Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Barwell and Robert Neill

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Tuesday 28th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Barwell]

I will find out from my officials when I leave the Chamber whether my instincts about that were good. I will happily discuss the matter further with the hon. Gentleman, perhaps when I have the opportunity to visit his constituency.

We have been thinking about the question of transition in relation to the new standard methodology, and we will consult on that shortly. I have no doubt that, when it comes into place, a number of authorities at various stages of their plan making will ask whether the Government are suggesting that they should stop and start again using the new methodology, or whether they should complete the plan they have nearly finished and do a fairly quick review. We have given thought to that question. The hon. Gentleman has just asked a related question about the situation in which a strategic plan is in the early stages of preparation and a local plan is nearly complete. I will reflect on that, and perhaps we can have a discussion about it outside the Chamber when I have had a chance to talk to my officials, but I have given him a steer on my instincts.

We have digressed a bit—with your forbearance, Madam Deputy Speaker—but we were discussing Lords amendments 7, 8 and 9, which, as I said, are about giving the Secretary of State the power to produce regulations about the matters that local authorities should cover in their statements of community involvement. Hon. Members will recall that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell)—I do not believe he is in his place today—highlighted this matter on Report. I am pleased that, as I promised, we have been able to table an amendment that reflects the intention behind his amendments.

I turn to Lords amendment 23. The White Paper highlighted the Government’s commitment to legislating to enable the creation of locally accountable new town development corporations. The existing institutions report to the Secretary of State, but there is a strong desire for locally accountable institutions. Lords amendment 23, which was tabled by Lord Taylor of Goss Moor and Lord Best, was entirely consistent with the White Paper and the Bill’s aim of further empowering local areas, and I am pleased that the Government were able to accept it. Several pieces of planning legislation have been introduced in recent years, and the White Paper left open the possibility for further legislation to follow. It is good that, by accepting Lord Taylor’s amendment to the Bill, we have been able to get into statute one of the measures that we set out in the White Paper.

In summary, the amendment would support the creation of locally led garden towns and villages by allowing the responsibility for any development corporation created under the New Towns Act 1981 to be transferred to a local authority or authorities covering all or part of the area designated for the new town. My right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs has tabled amendments on the issue, and I think it might be best if I allow him to speak to his amendments before I tell him how the Government intend to respond to them, to give him the opportunity to persuade me of his case.

I turn to compulsory purchase. In the other place, the Government tabled a number of primarily technical amendments based on further engagement with expert practitioners to ensure that the compulsory purchase provisions will make the process clearer, faster and fairer. Lords amendments 24 to 62, together with amendments 76 and 78, deal with temporary possession to refine the new system so that it will work as intended.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

rose—

[Gavin Barwell]

I was just looking around to see whether my near neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), was there, and he is. I will happily give way to him.

[Robert Neill]

On behalf of those who have engaged with the Minister on this matter, may I say how much we appreciate his time and courtesy? The expert practitioners in the sector whom he and I have talked to regard the amendments as valuable. They are not necessarily the sexiest amendments we will ever see, but they clarify a number of important pieces of procedure. I hope that, in that spirit, those of us who take an interest in such matters may be able to come back to the Minister in due course with further refinements, which may not require primary legislation. I am grateful to him for the way in which he has approached this aspect of the Bill.

[Gavin Barwell]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words, and I have tried to approach the entire Bill in the same spirit. It is fair to say that the Housing and Planning Act 2016 had a rather difficult passage through Parliament, and with this Bill we wanted to build the broadest possible coalition behind the changes that the Government are making to try to drive up the amount of housing that we build. It has been pleasing to see, both in the other place and here today, the fairly widespread support for the way in which the Government are trying to take forward this agenda.

I will briefly describe, for those who do not have my hon. Friend’s expertise in such matters, Lords amendments 63 to 68. They deal with the no-scheme principle; that is the key principle that defines the world in which compensation is assessed when compulsory purchase powers are used. The amendments basically refine the provisions so that they will work as intended.

Lords amendments 69 to 73 extend the ability of the Greater London Authority and Transport for London to make a joint compulsory purchase order for a combined housing or regeneration and transport project. I think I am right in saying that both the GLA and TfL have these powers at the moment, but they are not allowed to use them together on a combined project, which is what we are seeking to allow. In particular, Lords amendment 72 would allow TfL to work with a mayoral development corporation as an alternative to the Greater London Authority.

I thank the experts at the Compulsory Purchase Association and Transport for London for their advice, and Members of this House and of the other place for their constructive contributions to the debate on a very technical area of law. As I said on the first group of amendments, when not so many Members were in the House, I thank one of my most distinguished predecessors as Housing Minister, Lord Young of Cookham, who ably steered these provisions through the other place.

Responding to concerns raised in the other place, the Government tabled Lords amendments 74, 75, 77, 79, 80 and 83, which replace the power within the consequential clause of the Bill so that the Secretary of State’s power to make consequential changes—in essence, when something is spotted after the legislation has gone through that has a knock-on effect on other legislation—is limited to part 2, or in other words only to the CPO provisions. We made those changes because of concerns in the other place about the broad scope of the consequential provisions. The possibility of things being spotted really arises in relation only to the CPO provisions, which is why we have limited this power to part 2.

Lords amendment 81 commences the regulation-making power in Lords amendment 4, and Lords amendment 82 commences the regulation-making power in Lords amendment 9. Lords amendment 84 will apply the same changes proposed by Lords amendment 5 to examinations that take place under the new streamlined procedure to modify a neighbourhood plan that is in force, as introduced by clause 3 and schedule 1.

I commend the Lords amendments in this group, and I will come back in later when I have had a chance to listen to the arguments of my right hon. Friend—and my very good friend—the Member for Arundel and South Downs.

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Barwell and Robert Neill

3rd reading: House of Commons & Legislative Grand Committee: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 13th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Barwell]

My hon. Friend is nodding, and I hope he will therefore withdraw new clause 12.

My hon. Friend went on to raise one of the more difficult points in the new temporary possession regime. As he said, amendment 26 would permit either temporary possession or permanent acquisition of a particular parcel of land, but not both at the same time. A balance has to be struck between certainty for the landowner—he made that point very powerfully—and flexibility for acquiring authorities who are tasked with providing what is often vital national infrastructure.

For linear transport schemes, it is not always possible to determine the precise line of a route at the time of taking compulsory powers. The final details might not be confirmed until a late stage. The acquiring authority must always work within the lines of the limits of deviation, but it will often be necessary to occupy much of the land temporarily in order to construct the scheme, but only take permanent possession of the land that is actually built on. Where this is required, clause 15(3) currently provides flexibility for an authorising instrument to authorise temporary possession of land needed for carrying out construction works, as well as compulsory acquisition of the land needed permanently for the actual scheme, although clause 15(3) does not of course enable temporary possession or compulsory acquisition of the same land at the same time.

On the other hand, I would not wish, for the reasons my hon. Friend so eloquently set out, to give carte blanche to lazy acquiring authorities who cannot make up their minds early enough about what land they need on a permanent basis and what land they need temporarily just to carry out the scheme. I hope it will satisfy him if I say that I propose to issue guidance on what an acquiring authority would have to demonstrate before the confirming authority, which would be the relevant Secretary of State, confirmed an order that attempted to authorise both temporary and permanent acquisition of the same land. With that reassurance, I hope my hon. Friend will withdraw his amendment.

Finally, amendment 27 seeks to ensure that part IV of the Land Compensation Act 1961 would remain in force. The majority of those who responded to the Government consultation on further reform of the compulsory purchase order system in March 2016 were in favour of repeal of part IV, as was the Law Commission. I reassure my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), that compensation under the ordinary rules already reflects the full market value of the land at the valuation date with all its present and future potential, including any hope value for future development—a point he made very forcefully.

The balance has moved more in favour of repeal since the reform of the planning assumptions for compensation in the Localism Act 2011, as these specifically take the conditions as known to the market at the time into account. I accept however that the arguments for and against repeal are finely balanced. In favour of repealing part IV is the argument that it introduces an element of uncertainty and unknown risk about liability for compensation for the acquiring authority, which leads to increased cost for the public sector, for example often through insurance premiums. The Government believe that repeal of part IV will reduce the risk and uncertainty, while maintaining the principle of fair compensation.

My hon. Friends the Members for The Cotswolds and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) have argued passionately that the repeal of part IV would create uncertainty for claimants. Under part IV, a claimant is treated as though they have retained their investment and interest in the acquired land so that they can benefit from any increase in value generated by a subsequent planning permission. My hon. Friends argued that that reflects commercial practice in that overage clauses are routinely included in land transactions.

The perceived clash between commercial practice and the compensation rules might be reconciled if after the repeal of part IV, landowners pressed for overage clauses when negotiating with acquiring authorities over the sale of their land. That might enable deals by agreement to be struck without recourse to compulsory purchase. That is what all of us should aspire to: that acquiring authorities agree deals voluntarily with those who own land.

[Robert Neill]

That is a helpful point. Could the Minister provide some assistance by way of guidance for acquiring authorities to press them into adopting that kind of good practice?

[Gavin Barwell]

I am happy to look at that. I was just about say that the Government are not at present wholly persuaded by the arguments of my hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Chislehurst and for The Cotswolds, so I ask them not to press their amendments on this occasion. As I said, however, the arguments are finely balanced and I look forward to them being explored further in the other place. I am certainly happy to reflect on whether we could strengthen the guidance for acquiring authorities to seek to achieve normal commercial deals in the way that my hon. Friends have described.

[Robert Neill]

I take it that the Minister is not ruling out returning to the matter if more evidence can be put forward.

[Gavin Barwell]

As I think I have made clear, we want to proceed with the maximum possible consensus on the right way of getting a set of rules on compulsory purchase that are fair to the taxpayer, the acquiring authority and landowners.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Barwell and Robert Neill

Monday 28th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Barwell]

The hon. Lady is quite right to say that local authority planning departments have a crucial role to play in tackling the housing problems that this country faces, but she undersells their record of achievement under this Government. She talked about local plans. When Labour left office, 17% of councils had a local plan; today, the figure is 72%.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

Will the Minister also bear in mind that there is great support for local flexibility on planning fees and that many respectable developers and builders would value that flexibility, provided that it was ring-fenced and reinvested in local planning authorities? That is particularly important in areas such as London, where the cost pressures are especially great.

[Gavin Barwell]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. If we increase the resources raised through planning fees, it is essential that that money is spent on extra resourcing in planning departments. He is quite right to say that both local authorities and developers are pressing the case to solve the issue.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Barwell and Robert Neill

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a history to the incremental growth of the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation, which did not prove satisfactory, and as he knows the Government are looking at the matter in a different context.

We seek to introduce proper accountability to the London mayoral development corporation. There was a debate about whether it would be appropriate to give the boroughs a veto, and that possibility has foreshadowed an Opposition amendment. The Government have reflected on the matter, and we take the view that it probably is appropriate and sensible to include a check and balance in the system, but we conclude that, because the Mayor of London is a strategic authority and charged with the economic development policy and oversight for London, the check and balance should not be through any one London borough or group of London boroughs, as they have their own important role, are in any event the statutory consultees on these matters and would have the opportunity to put their views forward anyway.

It is more appropriate if the check and balance mirrors other checks and balances in the GLA’s governance scheme, so that the London assembly, which is democratically elected and represents all Londoners, is able to veto a proposal for a mayoral development corporation by a two-thirds qualified majority vote.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Government for accepting the approach that I outlined in Committee in response to an amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford). Will my hon. Friend confirm that, because of the two-thirds majority to which he refers and the GLA’s electoral system, one merit of the proposal is that it will effectively ensure the need for cross-party consensus behind any MDC designation?

[Robert Neill]

My hon. Friend is entirely right, and I am grateful to him for raising the suggestion in Committee, because it fits neatly with an established pattern of working in the GLA. As he rightly observes, the proposal will require any Mayor to achieve a measure of cross-party consensus. The system is established in relation to the Mayor’s budget and the various strategies that he is entitled to bring forward, and it is logical to include such an important issue in the same regime. Not only is there an electoral system in the GLA which requires cross-party consensus for a two-thirds majority, but the assembly is seized of certain powers not unlike our powers in this place to call for people and papers, so it can summon people and, therefore, carry out robust scrutiny.

Importantly, the assembly is also elected on a basis that includes constituency representatives and those elected through a list system, so any London borough that might be affected or concerned by a proposed mayoral development corporation has its constituency assembly representative at City hall who is able to stand up, ask questions and challenge on their behalf. I hope that that meets the Opposition’s point, and that their amendment will not be necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Barwell and Robert Neill

Monday 17th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill]

The right hon. Gentleman is aware that both coalition parties thought that a third party right of appeal was well worth looking at, and we did so carefully—it was not lightly dismissed. The system that the previous Government left in place resulted in people feeling aggrieved. We have concluded, however, that the best means of reducing that grievance is not through the third party right of appeal, but by front-loading the system and giving residents and communities far greater control over development at the beginning, which is swifter and more cost effective.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

16. What steps he plans to take to reduce the dependency of local authorities on central Government; and if he will make a statement.