street votes.

The problem with the clause as drafted is that it is very thin on detail, not least any detailed definition of “gentle densification”, which we have heard so much about during the Bill. I am sure that the Minister will tell us that it will be in the regulations or the National Planning Policy Framework, but in this case it is particularly important to understand how the system of street votes will work. Even their most passionate advocates feel that there is room for more clarity in the Bill.

Our amendments in this group attempt to understand how this detail and some of the potential complications will be resolved. As an example, although greenbelt, areas of outstanding national beauty and historic buildings are expressly excluded, there is no mention of conservation areas.

In his article, which is generally very positive about street votes, the designer Alastair Parvin points out that, when you start thinking about the detail of how they might work, it is not hard to see how it could all go very wrong. Those of us who have been involved in planning will feel the same trepidation that what seems, on the face of it, like a move towards community engagement, development and an ultimate expression of street democracy, may also need to be particularly well thought through in advance to avoid the obvious potential pitfalls.

The system of local authority planning may seem bureaucratic, complex and too slow, but you could argue that it is developed that way to ensure, for example, that experts in planning, law and finance are involved, that there is transparency in the process, that decisions are properly debated and recorded, and that there are proper voting procedures, appeals processes and declarations of interest. As Alastair Parvin notes, to even think about the idea of every street in the UK emulating this way of working, appointing an urban designer, holding consultations, drawing up a valid design code, having it checked against local policies, revising it, holding committees, leafleting, then organising a referendum, is utterly exhausting and could be expensive in time and money. It could also add a significant potential burden on to local planning departments that are already feeling overstretched. He also points out that community politics can be, at best, dominated by those with the loudest voices and, at worst, pretty toxic, with the potential for style wars or tribalism to develop, or those who are fixated about parking to take over—in my experience, there are plenty of them. I loved his line,

“we’re talking about doing design-by-committee with Alan Partridge on the committee”.

How do we ensure that those participating are not being coerced or receiving financial inducements, particularly the elderly and the vulnerable? Street votes will also have to take into account that, while many places in the UK may have well-defined streets, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, pointed out, some do not. There have a variety of layouts, types and styles, with perhaps less well-defined groupings or boundaries. Some of you may be familiar with Radburn layouts that are common in first-generation new towns, where houses that appear to be on one street are actually in three different streets.

It is important that we note the comments of the Local Government Association, which were quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Young. It says that it wants to work with government to enhance opportunities for engagement and reach a wider audience within the process of developing local plans, and that is the key to the answer here. Amendment 248, in the names of noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, is welcome and very straightforward, and we would certainly support that amendment to bring clarity to the precedence of the local plan, should the outcome of a street vote conflict with that.

My noble friend Baroness Hayman’s first amendment ensures that residents who have a recent connection with the area are included in street votes. We are very grateful to Generation Rent for its proposals in this respect. It makes the valid point that street votes must work for renters as well as owner-occupiers. Part of the answer, which is included in the Bill, is to enfranchise residents, not owners, so that tenants have as much democratic say as owner-occupiers, and absentee landlords are not further empowered over tenants’ homes. However, we agree with Generation Rent that this is not enough in itself so, before any homeowner or landlord can redevelop with permissions issuing from a street vote, any tenant resident in the building over the past two years must have consented. The alternative could be that landlords could refund 12-months’ rent or give their tenants 12 months’ notice. The Bill is very light on issues affecting tenants in this way, which is why we hope that our amendment will redress that balance.

Amendment 250, in the name of my noble friend Baroness Hayman, relates to the important issue of voting thresholds. We believe that it is important that it is a very high proportion; we would suggest two-thirds of total residents should support the proposals, not just a majority of those who turn out to vote. This ensures that developers cannot try to game the process and proposals can pass only if they have the overwhelming support of local people.

Create Streets, working with London forums and the Community Planning Alliance, also suggests two further safeguards—first, requiring that a resident in at least half of eligible households vote in favour, and second, that at least half of those registered to vote at the addresses on the street for at least three years must vote in favour. We would like to see this detail in the Bill but, if not, perhaps it could be considered for any subsequent statutory instrument.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, a range of questions have been asked on this group of amendments. It might be helpful if I begin with the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and set out why the Government are bringing forward this measure in the Bill.

Local people can, quite understandably, be resistant to new development in their area if they have little say over what gets built and it does not reflect their preferences. However, many of us know that residents are often more supportive when they can play a direct role in shaping that development, including what it looks like. The Government are looking to deliver more good quality homes in the right places. To help achieve that, we want to encourage some intensification of development in existing residential areas, particularly areas of low density in towns and cities where this has the support of residents.

Clause 99 introduces street vote development orders, which will provide residents with a new opportunity to take a proactive role in the planning process and bring forward the development that they want to see on their streets. This new route to planning permission will support wider local efforts in bringing forward developments of new or more spacious homes in places where they are needed most. Amendments 248, 251, 253A, 254 and 257 all deal with how street votes will fit with the wider planning system and related requirements, and I propose to address them as a group.

In moving Amendment 248, my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham emphasised the desirability of achieving maximum certainty in the planning system. The first thing for me to say is that we want to create a predictable system where residents have a high degree of certainty on what development is likely to be permissible before they prepare a street vote development order proposal and that we want to make the system accessible and easy to use. To achieve that, we propose to do things a bit differently with this new tool. We want to depart from existing practice, which relies heavily on the interpretation of local policies to determine whether a development is appropriate, and move to an approach where proposals are assessed against more precise requirements which will be prescribed in regulations. These prescribed regulations will include what type of development and what type of uses are allowed, as well as detailed design requirements such as floor limits, ceiling heights and the extent to which a plot can be used.

We want to test this through consultation ahead of drafting the secondary legislation. These requirements will provide residents with that certainty and ease of use and be designed to ensure that street votes development is high quality and that any local impacts are managed. While I understand the intentions behind my noble friend’s amendment, it would, if agreed, prevent us applying this new approach and therefore I am unable to support it. I emphasise that this is an issue that we intend to consult on as part of a wider consultation on the detail of the measure to ensure that a wide spectrum of views is considered and that the policy delivers for communities.

I turn next to Amendment 251 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, which was spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor. Where there is a street vote development order, we of course wish to see the resultant impacts of construction on residents and the local environment minimised. The powers we are seeking would allow the Secretary of State to prescribe in regulations the documents that must accompany a street vote proposal. They could potentially include a code of construction practice. We intend to consult on what these requirements should be as part of the wider consultation on the detail of the measure. Setting out the documentary requirements in the Bill would prevent us considering this, alongside other detailed matters, through consultation.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Does the Minister accept that as part of that consultation we should speak to the Local Government Association or other representatives of local government? The drawing up of such codes and so on would almost certainly involve professionals in the planning departments of local authorities. They are at breaking point already—they are greatly stretched—and these street votes can presumably pop up at any time. They will not necessarily be part of a planned workload for local authorities. One of our concerns is that if some of these codes and other things that might be needed to support street votes are not very clear in secondary legislation or the SI that brings it in, it will put an incredible burden on those hard-pressed local authority planning departments. That is probably why the LGA has spoken out so strongly against this proposal, or one of the reasons. If we are going to do some extensive consultation on this before we see secondary legislation on it—which begs the question of why it could not have come in secondary legislation in the first place—that issue needs to be considered.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

We want to engage in extensive consultation. I have every confidence that the Government will want to garner opinion from sources that have expertise of the kind that the noble Baroness mentions, and I see no reason why the LGA will not be included in that. If I can provide her with greater certainty, I will certainly do so by letter. I will be talking more about the broader consultation process in a minute or two.

The effect of Amendment 253A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, would be to exclude development in any area with a designated neighbourhood forum from the scope of street vote development orders. This would mean that, as he explained, street vote development orders could not be used in areas where, I suggest, they would be of most benefit, for example, where local people want more homes, or where greenfield land is under particular pressure from housing development. I reassure the noble Lord that neighbourhood planning will continue to play an important role in the planning system. Indeed, other measures in the Bill reinforce this. Where street vote development orders operate, communities will continue to be able to participate in neighbourhood planning. Indeed, our intended consultation will give neighbourhood planning forums and other interested parties an opportunity to shape the policy and ensure that it delivers for communities.

--- Later in debate ---

My answer is similar regarding Amendment 250, which covers a concern voiced by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. The powers we are seeking allow the Secretary of State to prescribe in regulations the minimum number or proportion of qualifying individuals that are needed to form a group which is eligible to submit a proposal with a view to it being independently examined and ultimately put to referendum. We want to ensure proposals have sufficient local support before they progress, and we similarly intend to consult on this as part of a wider consultation on the detail of the measure.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Earl has mentioned, a couple of times now, independent examination of street voting. Does that mean the idea is that we will have a whole new round of public inquiry processes for every street vote that is introduced?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

No, it most certainly does not. Our intention is to appoint the Planning Inspectorate to examine proposals and make the street vote development orders on behalf of the Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

Yes, and consultation.

Before I speak to the government amendments, I will turn to Amendments 255 and 256, also in the name of the noble Baroness, which deal broadly with issues of propriety. I recognise the valuable expertise that organisations like the Association of Electoral Administrators can bring, but I do not agree with the noble Baroness that it is necessary to place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to engage with them. As part of our work to develop the detail of the street votes policy for regulations, we will seek a wide range of views, as I mentioned earlier, from organisations such as the Association of Electoral Administrators and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives to help us to get the secondary legislation right and to ensure that the policy operates effectively. However, it is right that the Secretary of State will be required to consult the Electoral Commission, given its important statutory role to ensure free and fair elections and polls.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I hear what the noble Earl is saying. In that respect, our amendment was more to seek the views of the Association of Electoral Administrators about the level of pressure that might be put on those groups—I made this point on planning teams earlier—if they were involved in a number of different referenda in their areas at the same time, for example. These can come out of the blue—we would not know when—so there are issues around how they are resourced to deal with that kind of uncertainty in their workloads.

Two big questions have come out what the noble Earl has said. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, said, it seems that we are going to have a whole new inspectorate. We had a light-hearted suggestion that it might be called “Ofstreet”, but that is for later determination. Who is going to pay for that inspectorate? Secondly, there is the issue of referendums. Referendums can be quite expensive—we have done them on parking issues in my borough. It costs quite a lot of money because you have to be very careful about how they are done to make sure they are fair. Who pays for those?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, if I may say so, that is a very helpful intervention from the noble Baroness. She raises a number of key points, some of which will no doubt be covered in the consultation, but if I can expand on that I will be happy to write to her.

On Amendment 256, I would like to make it clear that the Government take the potential for conflicts of interest seriously. I am however confident that local authorities and the Planning Inspectorate, both of which we envisage having an important role in the street vote process, have appropriate safeguards in place to minimise conflicts of interest. It is a matter for local authorities to determine their own conflict of interest policies. I have every confidence that all local authorities treat conflicts of interest seriously and have robust procedures in place for both their members and officers. It would not be proportionate to legislate that local authorities publish guidance on managing conflicts of interest specifically on street votes, although no local authority would be prohibited from doing so if they so wished.

Our intention is to appoint the Planning Inspectorate to examine proposals and make street vote development orders on behalf of the Secretary of State. As the independent examiner, the Planning Inspectorate has its own conflicts of interest policy to support the proper and efficient allocation of work. In addition, chartered town planners, who may support residents in preparing proposals, are bound by the Royal Town Planning Institute’s code of professional conduct. This includes provisions to declare and avoid conflicts of interest.

I turn briefly to the government amendments in this group. The Government are committed to ensuring that street vote development is subject to the same principles in relation to environmental impact assessment as development enabled by other routes to planning permission. This is consistent with the Government’s commitment on non-regression of environmental protections. Without amending the Bill, it would be unclear for qualifying groups and relevant bodies how the EIA requirements would apply to street vote development. Amendments 257A, 504H, 504I, 504J and 509A allow for the Secretary of State to make regulations modifying the existing process under the EIA regulations so they operate effectively for street vote development orders. Where development that is consented under a street vote development order is EIA development, it will continue to be prohibited unless an assessment has been carried out and the environmental impacts are considered when making the order. Amendments 248A, 256A and 258A make technical and consequential provision to the Town and Country Planning Act, the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the Elections Act 2022. These minor changes to these Acts—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Berkeley for once again using his very detailed, particular knowledge and expertise of issues around the Isles of Scilly and Cornwall. As ever, we are grateful to him for speaking up for those communities. The question he asks is an important one: why should anybody be exempt from proposals in this Bill, never mind the Duchy of Cornwall?

I will start with Amendment 504GJI on leasehold. We have had long and protracted discussions around leasehold in the course of discussions on this Bill previously. My noble friend Lord Berkeley referred to the Law Commission report on leasehold and the recommendations that people should be able to buy out freehold. I cannot see any reason that Law Commission report has not been acted on, and I hope the Minister will be able to enlighten us about that.

Certainly, it does not seem to us that there should be exemptions that sit outside of that for any reason. If the Law Commission has looked closely at the rationale for the exemptions that were put forward by the Duchy and not found those to be reasonable, it seems that the Government should treat the Duchy of Cornwall in the same way as they treat everybody else. As we have heard the Secretary of State say number of times now, if the Government intend to end the feudal leasehold system, will the Duchy of Cornwall be exempt from that, too, or will the Duchy of Cornwall’s properties be included in that legislation? If the Minister cannot provide the answer today, I am happy to take an answer in writing to that question.

My noble friend Lord Berkeley was kind enough to provide information about the issue related to the Isles of Scilly steamship company to us in advance of today’s session, and the point that he makes is a very valid one. For the communities on the Isles of Scilly, this really is an issue of levelling up. He has given us information on the very steep fare increases on that steamship company, and I understand the fare is now some £89. People on the Isles of Scilly will need to use that service. Their choice is either to travel by air, which we do not want to encourage, or to use this steamship company. A strange situation has developed here; it is a situation that I wish I had had in my borough, where when you find you have to go into competition to deliver something if you use government funding, you suddenly find, after 10 years of asking for government money, that the money has appeared miraculously. That does seem a very strange situation. There needs to be close attention to the way these issues are treated. They are issues of levelling up, because communities on the Isles of Scilly want to know they are being treated in the same way as other communities in the United Kingdom. I support my noble friend Lord Berkeley’s amendment.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I will start by addressing Amendment 258 and then move on to Amendment 504GJI, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. Amendment 258 would remove land in the Duchy of Cornwall from the definition of “Crown land”, as part of planning law. The noble Lord asked what the definition of “Crown land” was, and I apologise for not answering him in the previous debate. It is set out in Section 293 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as my noble friend Lord Lansley rightly indicated in the last debate. It is, broadly, land in which there is a Crown or a Duchy interest—I shall expand on that in a second. I appreciate that the noble Lord tabled a number of Private Member’s Bills concerning the treatment of the Crown and the Duchy of Cornwall, and I admire his tenacity in this regard.

For the benefit of the Committee, I will set out some factual and historical background. For a long time, the Crown was not subject to planning control, but, in 2006, provisions within the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 made it subject to planning permission, subject to special modifications. These recognise not only the unique nature of operational Crown land—prisons and military bases, for example—but the uniqueness and importance of the royal estates.

It is important first to understand the complex status of the Duchy of Cornwall. The title “Duke of Cornwall” and the inheritance of the Duchy were created in 1337 by a charter that carries the authority of an Act of Parliament. By virtue of that charter, the Duchy vests in the eldest son of the sovereign, also being heir apparent. Where there is no son and heir, the estate reverts to the Crown. Craies on Legislation notes:

“That is why … the Crown’s prerogative attaches to the lands of the Duchy of Cornwall, for the reason that they never entirely cease to be Crown lands”.


In short, there is always the possibility of the Duchy reverting to the sovereign, as his or her property. For this reason, the Duchy never entirely ceases to be Crown lands. For example, in recent times, King George VI had no son, so, on his accession, there was no Duke of Cornwall and the Duchy remained with King George VI.

Removing the Duchy of Cornwall from the definition of “Crown land” within Section 293 of the Town and Country Planning Act risks disrupting this well-established constitutional arrangement. This could open widespread implications for not just planning but how the Duchy is treated in law more widely. I have enormous respect for the noble Lord, but I am not sure that it is appropriate to open up this debate as part of the Bill. From his previous experience, he will appreciate that it would not be right for a single individual or party to seek to change the law on the way the Duchy of Cornwall is treated. If that is done at all, it has to be done with cross-party support. In addition, a Bill affecting the Duchy requires the King’s consent and sometimes also the Prince’s consent. For the reasons I set out, the Government have no intention to change the definitions of “Crown land” at this time, especially where this concerns changes that could affect His Majesty’s hereditary rights.

Amendment 504GJI addresses the impact that recommendations in the Law Commission’s 2020 report on enfranchisement would have on the Government’s levelling-up and regeneration objectives, including for leaseholders on land owned by the Duchy of Cornwall. The Government are committed to making it easier and cheaper for leaseholders to purchase their freeholds and extend their leases, and we are grateful to the Law Commission for its detailed report on enfranchisement reform. This report addressed a range of matters relating to the qualifying criteria for enfranchisement and lease extensions, including the applicability of these to leaseholders of the Crown, the Duchy of Cornwall and the Duchy of Lancaster. In January 2022, the Government consulted on Law Commission proposals that would improve access to enfranchisement and the right to manage. I am sure that the noble Lord will appreciate that this is a long-term and complex reform programme with many interdependencies, and it will take time to get the detail right. Once it is enacted, the effect will be felt for generations, so we are determined that this work consider all the implications with care.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

261: Clause 104, page 135, line 13, at end insert—
“(3A) But notwithstanding subsection (3) the completion notice deadline may be less than 12 months after the completion notice was served if the local planning authority are of the opinion that—(a) development has not taken place on the site for a prolonged period, (b) there is no reasonable prospect of development being completed within a reasonable period, and(c) it is in the public interest to issue an urgent completion notice.(3B) A completion notice may include requirements concerning the removal of any buildings or works authorised by the permission, or the discontinuance of any use of land so authorised, at the end of the completion period, and the carrying out of any works required for the reinstatement of land at the end of that period.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would enable the issuance of completion notices withdrawing planning permission with a deadline of less than 12 months when certain conditions are met, and enable completion notices to require that building works be removed from a site or a site be reinstated to its previous condition.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to move my Amendment 261 and I am very pleased that government Amendment 261A is complementary to my amendment, or at least I hope that is the intention.

Across the country, communities and councils have found themselves in the incredibly frustrating situation where permissions are sought but sites stay empty, and development does not progress; the LGA estimates that sites with planning permission for over a million homes have not been developed. As well as unbuilt housing we also see employment sites not progressed, communities and local businesses left in limbo and local areas facing an uncertain future and unable to make further plans.

In its comments on proposed reforms to the planning system, the LGA said:

“It is disappointing that no tangible powers were brought forward in the Bill to enable councils to encourage developers to build-out. We would urge the Government as a matter of urgency to empower councils to take decisive action on this issue.”


Too often it is local government that gets the blame for not approving plans quickly enough, but the LGA points out that since 2010-11 over 2.8 million homes have been granted permission but only 1.6 million have been built. In fact, nine out of 10 planning applications have been approved by councils and most adhere to the strict time guidelines for approvals.

The LGA has called for the Government to charge developers full council tax for every unbuilt development when the original planning permission expires, and for it to be easier for councils to use compulsory purchase powers to acquire stalled housing sites or where developers do not build to a timescale agreed with the local authority.

Since the pandemic, this situation has deteriorated because of labour shortages and the inflationary rise in the cost of materials so, as well as developers who are simply holding on to land to cash in on land values, there are also many genuine cases where the viability of schemes has been eroded. The LGA’s housing spokesperson has said that,

“by giving councils the right powers to incentivise developers to get building once planning permission has been granted, we can go further and faster ... to deliver the reform needed to enable councils to tackle the housing crisis”.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th April 2023 Lords Chamber

There are big challenges here for the Government if their stated aim is to be achieved. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answers to those challenges.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, this group of amendments—and the subsequent group on social housing, which we will probably get to on Thursday—goes right to the heart of the role of housing in levelling up. I should, of course, draw attention to my interests here. I am a serving councillor on both a county council and a district council and, as a former council leader, I am a battle-scarred warrior of the broken planning system. That is not an interest, just a fact. It is a painful process.

We would certainly support the provisions set out in Amendments 207 and 219A from the noble Lord, Lord Best, and my noble friend Lord Bradley to incorporate the housing needs of older people, and the student population where applicable, in the plan-making process. My only caveat to that is the issue I mentioned in your Lordships’ House during a previous debate on the Bill, which is that supported housing is a much wider category than just older people, as it can also include housing for adults with disabilities and those with learning disabilities, which would also benefit from specific attention within the planning process.

Some local authorities will use small-site development to make up for deficiencies in all types of supported housing, but our view is that it would be preferable to consider this as a strategic requirement and build it into the consideration of housing at the plan-making stage. This will also allow due consideration to be given to the importance of the location of those sites, with appropriate infrastructure requirements such as health, transport, social facilities and access to green space.

It was a great honour to take part in a debate on 30 March, as did many other noble Lords here today, on supported housing, where the excellent work of Imogen Blood & Associates and the University of York for the National Housing Federation was widely quoted. During that debate, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, made very encouraging remarks:

“Our planning rules, which will be strengthened through the LUR Bill, mean that, in councils’ local plans, they must consider the needs of these people, which is perhaps an important change in attitude.”—[Official Report, 30/3/23; col. GC 105.]


In response to an earlier question from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, the Minister indicated that the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill is the place to make this change, so perhaps I can afford to be a bit more optimistic than the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, in hoping that these amendments may be accepted.

In his characteristically powerful and knowledgeable speech, the noble Lord, Lord Best, referred to the older people’s housing taskforce. We look forward to that, but I hope that to some extent we can pre-empt the obvious conclusion that local authorities must plan for older residents and those who need supported housing. I was grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his timely reminder of the Mayhew review and its powerful recommendations. I hope we will consider them as we go forward with this Bill.

On Amendment 210 from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, my noble friend Lord Kennedy has campaigned tirelessly for many years for the abolition of the feudal leasehold system. I am afraid that I disagree with the noble Earl, Lord Lytton; I think it is a feudal system, although I bow to his greater knowledge of the subject. It seems from recent comments by the Secretary of State that he too is now persuaded, so perhaps the Minister can persuade her Secretary of State to put the abolition of leasehold into this Bill rather than wait for another one.

On Amendment 219A from my noble friend Lord Bradley, his role with Manchester University gives him great expertise on this subject and he eloquently described the increasing challenges in student accommodation. Listening to his speech, I think we would all be concerned that they are connected with issues of student welfare that we have heard so much about in recent times. As with other areas of specialist housing, he gave examples of very good practice, and we heard many other examples of good practice in the debate on 30 March. However, good planning would not leave this to chance or deliberately allow disparities between areas with good practice and those without it. Areas with large numbers of students should absolutely plan for their accommodation in safe, affordable and sustainable housing.

Amendment 215, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Young, my noble friend Lady Hayman and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, requires a local plan to meet or exceed the housing need for a local authority’s area. I appreciate that housing numbers have proved notoriously controversial in many areas, which is partly why fewer than 50% of local authorities currently have a local plan in place. However, housing is key infrastructure, so it is vital that the Government work with local government to develop policy and practice to determine what housing numbers should be. We heard in the debate that the Government’s stated target is 300,000 homes a year—the National Housing Federation says that 340,000 a year are necessary—but we are nowhere near that number being either built or planned for. I agree that reference to meeting housing need for the area should be in the Bill. To avoid repetition, I will comment on this further on the next group, but I share the disappointment of the noble Lord, Lord Young, about the huge government U-turn on the subject at Christmas.

Noble Lords referred earlier today to the fact that achieving net zero must be a key priority of this Bill, which I agree with, but so should meeting the needs of the housing emergency. Some of us would have preferred a separate planning Bill so that due attention could have been given to the many issues, such as those in this group, that certainly merit a stand-alone Bill. However, we are where we are with a Christmas tree Bill such as this, so we must do our best with amendments to tackle the issues of net zero and housing and the many others that this Bill attempts to deal with.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I have two points on what the Minister said in his response. First, I am not sure that the Planning Inspectorate has entirely got the message about local choice in the planning system, particularly on housing numbers, otherwise it is hard to see why 50% of plans are still not confirmed by the Planning Inspectorate. That is still an issue, and we need to consider it further and whether anything can be done about it as we go through the Bill. It is right that local people should have a say in what happens, but that is not always upheld by the Planning Inspectorate when it comes in.

I think we have mentioned my second point already this afternoon, but it bears repeating. We are constantly told that the things which are not in this Bill will be in the National Planning Policy Framework, but as I understand it we are not going to see the framework before the Bill is completed. It is very difficult for those of us who are trying to make sure that, somewhere, these very important issues—such as supported housing, student accommodation, housing numbers and so on—are covered properly in one of those places or the other if we have not seen one of those documents. Can I urge again that the Minister and his colleagues on the Government Front Bench consider that and what we might do about it so that we have an idea of how these issues are going to be dealt with in the forthcoming National Planning Policy Framework?

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I want to clarify just one thing. I understand the balancing act between not wanting to impose on local communities and, as the Minister has indicated, the one-size-fits-all approach. However, what is confusing about the issue of targets versus localism is that the national housing targets were set by the Government, who then backed off in the other place. At one point, they thought it worth having national housing targets, so it cannot always have been some sort of communist plot to impose a national plan. The Government thought that this was a good idea and then backed off.

There is a second important point that people have made. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, used a quotation I had also wanted to use—he used it the other evening as well—from Theresa Villiers MP, when she boasted that the success of the amendments in the other place was leading to less housing being built locally. We have seen recent figures on the front page of the Times indicating that fewer homes are being built—that there is a hold-up. What do the Government suggest one does in a situation where local councils, for whatever reason, are not building the homes and there are no targets to hold them to account? These amendments at least try to rectify that situation.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

208: Schedule 7, page 290, line 7, at end insert—
“(j) whether the authority will provide small site opportunities in the local plan.”Member's explanatory statement
This is to probe the role of local SMEs in local plans.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak also to my Amendment 213 and Amendment 504GJA in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock, and will also speak in support of Amendment 274A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. Amendment 208 simply tries to ensure that the important roles of SMEs in our communities are recognised; that we incorporate in Schedule 7 a provision for plan-making authorities to include specific provision for small-site opportunities for SMEs.

I have some great figures from the Federation of Small Businesses, which provides wonderful, up-to-date information on its website and which I worked with very closely as a council leader. It says that SMEs account for 99.9% of all businesses; 5.5 million businesses; three-fifths of all employment and half of the turnover in the United Kingdom. They employ 12.9 million people. Surely, we simply cannot overlook this sector in our local plan-making. I cannot see any reason why the Government would not want to incorporate an amendment like this to encourage the allocation of sites for SMEs.

Amendment 213 again refers to Schedule 7 and suggests, first, the incorporation of provision to meet the housing needs of the local authority’s area so as to secure the long-term health, well-being and safety of residents. We have had extensive discussions during the debate on the previous group and on previous days on the Bill on similar amendments, but this would be an opportunity to ensure due consideration of all the issues raised in previous groups and their incorporation into the planning process.

The second part of the amendment refers to the critical issue that planning authorities should be able to take proper account of the affordability of both house prices and rental costs in their planning process. Your Lordships have heard many figures cited on the affordability of housing in recent months, and I am most grateful to Shelter for its continued attention to this and its excellent briefings. It points out—without apology, I shall quote it:

“These days, the prospect of saving for a deposit for a home isn’t just a far-off dream; for many, it is nearly impossible. Not only are house prices prohibitive but soaring private rents can make it difficult to sustain a tenancy.”


That has added to the increasing homelessness numbers that we have seen.

Home ownership is declining. The English Housing Survey shows that 63.5% of households owned their homes in 2017-18; that is down from 68% a decade ago. The average home in England in 2018 cost eight times more to buy than the average annual pay packet. The average share of income that young families spend on housing has trebled over the past 50 years. The steep decline in social housing and a fall in home ownership have led to heavy reliance on the private rented sector. The number of people living in the private rented sector has doubled over the past 20 years. The cost of housing, which has risen much faster than incomes, has put immense financial pressure on people, adding to pressures on the health service, including mental health services, and other services.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope noble Lords are reassured that the Government’s commitment to reforms to the private rented sector is unwavering and that there will be ample opportunity for scrutiny of the proposed legislation. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on this group and to the Minister for, as ever, her thoughtful response to the discussions.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, who rightly focused on the balance between large developers and SMEs in constructing homes, something that we all need to put our minds to. She commented on sites that blight areas. It is absolutely correct that, very often, the small sites that are the subject of her amendment are the sites that we turn our eyes away from when we walk around our local neighbourhoods.

I have taken a great interest in developing such sites in my own area, including a brownfield site that was an old factory and is now a good housing development, with a mix of social and private housing. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, has the smallest area in Hertfordshire, while mine is the second smallest. We had a great focus on this in our roles on our councils, using small sites to expand our council housing stock, and a regenerated shopping centre and pubs which had closed. A doctor’s surgery had outgrown its site, so a land swap gave it a new surgery and us a good housing site, and a low-demand garage site provided bespoke accommodation for those who were street homeless. I totally support her points about using SME builders for this work; when you work regularly with a group of SME builders, they get to understand what your area needs, the things that you are looking for, and the standard and sustainability that you need.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for her comments on the vital role of small businesses in our community, particularly retail businesses. It will help us all enormously if we can eventually get that enshrined in law, so that we can do that. It would be a great help to our communities. Having those key businesses in communities makes them more sustainable. I love the idea of a repair shop—a repair club has just started in my borough, which I was delighted to hear about.

I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. It was lovely to hear about Polruan when we are sitting here in London—I am very fond of Cornwall—and his support for the rogue landlord database. That is a very important thing that we could introduce into the Bill, although I note the Minister’s comments on it.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, knows that I completely agree with his points about the definition of affordable housing. It also speaks to comments made by the Minister about affordable housing being delivered as an in-kind benefit of the infrastructure levy. Unfortunately, the definition of affordable housing can mean, for example, that in renting terms it is 80% of market rents. When I look at the average salary of people in my area, I see that 80% of market rent is way outside the pocket of many of the people who live there. We have to focus very much on this definition, between affordable housing which is—let us face it—not affordable to a lot of people, and social housing, which in many places is the only tenure of housing that many residents can afford. But I was pleased to hear the Minister’s comments, and look forward to discussing all those aspects further when we get to the infrastructure levy discussions.

I hear the Minister’s comments that if a local plan has strong evidence, it is for local leaders to stick to that. I hope that can be passed on to the Planning Inspectorate. We are charged democratically to make decisions on behalf of our communities, and too often they come up against this barrier of the inspectorate, and we are asked, at the best of times, to look at them again, and at the worst of times are told that they are not acceptable and we have to go back on them.

I was also pleased to note that there is a target of 10% of housing on small sites. I agree that the provision that local planning authorities can be encouraged to split larger sites is helpful, but I just come back again to this issue around the NPPF, which we do not have and will not have before the Bill has gone through its stages. I am sorry to go on about this, but to deal with any of the issues we have discussed this afternoon, we need to know where they are going to sit between the NPPF and the Bill. If they are not going to be in the NPPF, we certainly want them in the Bill. We need to think more about that.

On the amendment of my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock on rogue landlords, I ask the Minister: when are we going to get the renters’ reform Bill? We have heard it mentioned many times in this House now, at Question Time and in other debates. Is it going to come in this Session, or can she confirm whether it will be in the forthcoming King’s Speech? We have heard very good assurances, both from the Secretary of State and from Ministers in your Lordships’ House, on this commitment to reform, but to have it moved sort of indefinitely into the future is very worrying. This sector is in crisis now; we have people now who are struggling, who have to pay thousands of pounds in finder’s fees and so on just to rent properties. This is urgent, and I hope we can have some clarity about when that Bill might come forward. That said, I will withdraw the amendment for the time being.

Amendment 208 withdrawn.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Lords Chamber

This is the prime opportunity to clarify in statute our planning system’s role in delivering on our climate change and environment targets and removing the ambiguities and inconsistencies of the current system. I hope that the Government will agree that now is the time to seize this legislative opportunity, because there will not be another in the short or medium term. Now is the time to act.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak next as I have an amendment in this group. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for his excellent speech on his amendments and for meeting with me and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, to discuss the Bill. I was pleased that he mentioned Peers for the Planet; I am not yet a member of that group but I will be a very enthusiastic joiner. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has greatly encouraged me in that respect.

The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, spoke about giving local authorities the tools that they need. That is also an important part of my Amendment 179A in this group, which I will speak to. The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, referred to the Skidmore review and the Climate Change Committee’s work—which are both crucial to his and my amendments in this group—and to having a net-zero test running through the planning system. That is absolutely crucial, and now is the opportunity to do just that.

We have spoken before about the fact that there are some key strategic omissions from the Bill. Ensuring that climate change is fundamentally enshrined in law in the planning process is one of the most critical. My amendment is designed to address this too, by including it as one of the key purposes of the planning process. Over 80% of councils have now declared a climate emergency, with a pledge to net zero sitting alongside that, so surely it is time that the Government and legislation caught up and helped provide the tools to do that. The amendments in this group are designed to set out: first, an overall purpose for the planning process; secondly, to make absolutely sure that that includes the sustainability of all development; and, thirdly, to ensure that every individual development proposal is assessed to ensure that it is part of the solution to climate change, not adding to the problem.

As far back as November 2021, the Local Government Association commissioned a wide-ranging report to show how critical the local contribution to climate change could be. There are many important contributions recorded in that report, including one from Richard Blyth, head of policy at the Royal Town Planning Institute, who said:

“Collectively local activity and investment (for example on housing, infrastructure, water management) will only contribute positively to the ambition to leave the environment in a better state if there is a shared spatial framework for improving local environments”.


He pointed out that the Environment Act could take this only so far, but some of the measures it contained risked adding to the piecemeal landscape of environmental plans without clear directions for economic decision-making. The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, referred to the piecemeal approach that results from some of the provisions in the Environment Act. The only way of ensuring that a holistic approach is taken to environmental issues is to ensure that all the relevant issues are built into local plans and considered for each development, whether that is water, flooding, soil, air quality, transport, access to open spaces, biodiversity, energy, waste or the whole-life carbon impact of buildings. These should all be part of the consideration of planning.

Net zero can be achieved only if decarbonisation happens in every place, everywhere across the country. These amendments would incorporate in the Bill plans for an overarching clause that would do just that. At the moment, if the overarching framework of the national management development plan, whatever it contains in relation to net zero—I am probably not the only one in this Committee who fears that this will be nowhere near ambitious enough in response to the climate emergency—does not have a corresponding network of local plans setting out clearly how development will take a radically new and ambitious approach to this, we will, I fear, continue to move at the current snail’s pace.

Local plans also need to reflect the needs of mitigation of climate change. In a paper from the University of Strathclyde by Dr Hawker and Dr Wade, they say:

“In particular, local planning decisions around land use and infrastructure must be made with acknowledgement of their implications for living with climate change. For example, increasing green spaces can support drainage in urban areas, helping to alleviate future flood risks”.


We have seen some magnificent examples in recent years—for example, pocket parks in high streets, which help with flooding issues—but they are by no means common enough yet. Local authorities often hold large building portfolios, including social housing. If they can be supported with long-term future funding, they can take action now to ensure that properties are energy efficient and much more cost effective for residents.

At Second Reading in the other place, the Secretary of State’s contention was that proposals in the Bill would strengthen environmental protection. He explained that a National Planning Policy Framework document would be published in July—that is July last year—setting out how environmental outcomes were to be driven. As far as I know, that document has not yet been published by the department. So, while we await specific policies on specific aspects of tackling environmental outcomes, fundamentally writing climate change into both development planning and mitigation measures for the planning system of the future is the only way of ensuring that they reach every part of the UK. If we do not do so in this Bill, we will have missed a huge opportunity to align the planning system with the climate change goals that should be right at its heart.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 179 and 271 from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. I thank him very much for bringing them to your Lordships’ Committee. I will make three quick points.

First, I do not understand why the Government are not using this Bill as a vehicle to embed the approaches that they have signed up to on net zero and climate change targets more generally. Surely this is the ideal legislation to ensure that our planning system supports what the Government say they wish to do.

Secondly, the noble Lord quite rightly mentioned the Skidmore review, which is very telling, and we have also heard from the Climate Change Committee. However, the National Audit Office’s report should not be ignored. It said that

“there are serious weaknesses in central government’s approach to working with local authorities on decarbonisation, stemming from a lack of clarity over local authorities’ overall roles, piecemeal funding, and diffuse accountabilities”.

The Government need to listen to the National Audit Office, because that is based on its expertise in monitoring and evaluating what local authorities are doing and the confrontations they are having on some of these issues due to flaws in the current local planning system and arrangements.

Thirdly, my background is mainly in health, and there is no doubt that unlocking economic growth through planning reform, as was highlighted in the net zero review, could achieve real health benefits by fully aligning our planning system with climate change and nature targets. The point has been made by the UK Health Alliance on Climate Change, which says that a healthy neighbourhood can also be a powerful levelling-up tool, leading to better mental and physical health and well-being outcomes through active travel, social connectivity and access to green spaces. Statistics published by the UN only a few days ago show that life expectancy in this country has deteriorated dramatically in comparison with many other countries since the 1950s. We were then one of the top countries for life expectancy; now we are in danger of dropping out of the top 30.

There is such a persuasive argument for tying in strong public preventive health with what must be done on climate change and net zero. Surely the planning system is one of the most powerful levers that we can use to make it happen. I hope we will come back to this very important matter on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for her response so far. Can she pick up the points that the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and I made about the piecemeal nature of how this works and the legislation that informs planning? The Minister herself set out some of the many pieces of legislation that come together to drive forward the statutory framework instilling this in planning, but at the moment that makes for a fairly piecemeal approach that requires drawing together. These amendments were tabled to enshrine in legislation the overarching purpose of building sustainability into the planning system.

I think everybody who has spoken has made the point that the National Planning Policy Framework is not statutory; it is guidance. Different planning inspectors will interpret the local authority’s interpretation of that guidance differently. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and others outlined, sometimes the most ambitious authorities find themselves coming into conflict with their planning inspectors in this respect, because they do not accept the ambition that has been put into their local plan. Can the Minister pick up those points?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

A number of pieces of legislation from a number of different areas of government and beyond have an effect on net zero, sustainability and climate change. That is going to happen. I know that this was brought up in our meetings with noble Lords prior to the Bill, and it is a complex area. I will once again try to show your Lordships how this all fits together to ensure that we are all working in the same direction and delivering what we know we want for climate change, net zero and sustainability.

--- Later in debate ---

I will briefly conclude by saying that I strongly support what my noble friend Lord Foster of Bath said about electrical safety. There seems to be absolutely no reason or argument to oppose his amendments, which would ensure that those who occupied short-term lets and dwellings, or indeed any accommodation, had a guarantee of a safe environment in which they could operate.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, in an earlier debate on these topics on Monday, we heard the noble Lord, Lord Foster, discussing Southwold, where I spent many happy hours on holiday as a child and which now has, if I remember my figures from Monday rightly, only 500 permanent homes out of 1,400 homes. In that same debate the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred, as he did again today, to the fact that have not just a numbers problem but a distribution problem around the country because of the lack of available data.

We are all aware of the considerable issues presented in parts of our country related to second homes and short-term lets. That situation was clearly articulated by my noble friend Lady Hayman in our debate on Monday, when she articulated that communities are hollowed out because of the second homes left empty for large parts of the year, which means that all the community facilities that permanent residents need struggle to be viable. In addition, we see local house prices forced out of affordability for local people as second homes and holiday lets contribute to the housing pressures.

An amendment creating new use classes for second homes or holiday lets was rejected in the other place. Although amendments on the same subject were withdrawn on Monday, I hope that we come back to this, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Best, because it is critical that we tackle this issue. In the House of Commons, the Government claimed that these were not necessary as neighbourhood plans could create principal residence policies. However, I wonder whether the full extent of this issue and its impact, particularly on rural and coastal communities, has been properly assessed and understood. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, would enable the collection of data relating to this problem which might help to develop the picture further. However, we should encourage the Government, through the Minister, to consider this matter as urgent; it may already be too late for some of the communities worst affected. Surely we will not abandon these communities to the opportunities they offer for a small number of people to make a fast buck.

On the amendments tabled to Clause 210, which were clearly articulated by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, we too are interested to hear the Government’s thoughts on the registration of short-term rental properties. It was interesting to hear about the work of the Built Environment Select Committee in that respect.

In the Commons, Ministers referred previously to the ongoing consultation on this matter—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, referred to it again this afternoon. What is the outcome of that consultation—it has not been published yet—and what conclusions will the Government draw from it? I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to this in an earlier debate on this topic.

I was very interested in the comments on the work of the Built Environment Select Committee, and it is fascinating to hear that this issue sits with the DCMS rather than DLUHC. I hope the Minister will respond to that. It is disappointing to hear that a Minister thinks that the whole Bill has already been enacted. In view of the fact that none of these issues has been dealt with, I think we are glad that it has not been so far, and I am sure that noble Lords here will improve the Bill as we go along.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

May I just briefly say, as a matter of courtesy, that the reply to the letter that I referred to came from a Minister in the other place? I just thought, in all fairness, that I should make that very clear.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that clarification.

The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, set out the four questions asked by his amendments, and they are all very important questions on which I hope we will hear further from the Minister, particularly Amendment 446, which addresses how this is going to be paid for. That is one of a number of questions on fees and costs that appear about many other clauses of the Bill, so I hope we will have responses to those questions.

The amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Foster, largely relate to ensuring that the safety of short-term let properties is not left to chance. It is particularly important that properties left empty for periods of the year are subject to detailed regulation on safety matters. This would also encourage absentee landlords to ensure that their responsibilities are met. Recently, we have seen increasing pressure on social landlords to address safety provision—in fact, there are very stringent new requirements on them—so it is clearly an issue that the Secretary of State takes seriously. We should not have what would amount to an exemption for the owners of short-term let properties in this respect. I hope that may be addressed.

The noble Lord, Lord Foster, also referred to the difficulty of enforcing licensing restrictions without data from booking platforms. Although I agree with him that booking platforms may be unwilling to release that data, it is really important and, without it, enforcement is difficult to address. Local authorities would struggle without effective data collection methods to enforce some of the matters raised in this debate.

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred to the perverse incentives that exist between council tax and business rates. This is really important to data gathering: there is no incentive for councils, because if they collect business rates, they have to send it all off to our good friends at the Treasury, whereas if they collect council tax, they keep it to deliver services to their communities, so there is not much incentive for them to get matters straight here.

My noble friend Lord Berkeley referred to the importance of being reassured of the safety of the building, regardless of the length of time of the let. If you stay somewhere, even if just overnight, you want to be assured that the building is subject to the same safety regulations as would apply anywhere else you stayed.

Turning to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, I am very sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, is not in her place today and I hope he will send her our very best wishes for a speedy recovery. He spoke about evidence to the Built Environment Select Committee from south Devon. I heard a great deal on this from my former colleague on the District Councils Network, Judy Pearce, who is the leader of South Hams Council and has been a powerful advocate of a great deal more action on second homes. The suggestion of pilot schemes—or taking advice from Wales, as I am sure my noble friend Lady Wilcox would say—is always a very good idea.

On 21 March, it was reported that changes aimed at restricting the way that homes can be turned into Airbnbs were being introduced, as the Secretary of State for DLUHC was going to bring them in. He acknowledged a problem with holiday lets preventing young people accessing jobs and homes. Can the Minister give us further information on whether that will come into the Bill as government amendments and when we will see government amendments to this effect?

Those are our comments on the amendments submitted. We support the amendments on registration and we certainly support the amendments on safety.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register as the owner of a second home in Pembrokeshire, one of the three local authorities that is introducing a licensing scheme—actually, it is not introducing a licensing scheme but a 300% increase in rates unless you rent your house out for more than six months, which I generally do.

This group of amendments concerns the operation of the short-term letting registration scheme introduced by the Bill. To start with Amendment 180, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Foster of Bath—I, too, send my good wishes to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and hope she recovers swiftly from Covid—I start by acknowledging the important topic this amendment raises relating to holiday lets and second homes.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

183: Clause 85, page 94, line 8, at end insert—
“(3A) After subsection (4) insert—“(4A) A local planning authority must review and update the development plan at least once every five years.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require local authorities to review and update the development plan at least every five years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, as we begin our discussions on the detail of the planning section of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, it is important to explain that, although our amendments necessarily cover the detail of the various clauses, there is huge concern in local government about some of the fundamental principles that underlie the proposed changes in the Bill. We absolutely must ensure that local plans, with the input of local people and democratically elected representatives, retain their primacy over anything that is drawn up centrally in Whitehall.

As currently written, whether intentional or not, the Bill would give primacy to the national department management policies, which is a very significant change indeed from the National Planning Policy Framework that currently exists and which, as we discussed earlier, is guidance rather than statue. We all recognise the need to have a framework to guide planning policy, but it should always give primacy and flexibility to local areas to ensure that planning meets their local needs, enables the voice of their local residents and businesses to be expressed through the planning system, and meets the test of local democratic accountability that is so important in shaping our places.

Noble Lords will have received significant numbers of briefings on this part of the Bill, as we have, from some of the most respected bodies in this field: the Local Government Association, the Royal Town Planning Institute, the Town and Country Planning Association, CPRE and the Better Planning Coalition. It is fair to say that most of them welcome the focus on planning in the Bill, although perhaps some of them, like me, would have preferred a dedicated planning Bill, which would have enabled an even greater focus on what needs to be done to make our planning system fit for the 21st century.

All these organisations focus on the essential element of planning, which is that it must be local and properly engage local people and businesses. The Royal Town Planning Institute, for example, says:

“If those living in newly devolved areas are going to truly benefit from the Bill they need to be given the planning freedoms to innovate and deliver planning policy that works best for them. We’ve seen that development management policies can be an effective tool to stimulate growth, provide energy, transport and housing decisions strategically, and experiment with different policy options to meet local needs.”


The Local Government Association expresses considerable concern about the ability to retain local autonomy and decision-making over plans in the light of the NDMP proposals in the Bill, saying that,

“in reality, local plans will be constrained in the event that they conflict with National Development Management Policies, in which case the latter will take precedence. We have previously sought an amendment to reverse this proposal so that local plans will take precedence in the event of conflict. This is critical to ensure that that one of the key principles of the planning reforms—‘a genuinely plan-led system’— is enshrined in the Bill.”

The LGA goes on to emphasise that local councils should have the flexibility to respond to local, complex and changing circumstances.

The CPRE has gone to the extent of seeking extensive legal advice on these issues. It strongly supports our Amendments 189, 190, 191 and 192, as well as an amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. It has provided a detailed legal critique, particularly regarding Clause 86, which questions whether there is any legal scope for local development plans and NDMPs to vary from each other in any way, which, as it puts it, is likely to dissuade local authorities from seeking to set local policies for fear that they will be rendered obsolete by subsequent changes to NDMPs. It goes on to comment that according to Clause 86 as drafted, if there were to be a tension between a national policy and a local one, there could be no assessment of balance. The national policy would always win out, despite its not having been given any democratic scrutiny. The decision-makers’ scope to make a locally appropriate decision is therefore removed.

The CPRE is also concerned about the fate of neighbourhood plans under this proposed new system, as it says they could become out of date quickly if NDMPs change—for example, if there is a change of Secretary of State, which is not an unusual occurrence in recent times. For communities which have spent months or years working on their neighbourhood plan, this could destroy their trust in the planning system. The CPRE’s legal opinion from Landmark Chambers in November last year demonstrated that the Bill is a radical departure from the current system and would elevate NDMPs to the top of the planning hierarchy, a position which the Government at Second Reading stated was not the intention of the legislation. However, it appears from the way the Bill is currently drafted that it takes planning into uncharted waters which are both centralising and undemocratic.

We come to this important group of amendments with that backdrop, which is a very important context against which we should consider this section of the Bill. My Amendment 183, along with amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Lansley, address issues relating to how local plans are kept up to date. I have to say that planning officers may feel that they are already in a situation where local plans are permanently in preparation. That is because the many stages of plan preparation take a long time, as does the process of inspection, public inquiry and so on. All this means that by the time you have a full plan in place, you are already dealing with the review of that plan.

However, with the pace of change, rapid developments in the economy and the need to take account of demographics and changes in our communities and to tackle climate change, we must ensure that we simplify and enable the renewing and refreshing of development plans every five years. This would ensure that local authorities do not have to face the cliff edge of an enormous, complex and expensive planning exercise which would result in the longer intervals of up to 30 years given between plan reviews. This will require corresponding changes within the Planning Inspectorate, but they would need to be considered in relation to the Bill in any case.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 20th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and to join her in commending the noble Lord, Lord Best, and his expert collaborators on tackling a huge issue for communities up and down the land, but particularly for some of our most disadvantaged communities. It is important that we put this in the context of where we are now. Since the late 1970s, about half of all public land— 2 million hectares in total—has been sold from public to largely private hands. That means that local government has 40% less landholding than it did four decades ago; the NHS estate is down by 70%.

What we have seen, as we have heard from other speakers in this group, is not just a loss of land—people might or might not have ideological views about that—but a loss of capacity, facilities, access for local people, and the simple destruction of what had been a public resource. I think of one of these that I visited a few years ago on the Isle of Wight, a particularly tragic tale. The Frank James Hospital had been donated as a charity—a beautiful, big piece of land. It was a public facility that over decades—the best part of a century—the public had raised money for and put money into, but was sold 20 years ago to a developer and is still sitting there rotting.

Closer to us here, some noble Lords may know of Caxton Hall, which was a huge centre of historical interest and a place to hold public meetings in the vicinity of Westminster, at one point fairly affordably—something that anyone who has tried to organise one of those will know is a very rare breed indeed these days. Now it is, of course, private flats.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, has hit on something really important here, and I offer to do what I can to work with him if he wishes to take this forward into the next stage of the Bill. We have lost space for political campaigning. We have lost space particularly for our young people—those public spaces were often where young people gathered and where they were not surveilled, overseen, and expected to spend money; they were just a public space for young people to gather. So much of that has been lost. As I think the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, said through the ventriloquism of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, this is very much a levelling-up issue. When you go to the poorer communities around our country, the public spaces have been sold off, but they also do not have even private spaces that you could rent because there is not enough money to support that kind of private space. This is a crucial issue to pick up in the Bill.

I will briefly comment on the Government’s Amendment 165, which broadly concerns the principle of choosing to dispose of land for “less than best” consideration. It is an excellent idea. The example that comes to mind is of a police and crime commissioner deciding to give at very low cost, perhaps even at peppercorn cost, a piece of land that might be used to build a youth centre on—that facility that we have lost so terribly in most parts of the country. That would clearly be a very good thing for a police and crime commissioner to do, directly serving their mandate.

What worries me a little about this is the Secretary of State consent element, which is just one more centralisation. I wonder whether there should not be a range of local and regional bodies having an input, rather than it coming down to Westminster. None the less, I applaud some degree of progress.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been an interesting debate on a number of important amendments. It is, of course, essential that these new combined county authorities and constituent local authorities should be able to use land in their ownership and negotiate with partners to use land resources to create facilities, regenerate their areas, and make best use of the scarce land resources we have. The other reason this is so important is that making best use of these brownfield and previously developed sites affords the ability to make environmental protections to those parts of the country where we do not wish to see development. That is another reason for doing this. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, also takes into consideration the fact that there may be attempts to frustrate development. That certainly struck a chord with me, as the saga of the development of my town to the west of the A1(M) has dragged on for over 27 years without resolution—but that is enough about my personal pain.

I welcome the Government’s amendment on the issue of there being no specific provision relating to disposal below value. This is a big issue for local authorities whenever we are looking at these things. I think there is a degree of misunderstanding about it in local authorities, where a lot of arguments go on between the legal side and the policy side about how the power of environmental, social and economic improvement works, in conjunction with the audit side of having to achieve best consideration. I hope that these amendments will help to resolve some of these issues. The ability to empower PCCs to include considerations other than monetary value alongside local authorities is welcome, although I will come on to some of the issues around that in a moment.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, rightly pointed to the very steep price rises and the 160% inflation that is currently linked to valuations. The words of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, channelled through the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised the issue of the assets available to more deprived communities and what we do about making sure that we do not exacerbate that rather than using the powers of the Bill to level up. Using the power of land to provide preventive facilities—as in the example the noble Lord, Lord Best, used—which will do long-term good for the community and potentially save long-term revenue funding for the public bodies concerned is a really important way forward for determining how the value of land is determined in the first place. If it is going to provide facilities for that community and save revenue for the public body in the long term, surely that ought to be one of the considerations we can take into account.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester highlighted the outdated nature of the figures currently used. This has been one of the common themes of the data used that we have highlighted throughout the consideration of the Bill. We must get up-to-date data here, otherwise we will end up giving ourselves problems that we should not need to have.

Turning to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, he made a very clear exposition of why the need to be able to make best use of public land—and therefore improve the built environment—is crucial to levelling up, and how the use of public land charters could help. It was interesting to hear that the work of the Select Committee had looked at that closely and determined it.

We cannot blame hard-pressed public bodies, which are so desperate for cash, for sometimes having to go for the option that will give them the most funding when looking at valuations on their land. Of course, the long-term solution to that is to fund public bodies properly in the first place—they would then not have to make those tough decisions—but we are where we are with that.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

173: Clause 77, page 86, line 23, at end insert “and it has considered the historical, cultural or archaeological significance of a name change”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires cultural, historical and archaeological factors to be considered before making a name change.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

My Lords, I come to this amendment with a deal of frustration about the clause being in the Bill at all. I have a great deal of support for the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, to Clause 77 in that I really have no idea what such an issue is doing in a Bill aimed at tackling big, strategic issues of levelling up and regeneration—never mind devolution. We have been told many times in debates on this Bill that the Government’s business is not to intervene with matters when they should be devolved to local authorities. So I can only assume this is there to pacify a noisy bee in someone's bonnet, perhaps on the Back Benches in the other place. The inclusion of this clause is even more peculiar when you consider the major issues that we think have either been left out of the Bill or skipped over, like local government finance, the business rate discussion we just had, proper consideration of environmental issues, delivery of social and affordable housing and even the Government's own levelling up missions, which are considered too transitory to be included in the Bill.

In my opinion, councils are perfectly able to deal with issues relating to street names without government legislation or intervention. If there are legal issues relating to that, perhaps they need to be covered. However, being realistic, I am aware even in my short time in Parliament that bees in Back-Benchers’ bonnets can be exceedingly loud and powerful. So if we are not going to persuade the Government that this clause has no place in a strategic Bill, my thought was that we had better make it add some value to the existing process for street naming.

Because I live in a town that was subject to a fantastic and visionary master plan back in the 1940s and 1950s, it was designed so that street names are zoned. For example, in one part of the town, you have streets named after women pioneers, which I really approve of: Ferrier Road, Nightingale Walk and—my favourite—Pankhurst Crescent. Another area is great architects: Telford Avenue, Wren Close, Nash Close and so on. So with a modicum of knowledge of my town, you can navigate your way around. Our street naming committee maintains a list of further names for that area to allocate as developments occur, upon which extensive community consultation takes place, as you would expect from a co-operative council.

I presume that this clause is aimed at tackling issues which arise when it becomes apparent that an individual after whom a street is named does not have quite the gilded reputation that they may have done previously, or when our view of part of our history as a country alters because of cultural changes. That will happen from time to time; there is nothing wrong with that so far. But surely it is in a council’s gift already to consult with local people, set out the reasons for the change and get on with it.

My first amendment is to ensure that appropriate thought is given to the context, history, potential connotation and local perceptions of the proposed change. In relation to the point about archaeology, I think this does need consideration, as a brief search will determine whether any future development is likely to reveal earlier uses of the land which can help in determining new names. For example, the huge hoard of Roman coins which was found on one of our estate developments resulted in the proposed road names being scrapped in favour of Augustus Gate, Valerian Way and Jupiter Gate, to remind us of their Roman history. That is the kind of thing that can occur with a very brief search before naming occurs.

On Amendment 175 in my name, if we must prescribe the process for changing street names—my preference is obviously that we do not—then it is vital that effective consultation is carried out with all of those who live in the area and those who may have businesses there. For those who are resident, I hope it is obvious that they should be consulted. For business owners, there may be a cost involved—sometimes considerable—in changing their business address and ensuring they are given adequate time to assess and comment on any change is clearly vital. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

We cannot, at this stage, prescribe particular percentages to particular situations. This is to be worked through in regulations and guidance, which was, as I emphasised, the approach that respondents to the consultation felt was right: we should not be unduly prescriptive in primary legislation, but rather allow for some flexibility at local level depending on the situation under consideration.

I turn to Amendment 175 in the name of the noble Baroness. As I outlined, our view is that local people should have the final say on these matters, particularly, as the noble Baroness’s Amendment 173 demonstrates, when it comes to their local heritage. In this context, I agree with the underlying intent behind this amendment. There should be clear processes for making sure that views from all relevant groups that might be affected by a street name change are taken into account. It is, however, important that we do this in the right way so that the processes are robust but can be adjusted if needed.

The approach in these amendments would be prescriptive and would limit our ability to go further than simply consultation by making local views determinative, as the clauses do at present. But I want to reassure the noble Baroness that we will be setting out clear, transparent and robust arrangements in secondary legislation, as we set out in the consultation I already mentioned. In addition, by setting out the detail for how consultation on street naming will work in regulations and guidance, we can maintain flexibility to update processes in line with different local circumstances and changes such as new technology. I hope these remarks are helpful in explaining the Government’s approach to what is a sensitive issue.

My noble friend Lord Lansley asked whether there were any local Acts of Parliament that might affect this issue. I am advised that the Oxfordshire Act 1985 might be relevant here. I think I had better do further research for my noble friend to find out whether there are others—but that was the advice that I have been able to receive.

On his other question of the power to name new villages, I have no direct experience of this. My understanding is that what normally happens is a conversation between a private developer and the local authority and an accommodation is reached. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, who clearly has direct experience of this, is shaking her head, so I do bow to her experience. It would seem appropriate that I look into this further and write to my noble friend once again.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part. I thought this would be quite a short debate, but you never know here, do you? I am also grateful to the noble Earl for, as usual, a very thoughtful and considered response to the debate.

Our contention in tabling the amendments in this group was that the Government’s introduction of this clause to the Bill was kind of bizarre in a way. We have looked at some very key strategic issues in the debates already—we are likely to come to more in the days in Committee to come—around local finance, business rates, environmental issues, affordable housing and so on, and found that there is not as much in the Bill as we would like to see on those. However, what seems to be an issue covered by previous legislation and seems for the most part to be managed perfectly well in local areas—there may be some notable exceptions—gets a whole clause in the Bill.

I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, for his careful evisceration of the clause—that is what it was. He used the term “a clause in search of a problem” and asked the clear question: what is the problem here? He also referred to the impact statement having no reference to this clause. I think the idea is that there may be—let us face it, there probably are—some councils around the country which either insist on name changes that have not got public support or resist name changes that have. But the existing powers, as has been consistently referred to through the debate, require a consultation of ratepayers to vote in favour of a name change, so it is difficult to see where the push comes from.

I know that this issue causes a great deal of concern in local areas if there are things that have gone wrong, but surely the pressure on a democratically elected council would be to make sure they had their residents alongside them if they were going to present a change of name, not to push against that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, talked about the LGA supporting getting rid of this clause. I noted that from the LGA’s briefing. The idea that people really want to get tangled up in these issues in Parliament is odd, to say the least, as far as I am concerned.

The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, talked about measuring sufficient local support. Leaving this to regulation seems, again, to be a huge sledgehammer to crack a nut. If we are going to have regulations around the conduct and timing of a referendum and what percentage is going to get us over the line in terms of what we call our road, that kind of centralised direction has no place in a Bill that is supposed to be concentrating on devolution. I do not want to get caught up in the issue around roads in Haringey particularly. It may be in that case that the consultation did not take place; I do not know.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

I do not think the noble Baroness has understood the issue. This has everything to do with devolution; that is the whole point of the clause.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Well, I think that regulating to the extent of telling where signs can be put and whether they should be painted or printed really is against the spirit of devolution.

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, made good points on what powers local authorities have to name which things. We should not avoid the fact that private developers will of course choose to name things in a way that they think will help them to sell properties in an area. They will choose either road names or settlement names because they think it is in their interest and will help to sell properties. If we are to have this clause—I assume we will, because I doubt the Government will withdraw it—we need to think about this as well. Areas should be named according to some kind of local connection, whether it is history or individuals connected with the area—my second amendment refers to this—and I do not think that this should be entirely in the hands of developers.

I have not changed my view on this clause. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, that it does not have much of a place in the Bill, but if it is going to be in there, when name changes are made we need to think about what the connections are. I am grateful for the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on this. We also need to think about proper public consultation on matters such as this. If it has to be in the Bill, so be it, but local authorities have managed this perfectly well so far and there is no need for a clause such as this in a broad-ranging, strategic Bill. That said, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 173 withdrawn.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 27th February 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

60: Clause 7, page 6, line 33, after “whole” insert “or part”
Member's explanatory statement
This probing amendment means that a CCA can include part of a two-tier council area, rather than the whole area.

[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 ---

[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?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

May I add to what my noble colleagues have said? This goes to the heart of this amendment. We struggle to say how you can have a county with more than one functioning economic area included in that county. To take my county as an example, the south of the county largely relates to London, because some of the boroughs almost are London boroughs, whereas the north of the county relates much more to Cambridge and Bedfordshire. There are definitely two distinct, functioning economic areas within one shire county. The shire counties go back centuries: their economic geographies have changed very considerably since then. If you take the economic geography of my noble friend Lady Hayman’s area, people in Cumbria may even relate to an economic area that includes parts of Scotland. This is not a simple picture around the country.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

Some extremely sensible and logical points have just been made. Perhaps I could address them by pointing out the contrast to what we have seen up to now. Devolution deals, up to now, have typically been put in place in city regions, where they cover the functional geographies in which people travel, commute, work and live.

The Government absolutely recognise that functional economic geographies are far less clear-cut in rural and semi-urban areas, and that the strategic scale and cultural and political resonance of county identities can act as a useful proxy. One can work only on the basis of best endeavours when trying to decide what a sensible area looks like. On a best endeavours basis, deals should be agreed over a sensible geography of a functional economic area, with a single institution in place across that geographic footprint to access more powers. That is the aim.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

I take the noble Lord’s point. The experience we have had with combined authorities is that local authorities’ natural tendency is to co-operate with each other. We have seen this all over the place: they do not want to operate in silos and they look outside their boundaries. Yes, there may well be cases where at the beginning there would seem not to be a particularly good fit, but that does not preclude two authorities, such as those he mentioned, getting together and finding a way through, if they possibly can, to address the mismatches of the kind he mentioned.

Amendment 99 seeks to amend Clause 23 to require a public consultation before any proposal to change the area of an existing combined county authority. We agree that those with an interest in the area should be consulted before a combined county authority is changed. As I said, we will have more to say about this in the debate on the next group of amendments.

Clauses 45 and 46 set out a requirement for a public consultation on any proposals from the local area on changes to the area of a CCA. Where a combined county authority has been established and subsequently seeks to change its boundary, Clause 23 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations for areas to achieve that. The Secretary of State may make regulations changing the area of a CCA if that is something the area consents to, the Secretary of State agrees and Parliament approves the necessary secondary legislation.

We fully recognise the crucial importance of residents in the local area having a say; that is common ground between us. That is why any CCA or local authority seeking to submit a proposal to the Secretary of State to change the area of a CCA must carry out a public consultation, as set out in Clause 45(3). This consultation must take place in the area covered by the CCA. This enables local residents, businesses and other interested parties to have a strong input into any such proposals. A summary of consultation responses is then to be submitted to the Secretary of State alongside the proposal.

Clause 46 provides an additional safeguard to ensure that there is sufficient public consultation. This enables the Secretary of State to undertake a consultation prior to making any regulations to enact these changes if they feel that there has been insufficient public involvement in their development.

We completely agree with the sentiment of Amendment 99, but I suggest that we already have provisions later in the Bill to address this; we will debate some of these in a few moments. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw Amendment 60 and not to move Amendment 99 when it is reached.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased we tabled these probing amendments, because they have brought out some of the discussion we needed to have in these areas. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for her comments. She said that “combined county authority” is a misnomer, and I think she is absolutely correct.

Previous responses indicate that we could include unitaries and counties all within a two-tier area. It is not clear in the Bill what that might mean. In the example of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, with the overlap of economic areas and travel-to-work areas, et cetera, the geography is far more complicated than back in whatever century it was when the county shire boundaries were devised. The purpose of my amendment was to determine whether parts of a two-tier area would be required to join a CCA if it did not work for them. It is really important that we do some more probing around this and think about it more.

We did not get on to the subject of population, which I will come to in a minute. My concern with this is that we have the phrase that the Secretary of State can determine “by regulation” what a combined county authority will look like. That does not seem to me to be in the spirit of devolution in any way whatever. If it is for the Secretary of State to determine that by regulation, I would be interested to know the noble Earl’s view on how that would be conducted in relation to the partners in the local area.

I am grateful for the noble Earl’s extensive response on this, which is an indication that we are moving the debate forward somewhat. I will come back to the issue of the functional economic area. These are not neatly contained now within county council areas. We have heard a few examples of that. We need to focus on that and think about how we might amend the Bill to recognise that.

The noble Earl spoke about streamlining funding. I was grateful for those comments and I am sure they will be welcomed across local government, but when will we see the detail of how that streamlining of funding will work? If he has any more information on that, it would be helpful.

I have a lot of sympathy with what the noble Earl said about city regions. They make a lot more sense—I spent quite a lot of time with colleagues in the city region in Manchester looking at how that works. However, that does not mean that that model can be lifted and put down in areas that are very different in this country. The difficulties that we have set out underline exactly why there must be flexibility for local areas to consider for themselves what the appropriate geography might be for them.

I return to the issue of population size. In previous iterations of these bids for devolution, we were told that any bid under 600,000 population would not be considered. My county of Hertfordshire has a population of 1.2 billion—sorry, 1.2 million; I am exaggerating—which is a very different issue from a rural county that might have a population of only 300,000. That is why this is much more complicated in shire areas. Will the noble Earl comment on whether population issues will be taken into consideration in relation to the size and constitution of combined county authority areas?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

It may be helpful to the noble Baroness if I comment on that specific question. We expect upper tier local authorities with a population of less than 500,000 to collaborate with their neighbouring authorities to agree a sensible geography for a devolution deal. Where neighbouring local authorities wish to join a deal which has been negotiated and have the same level of ambition, we will expect other authorities to take this seriously in order to secure devolution and to avoid areas being stranded. Once again, I come back to the point I made earlier that our experience with combined authorities has shown that this kind of co-operation takes place quite readily. That is the position we have taken currently.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Earl for his clarification. It covers one side of the picture with the smaller county areas. However, larger county areas, where the population may not lean towards a single county authority, should still be a subject for discussion.

I agree that we have several amendments relating to consultation processes and that the other amendment in this group probably sits better with those, so I am happy to postpone discussion of that until the future group. However, the principle of consultation, and recognising the importance of local areas having a say, seems to be enshrined for all the other issues around the setting up and dissolution of a CCA. If it is right for those, it must be right for a change of boundaries too. That is the point we were trying to make with Amendment 99. That said, we have had a useful discussion and I am happy to withdraw Amendment 60 at this stage.

Amendment 60 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

61: Clause 7, page 7, line 5, at end insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State may not lay regulations under this section until he or she has deemed that establishment is supported by no less than 60% of residents in the area.”Member's explanatory statement
This means that a CCA is established only if the Secretary of State deems there is no less than 60% of support from the local residents.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, as we have already discussed this afternoon, the principle of consultation when fundamental changes are being made to governance structures is an important one. Amendment 61 is aimed at establishing the principle of public consultation in relation to the formation of a combined county authority and to setting a realistic threshold for the constitutional reform to proceed.

A fundamental principle of localism is that changes must be made with people and not to them. Without a provision in the Bill like this, it is too easy for a leader or a group of leaders, or even a Secretary of State, to take fundamental governance changes, such as the formation of a CCA, a long way without consulting those who will be affected by them. The complex structure of local government in the UK, which means some areas have multiple layers of local authorities overseeing services, makes this even more necessary. The amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman outlines the process for ensuring that the outcome of the consultation process is publicly available, essentially before any submission to form a combined county authority is made.

Amendment 62 is designed to probe government thinking on the constitution of combined county authorities. With the rolling five-year housing targets potentially being removed, for example, is it the intention that governance structures should be able to consider the impact across a defined economic area, or do the Government envisage that the combined county authority will determine such matters for itself? If the latter is the case, is there to be an arbitration process which will help to determine where one economic area crosses boundaries with another? On the issue of non-constituent members of CCAs, for example, will it be the case that some members of authorities will be required to sit in more than one authority if it affects their economic geography?

Amendment 63 reflects on the nature of levelling-up missions and the significant part of the Bill that refers to planning matters. The Government may have assumed that co-operation between combined county authorities would take place in order, for example, to resolve boundary issues where a service is necessarily delivered across boundaries or where a planning matter either crosses boundaries or requires a facility delivered in one area to have the use of services provided in another. As I make these points, I am reminded of the example of Harlow and Gilston village, which sits in both Essex and Hertfordshire.

Planning history suggests that writing the duty of co-operation on the face of the Bill would be helpful. Whether we are talking about the delivery of missions across rural areas, or in urban areas such as London and Manchester, where the boundaries of CCAs may be complex, guidance and a framework for duties to co-operate would probably be helpful.

Amendment 64 is crucial, particularly as it is difficult to see how missions will be delivered at all with a patchwork quilt of non-coterminous boundaries between public bodies as they are currently constituted. This has been a long-standing issue in local government. The amendment will, for example, enable discussions about the impact of the rollout of ICSs on the potential for future health devolution—a really important issue. If we do not devolve the responsibility for health issues to these new authorities, we will not be able to tackle as effectively the inequalities in health that we discussed in earlier debates on the Bill.

It is welcome to note from the Greater Manchester population health plan that significant benefits have already been recorded for local residents following the devolution of health and social care to the Greater Manchester Combined Authority. This includes a substantial increase in school readiness and a smoking prevalence rate falling twice as fast as the national average. We definitely see the benefits of this, and we want to see it extended across other devolved areas. We would welcome further information from the Government on how they envisage the further devolution of health, police and crime commissioner powers, and other public functions which would enable the progress of the missions.

Amendment 65 is probably shaped by my long experience as a district councillor. We in district councils were very pleased to see the original amendment to Clause 18, which enshrines the role of district councils in determining the future governance of their areas; but I always believe in a belt and braces approach, particularly where the track record for inclusion has not always been consistent. The same applies to my colleagues in the National Association of Local Councils in respect of parish and town councils. We want everybody to be included in these discussions.

Lastly, Amendments 101 and 102 refer to the dissolution of CCAs. The first would require that public consultation take place before dissolution. If there is to be consultation on the setting up of a CCA, it follows that it should also take place if one is to be dissolved. Amendment 102 asks the Secretary of State to clarify, upon dissolution of a CCA, how local powers will be retained, and implicitly suggests that they will not return to central government. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on how that might work for the future. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 127, which appears in my name in this group, and to make a couple of brief comments on the amendments so clearly and comprehensively presented by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage.

I refer back to the terminology the noble Baroness used in the previous group when talking about what the spirit of devolution should be: it should surely be a democratic spirit. The decision about the shape of devolution should rest with the local people, the people who are actually affected. Historically, the perception and the reality of some instances of devolution has been deals done un-transparently, in the dark, in what would once have been smoke-filled rooms. The smoke may have gone, but that lack of transparency remains.

What we are seeking here is a different idea of devolution—devolution that is truly transparent and open, with local people in control of the process rather than having it inflicted on them. With that in mind, my Amendment 127 calls for a referendum to be conducted on whether a combined county authority should be established in a given area. It occurs to me, having listened to the debate on previous groups of amendments, that the amendment should say “established or disestablished”, but we are in Committee so we can explore these things as we go along.

I see that the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, is in his place, so we might have already had extensive discussion about what happened in Sheffield, South Yorkshire and north Derbyshire. I will not, therefore, go into great detail on that, but it is worth noting that Sheffield voted against having a mayor and then, not long afterwards, found itself with a mayor.

I will also give a more positive, more recent example from Sheffield. Sheffield is the largest local authority to convert, through a referendum, from a cabinet-based system to a modern committee-based system of government. I know many of the people who were involved in that campaign, which was led not by political parties but by a local community group. Many people said, “You’ll never get this referendum through. It’s all too technical, difficult and complicated, and people won’t understand.” But the referendum was voted through. It was a real vehicle for a huge amount of debate and discussion in the city about how it was run and administered, and how that could be done better. Putting a referendum in for CCAs would be a chance to have a discussion and a debate, and to really engage local people, which is what we need in our local areas to improve the quality of local governance.

Of course, the other recent example of such change, driven at the local level with decisions made by local people, is the city of Bristol deciding to get rid of its mayor. That was the decision that the people of the city made. Again, some said, “You’ll never get this referendum through; everyone is just going to shrug and it will all be too difficult.” But people were engaged and involved and they made the decision for themselves. Surely, that is what democracy means, and that is why I have tabled this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that these rather lengthy explanatory comments are helpful and that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, will feel able to withdraw Amendment 61.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the noble Earl for his detailed comments on the amendments. I would like to start with a few comments on the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. She mentioned that devolution deals were often done in smoke-filled rooms. I do not think that would have been the case in Manchester because they seem to have cracked the smoking cessation issue in Manchester, which is good to hear. But it is true that there has been an impression that these deals were cooked up behind closed doors. There has not always been a degree of consultation, which is why we have had such a significant discussion this afternoon around what consultation should take place on the setting up of a CCA, the dissolution of one or any boundary changes. The examples that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, gave on the effectiveness of public consultation and referendums in both Sheffield and Bristol illustrate that these things can be done very effectively, if adequate information is provided for the public to have a debate and discussion before they vote.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, raised the opportunity for the Government to issue a statement on consultation, being clear about what the parameters need to be, what the Government’s powers are and what local people can expect to have a say on. That is a vital point.

We also had a lot of discussion under this group of amendments and the previous group on travel-to-work areas. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked whether each CCA is going to have a single economic hub. I do not think that question has been answered yet. We may have multiple hubs in county areas. I will use a local example, as it is the one I know best. In Hertfordshire there are multiple hubs. There are even two very distinct economic clusters: one in the pharmaceutical industry, which is thriving and doing extremely well in things like cell and gene therapy, and one in the creative industries. They are very distinct and different economic hubs within one area. We need to think about how that works in counties where there is not just a simple, single economic hub.

On Amendment 63, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, talked about how previously on this Bill the Government have been clear more than one public authority may be included in the CCA. Non-constituent members have been talked about a lot. If there is more than one public authority in an area—for example, a local enterprise partnership, the National Health Service or a PCC—it can be very confusing when they do not have coterminous boundaries about who is responsible for delivering within that CCA. It is important that we get further clarification on that as the Bill develops and goes forward.

My noble friend Lady Hayman spoke about standards of consultation and the fact that the consultation should be publicly available. Added to our other discussions on consultation, these are important points. I am grateful to the noble Earl for saying that he would come back to us on that strange subsection in Clause 46 that talks about the Secretary of State having the power to say that they do not think that any further consultation is necessary. That will require further clarification.