Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Earl of Lytton Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 17th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, my interest in the matters covered in the Bill as a property professional and landowner are probably well known, as is my vice-presidency of the National Association of Local Councils and of the LGA. I too welcome most of the Bill for reasons similar to those already given by other noble Lords, but it will be necessary to examine the detail. Most of the provisions are necessary and desirable. However, I regret that the housing White Paper is still not with us and will not be until the end of the month. It would have been better—certainly from my point of view—to have been informed of the philosophy the Government are following by having it before the debate.

By way of an overview, I repeat an economic truth I previously made in the deliberations on the then Housing and Planning Bill: from government and departments of state at one end to the happy occupants of their first home on the other, there are few if any advocates for lower house prices either in relative or absolute terms, fuelled as they are by scarcity, revenue, capital growth and personal tax advantage. This is the driver behind all this planning policy. But here is the rub: whereas the costs and hard graft leading to a successful housing development are today, the gains are distinctly jam tomorrow. The discounts from future gains to reflect the interim speculative costs, uncertainty, complexity and delay are, if anything, greater than they have ever been in history and any time I can remember. In short, the complete evaporation of a project’s value is easy: just add an unmeasured dose of risk. Various noble Lords have referred to the cost structures involved. I can relate to all of them.

On responsibilities and resources, the pool needed today is already drained seemingly dry and tomorrow is too uncertain to bridge that gap. I see limited signs that the Government understand this and are willing to address this systemic problem. This goes beyond what the Bill sets out to do.

As we have heard, planning and development is clearly not for novices or amateurs. It is a highly specialised skill, very complex and legalistic, and an activity conducted for high stakes, monetary and community. Even so, we have heard that 2,000 communities have made or are far advanced with their neighbourhood plans. But there are at least 10,000 existing local councils, according to the figures given to me by NALC, and many more still in unparished areas. There is a long way to go. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, referred to just 10% of the population being susceptible to neighbourhood plans. I agree with that statistic. What of the rest? Will they be put off by the entry standards required or the caprice of the outturns referred to so eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege?

I advocate a more aspirational and opportunity-led approach for communities. Some already do it extremely well, but many others do not and see the neighbourhood planning process as a largely defensive measure to keep away unwanted development. I do not see proactivity as a general characteristic of neighbourhood plans. That is not to demean those who have been proactive. It is still far too adversarial generally. With due deference to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, his experience is not quite as I see it in the neighbourhood plan forum dealing with the areas I know best, which are all between London and the coast.

We have principal authorities with inadequate resources to formulate local plans as coherently as they need to and communities with virtually no resources at all to formulate neighbourhood plans. This is coupled with a certain amount of manoeuvring, with each hoping that the other will be the bulwark against unwanted or excessive development. I encountered recently a situation where a local plan made provision for a certain number of houses—it may have been 1,500 or so—of its planned total, ostensibly to be split between a dozen or so larger outlying rural communities but seemingly without suggestion as to how this might be allocated. It is not difficult to imagine the scramble that may result from such an arrangement or the difficulties of making sure that a neighbourhood plan is indeed in compliance with the local plan in circumstances of such a roulette approach to site allocation.

With the benefit of the briefing I received from NALC, I can summarise by pointing to the fact that local councils are the neighbourhood plan driver. The neighbourhood plan process must be operable at community scale. The powers must be given and the responsibilities that go with them must be accepted. Both require financial and other resource. Done correctly, the neighbourhood plan must be given the status and protection promised or credibility simply fails. It must have tangible prospects for delivery of some sort—cash or kind or whatever—to justify the expenditure and risk to the community of taking it on and assimilating the development that arises afterwards, because it is a question not just of building houses but of how you integrate that over time, especially with large developments in relatively small communities. If the resources are not there, the only other variable is the parish precept. We know how that will be looked at.

The larger proportion of the new homes bonus at the very least should go to communities that meet the required standards. The whole neighbourhood planning process needs to be rolled out to another 10,000 or 15,000 communities with proper resources for them to do so.

I will skip the issue of pre-commencement conditions, so ably covered by a number of other noble Lords, but I will address what I believe to be a general criticism of local government performance in getting new housing permissions under way, because I believe that there is a reason for this to do with the larger management of the process nationally. No amount of finger-pointing will resolve that.

Local authorities are responsible to their electorates, who frequently do not want housing above their local needs. In particular, local government is not responsible for the imposition of the sustainability standards that result in all the investigation into the newts, toads, bats and everything else we have heard from my noble kinsman, the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley. These have enormous up-front costs. Local authorities do not control the activists, who sometimes use the bats, newts and toads as a weapon of resistance, nor the activities of some of the utility and infrastructure providers. Neither the activists nor the infrastructure providers are generally democratically accountable.

Local authorities are not responsible in particular for a planning framework that is still coloured by largely preventive and negative terms, as opposed to positive or proactive ones. When councils do become proactive the private sector often cannot tell, and indeed complains that it does not know whether it is dealing with the objective administrator of the planning code or a potential commercial rival.

My experience of proactive engagement is not as fruitful as the Minister would have us believe, but I ask him this: given that proactivity is not a hallmark everywhere—I am very pleased to know it is working well in the Cambridge area—what is stopping better and more opportunity-led long-term land-use planning and financial dialogue between landowners, developers, communities and principal authorities? Is it some concept of bias or predetermination that is in the way? Will the Minister explain why this seems to be a problem?

I live on the edge of an identified development zone colloquially known as the Gatwick diamond. Gatwick Airport’s owners have recently said that for their own expansion plans alone and not dependent on an additional runway, an additional 13,000 direct jobs will be created by 2025. Add this to the persistent housing underperformance of some local authorities and the fact that some development quota must be accepted from other authorities constrained by the national park status of the South Downs, and it is not hard to see that the developmental pressures are overwhelming.

The Government want more housing. I agree with that. The obvious place to put it is in an identified growth area where there is economic activity. The Bill is insufficient given that the Government’s target is now to produce at least 250,000 or 300,000 homes a year in very short order and will run into the same or greater problems of procedural churn, administrative drag, infrastructure issues, workforce and back-office skills and materials shortages, never mind the sustainable rate of buildout of much housing development. In short, it is a bigger picture. The noble Lord, Lord Porter, referred to the number of unimplemented planning consents. That reinforces my point exactly: we are not proceeding with development.

The risk is of development by brute force or fiat by default and I fear that the results may be, as they have been in previous such circumstances, poor—a solution in local planning terms with little concern for place-making or necessarily for where it is most convenient for people to live, work and have their leisure time, even less for buildings they want to cherish because they work well. We risk squandering the investment, building inappropriate homes in the wrong places and creating the failed schemes of tomorrow. We will not succeed if we do not get right communications and connections between towns and villages and their regional hubs. This matter needs careful consideration.

On the compulsory purchase provisions in Part 2, I am concerned that measures seem to be split between the Housing and Planning Act, this Bill and the Digital Economy Bill. This seems to me designed to confuse rather than simplify matters. I suggest that it will not be long before some astute legal advocate argues that, because various provisions appear in different Acts passed at different times, Parliament must have intended some different mode of application in each instance—I wait to see further. The Law Commission recommended consolidation and greater coherence of the patchwork of compulsory purchase laws going back to the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845. The Government’s approach appears to do the opposite. I will reserve judgment at this juncture on the Bill’s scheme-versus-no scheme criteria—more of that anon.

I broadly support the temporary occupation provisions, but I have had the benefit of discussions with the Compulsory Purchase Association and am aware of and agree with its concerns about the treatment of subordinate interests.

I regret the proposed repeal of Part 4 of the Land Compensation Act 1961. This was intended to prevent profiteering by an acquiring authority. That it is seldom invoked is, I suspect, less a mark of redundancy than it is of its efficacy. If anything, with all the bodies that now possess compulsory powers, many of which are privatised and conducted for profit, this safeguard should be retained even if not in precisely the same form. I therefore agree with the Country Land and Business Association—I am a member of it—which states in a briefing that the safeguards for property owners faced with the use of compulsory powers remain as important as ever and that past examples of appropriation without proper compensation have invariably ended in disinvestment, disengagement and systemic failure.

However, if the Government are as open to discussion as they say, I see this Bill as an opportunity. I suggest that we need smarter ways of working—in taxation and planning strategy at all levels—upskilling of the people necessary to deliver objectives, new ways of constructing homes and of financing, and modernisation of large parts of our infrastructure. Even if all these things are not in the Bill, the opportunity is there. We had better get our act together in this respect if we are to make a success of Brexit.