Building Homes

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Lord Young of Cookham

Tuesday 30th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, there is a lot to welcome in what the noble Baroness has said. I welcome the reintroduction of housing targets, unwisely abandoned by my party 18 months ago. I welcome the flexibility on RTB; receipts for streamlined planning application; cost recovery on planning application; and the long-term housing strategy, on which I hope the Minister will consult widely, particularly with the recent Church document.

On neutrality, what the Minister sounds as if she wants to do is very much like what she voted down last September. Labour said in its manifesto that it would

“implement solutions to unlock the building of homes affected by nutrient neutrality”.

We await that, but the key question, and the missing element in this, is resources. We all want to do what the Minister has said, but her department is unprotected. The forecast is for a 1.6% to a 2.9% reduction every year for the next three years. What she has announced is going to cost a lot of money. I welcome a reinvigorated council house programme. She wants more affordable houses and fewer houses for sale, and within affordable housing she wants more social houses on social rents. That is going to cost. How confident is she that she has the resources? When she goes to the Chancellor, might not she say what she said yesterday? She said that

“if we cannot afford it, we cannot do it”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/7/24; col. 1036.]

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his comments and question. The point is that, without growing the economy, as we need to do, we will not be able to afford any of the public services that we need. That is the first priority of this Government. But we have an immediate housing crisis, so we will do what we can to solve it now, and develop things further as we begin to create the economic growth we need to solve it. But it is not just a problem of government funding; we need to create that affordable housing. The noble Lord will be as aware as I am that it has been more and more difficult to deliver the social and affordable housing that we need through things like Section 106 agreements and other forms of planning gain, so we will need to assist with that as well. But it is a priority that we tackle the homelessness crisis now and we start on the journey of improving the housing supply, because that is the only long-term way to solve the housing crisis in this country. It will take some time to develop the economic background to do that fully, but we can make a start right now.

Lease Extension Policies for Residential Properties

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Lord Young of Cookham

Tuesday 30th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his championing of Crown leaseholders and the Scilly Isles, and for this offer to visit. You do not have to be a Foreign Office Minister to go to beautiful and exotic places. The undertaking confirms that the Crown will act by analogy, but it is well established that Acts of Parliament for England and Wales do not bind the Crown unless the Act expressly states that this is the case or does so by necessary implication. Instructing the Duke of Cornwall is probably a bit beyond my ministerial powers. The undertaking for the Act delivers similar improvements to those that leaseholders would have if the Leasehold and Reform Act 2024 were to bind the Crown directly. The difference is therefore largely a matter of delivery. Binding the Crown to the Act’s provisions is therefore felt to be unnecessary.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

But does the Minister remember the debate on an amendment to the then leasehold Bill in my name on this very subject? Although as she said, in a nutshell, the Crown Estate is not bound by the law on enfranchisement, it voluntarily agreed 30 years ago, when I was the responsible Minister, to abide by its provisions. It has broadly done so in respect of freeholds that it originally owned, but it is not doing so in respect of freeholds that it acquires by an obscure process known as escheat. I believe this is contrary to the agreement that I reached with it 30 years ago, so will the Minister agree to support my amendment to the Crown Estates Bill to close this loophole?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord says, when property becomes ownerless, the land and buildings escheat to the Crown. That includes the Crown Estate and the royal duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall. If a purchaser is interested, the Crown can sell it so it goes back into private ownership, or the leaseholders are able to collectively purchase the freehold from the Crown. The Government recognise very much that when a freehold becomes ownerless it causes significant problems for leaseholders, but ownerless goods and escheat are complex areas of law, as I have discovered since I heard the noble Lord’s original discussion on this, and need to be considered very carefully. The Law Commission has flagged ownerless land as a possible project for inclusion in its 14th programme of law reform; I think we will be very interested to see what comes out of that review.

Spending Commitments to Local Councils

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Lord Young of Cookham

Monday 22nd July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, neither I nor this Government are under any illusion about the scale of the pressures that local authorities are facing. Successive years of underfunding and increasing demand for services have left councils experiencing significant budget pressures and vulnerable to shocks, impacting the services that they provide to local people—these are key services, as the noble Lord set out. These will all have to be considered as part of the next spending review and I am sure that key adult care and children’s services will be very high on the list. I will look at the report with great interest.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness to her post. Further to the question about spending commitments, can she confirm that the firm commitment in the Labour manifesto,

“Labour will not increase taxes on working people”,


applies to council tax?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. Council tax increases, of course, are ultimately decided by local authorities, but the Government are committed to keeping taxes on working people and households as low as possible. We will carefully consider the impact on councils and taxpayers before making any decisions on taxes. Decisions on referendum principles will be part of the next spending review process and of course we will seek the views of local government before we take any decisions on those.

Levelling Up

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Lord Young of Cookham

Wednesday 22nd November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can I ask her some very quick questions? I am happy to take answers in writing.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Lord Young of Cookham

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.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Lord Young of Cookham

Committee stage
Thursday 18th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, we move on to Part 5, “Community land auction pilots”. This was not in the Bill when it went through Committee in the other place so it has not really had any proper scrutiny.

We are asking: why legislate for pilot schemes? Once again, as I mentioned under the part of the Bill concerned with the infrastructure levy, surely it makes more sense to run pilot schemes before legislation is brought forward, not to put them in the legislation. For example, although we on these Benches were very unhappy with the introduction of voter ID, as the noble Earl the Minister knows, at least the Government spent a couple of years running pilot schemes on it before bringing the legislation forward. Can the noble Earl explain the thinking about the process that is being followed, in this case, of putting pilots in the legislation instead of running them before the legislation comes before us?

As we all know, currently, when planning permission is given for new homes, the land in question can increase in value by over 80 times. The vast majority of this goes to the landowner and other players, with very little being captured by the local authority. Community land auctions would give councils the tools to capture much more of the value uplift, which they can then spend on local priorities such as improved infrastructure and better public services. In theory, this sounds like a really good idea but, as always, the devil is in the detail. We need to understand properly how this would work in practice. What will the impact be on developers and how will they react? What consultation took place between the Government, local authorities and developers before this proposal was put in the Bill?

Under Amendment 362, in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock, the objective of community land auctions would be to support sustainable development. I am not going to go into all the reasons for that again now. We have had lots of discussions about why it is important that the Bill focus all the time on the sustainability of the development that will take place as a result of some of its provisions, so I do not need to highlight that any further.

Under Amendment 365, in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock, any relevant combined authority would be given the report to scrutinise. It is very important that we enshrine liaison with local authorities as part of the Bill, and I hope we will be able to do that.

There is also a stand part debate on Clause 127. I will be interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, discuss the purposes and mechanisms of community land auctions. It would be useful to hear about the relationship between community land auctions and the plan-making process, and how they will fit in as the process takes place. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to the proposition in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Lansley that Clause 127 should not stand part of the Bill. My noble friend and I are job-sharing for much of this section of the Bill.

This clause deals with pilots for community land auctions, which aim to give local authorities the ability to benefit far more greatly from new development than they do under the current system, even as proposed in the Bill. Basically, it takes the principle behind Section 106, the new homes bonus, CIL and the infrastructure levy a stage further, but in doing so it risks compromising the integrity of the planning system by moving more towards the sale of planning consents.

The Explanatory Notes to the Bill are normally quite helpful, but the 10 lines on the background to CLAs, on page 126, do not explain what is going to happen. As I understand the proposal, a landowner can name the price at which he is willing to sell his land to the council—it would probably be agricultural land, but it could be industrial land—which then has an option to purchase the land at that price. The price will be somewhere between the current value and the hope value with planning consent. The local authority then develops its plan, and if that land is deemed suitable for housing development, it buys it at the option price and resells it to the developer, pocketing the difference. I assume the Government hope that many landowners will take advantage of the scheme so that the local authority has a choice and the ability to choose best value. I think it clear from that scenario that the local authority has a financial incentive to designate land for development over which it has an option, in preference to land over which it has no option but which may be more appropriate for development. I will return to that in a moment.