Short-Term Letting for Holiday Purposes

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Thursday 2nd March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, as my noble friend will be aware, we discussed business rates yesterday and we are looking at the position of businesses that have had steep increases. Many hotels around the country have not had steep increases and, indeed, some will have experienced a fall in business rates. In answer to the general point, we also need to be aware that many consumers benefit from this. This is very popular, as is evidenced by the fact that it throws up some concerns. We have to consider the matter in a balanced way.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

What steps does the Inland Revenue take to collect tax from the owners of properties that are let out on this basis, including capital gains tax, where a property is disposed of after such use?

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority Order 2017

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Thursday 2nd March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I should draw attention to my registered interest as chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum. I am also, of course, a resident of Cambridgeshire.

Cambridge and Peterborough are two of this country’s fastest-growing cities. They are complementary in their industrial character, but, together, they offer the potential to be one of the leading locations both for high-technology investment and for related value-added activity. To enable this, the county requires more infrastructure, more sites for investment, more housing and commercial development and more skills. All these can and should be more effectively promoted by means of a combined authority taking hold of significant additional investment for housing and infrastructure from the Government, equipping it with local powers and budgets, and seeking a multiplier effect through partnerships with the private sector. I support devolution—and this order. It can have a significant effect in creating and delivering a driver for growth in our area.

In particular, I supported the Government’s initial plan for a three-county devolution deal—that is, Cambridge, Norfolk and Suffolk. Why? In my view, the real potential long-term for East Anglia is to secure Cambridge’s structural relationship to its wider economic hinterland. In reality, that extends into Bedfordshire, Essex and Hertfordshire, as well as Suffolk and Norfolk. That is especially so given the focus on life sciences as a global hub south of Cambridge.

Devolution did not, and would not, fit neatly to the economic geography of the Cambridge economic region so the wider scope of devolution and, for now, that more ambitious approach have been dropped. That does not reduce the need for clear and active strategic co-ordination across several counties in the east of England. I urge the mayor and combined authority to look for those strategic relationships with their neighbouring counties—as I know they will. That, as much as anything, should encourage those working towards devolution deals in neighbouring counties—I know Suffolk is considering exactly this—to seek to create further openings in future for ambitious infrastructure plans on a wider footprint. Investment in Cambridge is strong and sustainable in itself but the long-term economic benefit to the United Kingdom will be maximised only by realising scale and opportunities for supply-chain and linked investments related to Cambridge’s remarkable high-tech pull.

I support the combined authority as set out in this order, but I must be clear that this order sets up a combined authority. Where I live, as a consequence of this, after May I will be represented by a parish council, a district council, a county council and the combined authority. That is certainly one tier, and arguably two, too many. Locally, there is an unwritten assumption that in time the combined authority and the upper-tier responsibilities of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough should be managed in one organisation. Indeed, there is already a single chief executive for both Cambridgeshire County Council and for Peterborough. That process should be taken forward—and quickly. The cost of the combined authority in itself is not large, but the complexity of four tiers of local government could mean that the vision, delivery and progress we make are nothing like as much as they should be. I also urge Ministers to work with the combined authority and local councils to bring the Cambridge city deal, which is important in the management particularly of transport and congestion issues in Cambridge itself, within the scope of the combined authority.

Further, I draw attention to paragraph 4 of the schedule, as noble Lords may not have had occasion to look at that. It implies that no decision of the combined authority can proceed without the mayor’s agreement but also that no budget or transport plan of the combined authority can proceed without a two-thirds majority. In practice, four councils can form a blocking minority, even in relation to a budget or transport plan the mayor supports. Of course, this implies that the combined authority, local authorities and mayor must work collaboratively, and they have shown themselves capable of doing so in bringing the order and this plan into being. However, legislation is like a contract. It must be robust when things go wrong and define what happens when people do not agree. I am far from happy that this is yet the case for the new combined authority. The mayor will have a mandate. The role is about vision, leadership and delivery. The mayor should not readily be able to be blocked. With that caveat, I support this order and I look for ambition in Cambridgeshire to be realised in the years ahead, not least through the mechanism of this new combined authority.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, surprised me the other week by making a favourable reference to me in relation to another matter. I reciprocate by thanking him for clarifying an issue that I have mentioned from time to time: it seems we are facing over time a reorganisation of local government on unitary lines without any involvement on the part of local communities. It is a back-door way of reorganising local government. As the noble Lord indicated, there may be a case for doing that, but it sits at odds with the protestations about local democracy and people being involved for it to be conjured up through delegated legislation of this kind.

Moreover, there has been a very interesting exchange of correspondence between the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee—the initial report of which was really quite damning about the process that has been adopted here—and the Minister, Mr Andrew Percy, on its 25th report, which emerged just last week. In particular, there was reference in the initial report to dissatisfaction on the committee’s part relating to claims of popular support for the notion of having a combined authority—not a unitary authority. In reply, the Minister referred to the point that had been raised. He said that the committee’s Explanatory Memorandum,

“quoted that under the online poll 47% were opposed to the transfer of powers and funding to a Combined Authority. I accept that it did not record that 59%”—

a majority—

“were opposed to a mayor; our intention had been to include this but due to an error whilst the drafting was being refined, this was omitted from the final text”,

for which the Minister apologised. I am sure the committee was very grateful for the apology. I wonder what action has been taken against the unfortunate civil servant who apparently just overlooked that issue. The Minister went on to say:

“I believe it is right to refer to the comment made by the councils that the online survey results ‘aren’t representative of the population as a whole’ and represent a ‘self-selecting sample’”.


Any vote at an election represents a self-selected sample. What is the difference in principle that should apply to a response to the report? It seems an absurd justification.

I find myself deeply suspicious of the Government’s approach to this and other mayoral elections. The history is recent: there was a referendum as to whether there should be a Mayor of London. Later, the coalition Government ordained that there should be referendums in a number of authorities. My own authority of Newcastle—I remind the House I am a member of Newcastle City Council and one of several honorary vice-presidents of the LGA—is one of the authorities that was forced to have a referendum. Most of the referendums resulted in a rejection of the notion of an elected mayor. Through this process, the Government are getting round the verdict in so many places without having the courage—that is all it requires—to seek again the opinion of people who made their position very clear some years ago. The Government would be in a position to argue that they are offering more than just a chance of having a mayor. They are offering the chance of a mayor with enhanced powers, a combined authority with enhanced powers and all the rest of it, but they have deliberately chosen not to offer that opportunity to the people on whom they imposed a more limited version of the process a few years ago. I find that inconsistent and, frankly, rather disgraceful.

I wish the citizens of these two authorities well. I hope that the combined authority works out well and that the mayor works well, but we are seeing an erosion of local involvement in these matters and in areas that have expressed clear enough reservations. Bath was the last one we discussed in this Chamber; it was quite clear that Bath did not wish to have an elected mayor as part of the combined authority. The Government really should look again at their processes in connection with this issue.

Tees Valley Combined Authority (Functions) Order 2017

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Thursday 2nd March 2017 Lords Chamber

I certainly support the proposal, and will always say so, which I hope is some comfort to the noble Lord. Equally, when I think that improvements can be made, either in the proposal or the procedures that precede it, it is important that I say so as opposition spokesperson. It is my job to do that and to ask questions accordingly. I look forward to the noble Lord’s response.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, I endorse my noble friend’s approach to this matter. He has referred to the very different views of the department in relation to local opinion in this case. When we were discussing the previous order, the Minister in the other place said that the consultation was effectively inadequate, unreliable and unrepresentative. On this occasion, he, or at least his department, have had the grace to acknowledge that the “vast majority”—to use the phrase reported in the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report, published yesterday—opposed the mayoral element in the order. Nevertheless, the Government obviously intend to go ahead, given that we are discussing the matter today, with creating a mayoral authority.

The Government are assuming the posture of Henry Ford. Noble Lords will recall that one could have any colour of car as long as it was black; here, people can have any local deal as long as it is mayoral. That is not a choice. Frankly, it is little short of political blackmail. If you do not take this structure, you are not going to get the support. That is not the normal way that Governments of any political colour have operated. It is deplorable that the clear view on that aspect of the deal by the “vast majority” of residents in this area, as the Government acknowledge, is going to be overridden. The Government say, “You have a choice”, but that is not a choice. It is putting the authority and its people in a completely unacceptable, invidious position. The Government should be ashamed of requiring that condition to be met, given the scale of need that the noble Baroness, in particular, mentioned in relation to this area.

Clearly, the order will go through; but the Government ought not to be adopting that stance in relation to this issue.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have participated in this debate on the Tees Valley combined authority order. Notwithstanding the final comments of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, I thank them for their general support—there was certainly support from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, from the Labour Front Bench.

I shall try to address the points that have been raised. First, I had read the comment of my noble friend Lord Eccles that this is not really a valley. I should know that myself because as a child I lived for some time in Hartlepool—indeed, my brother was born there—so I empathise with that. Nevertheless, I am tied by following the title of the document.

It is perfectly true that Darlington, Stockton and Hartlepool are not contiguous. I note what my noble friend Lord Eccles said about whether Durham should look north or south. Of course, we have had the experience of parts of County Durham—certainly South Shields and Gateshead—not wanting to be part of the deal for Newcastle or Tyneside, and that runs contrary to the assertion that this is being imposed by a wicked Government. They had every right to walk away from it, and I keep coming back to that point. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, shakes his head but it is not mandatory for local authorities to have these arrangements. If they do not want them, they do not have them.

There are presumably advantages in them because we have had a welcome for the order from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. In general, he thinks that this is a good thing and he is supporting it—with caveats, which I understand is the role of the Opposition. However, if a local authority does not think it is a good idea, it has every ability to walk away from it. That is what some have done and it is their right to do so. I understand that, but this proposal was in the manifesto and nobody should have been taken by surprise by the Government’s support for the elected mayoral system.

I turn to the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and thank her very much for her generally supportive approach. I think that this arrangement will operate in Tees Valley a little as it does in London, where it has operated in relation to the Olympic park, for example. It is about the strategy there. In the case of Teesside, presumably it will involve things such as the siting of businesses, help for business and transport links, whereas, as the noble Baroness indicated, more detailed and less strategic matters will be decided elsewhere.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in all seriousness for his generally supportive comments, particularly in relation to the North York Moors National Park Authority. We have had discussions there and think that those concerned are very content with the arrangements. I agree with the noble Lord about the need to involve all levels of government. That is certainly what happened when the steel task force was set up—I remember going to its meetings. The task force was very productive across parties and different levels of government in seeking to do the best for the Redcar steel plant and, indeed, for steel more widely, where other issues were also involved.

I take the noble Lord’s point about the consultation. It is not ideal that it should happen over the summer, although, rather counterintuitively, I think I am right in saying—I will correct it in correspondence if I am wrong—that the best-responded-to consultation was the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough one, which took place at the same time. Nevertheless, I take the point that has been made: it is not an ideal time.

I say in all seriousness to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, that some valid points were made but very often the Opposition’s response is to be against the policy, which I can well understand, and they seem to be against the policy for elected mayors. As I said, I shall be happy to pick up in correspondence any points that I have missed.

[Lord Beecham]

I make it clear that the difference between us is that, if there is to be a mayoral system, it should have the support of the local electorate. That is the only difference between us.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

I am relieved that it is the only difference, but it is a difference as to how that is expressed. We believe that it is expressed through the support of elected members of the combined authorities. The noble Lord does not agree. I think I am right in saying that certainly a majority of these authorities would be those with a Labour majority. If these authorities did not want that, they would have every right to say so and not to be part of the system.

[Lord Beecham]

I regret having to say this but the noble Lord seems to overlook the fact that when eight referendums were held several years ago, they were held on the instructions of the Government. The local councils were not invited to say whether they wanted an elected mayor and to have some sort of consultation, as with the process here. They were instructed to have a referendum. That principle was adopted before. Now it has been abandoned because most of those referendums, from the Government’s perspective, went the wrong way. It is not the noble Lord’s fault because he was not in the Government at the time. The noble Lord, Lord Young, might have to accept some of the responsibility, collectively. But this is a different case.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

This is indeed a different case because they were single authorities. These are combined authorities and the expression of the democratic view is given by combined authorities. It is a policy difference. The noble Lord does not like that policy, but it is the Government’s policy.

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 28th February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)]

My Lords, I have brought this amendment back in exactly the same form it had in Committee because I thought the comments the Minister made then really deserved to be re-examined. This is an important issue that ordinary people care about very much. Everyone is very unhappy to find suddenly that something has been given retrospective permission without them having any idea that it was even up for reconsideration.

As the Minister said on that day in Committee:

“How we deal with unauthorised development is an important issue that concerns many people”.


I think that is right. He also said:

“It is important to note that retrospective planning applications must be determined in exactly the same way as any other application, that is, in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise”.—[Official Report, 6/2/17; col. GC 346.]


He then referred to what the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, said about this, which was also interesting. The Minister mentioned that if somebody has deliberately concealed the fact that they are doing development, as in the famous haystack case, they can be required to demolish the property.

What I found most disappointing in what the Minister said was that the local authority concerned does have an obligation to consult people—I put the part about consultation in my amendment because local authorities are not doing so. Certainly, in the cases where I have been affected by retrospective planning permission, the first thing I have known about it is when I received a note saying, “We have granted planning permission” for whatever disastrous thing it was near me. I have met so many other people who have been in the same situation. If there is an obligation to consult the same people whom you would have consulted before, why is it not being done for retrospective permission? It all smells a little bit. Is this because someone is trying to slip something through retrospectively and feels that they will get away without any consultation or having to attach any conditions? It bears looking at again.

I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, who mentioned the serving of enforcement notices. The Minister certainly picked up the point about enforcement proceedings, but I am not suggesting going any further on those issues.

I must reiterate that my interest is declared in the register; I should perhaps have said that at the beginning.

The Minister went on to say, regarding enforcement, that,

“there is already a double charge”.—[Official Report, 6/2/17; col. GC 347.]

I had not appreciated that there was already a double charge, but apparently that is the case only if you have an enforcement notice. There is no extra charge if you have simply not applied and come back to get your permission, and the local authority has not notified those people who should be consulted. Is that because there is corruption, or is it laziness on their part? It is very important to have some way of ensuring that—it really would be good. The Minister said that it would not be helpful to delay effective enforcement action. All of these things are true, but why are they not adhering to the letter of the law as it is? Why are ordinary people suffering? They are finding that, instead of being able to insist that some reasonable condition that would suit everyone in the locality be included in the planning consent, and the planning authority would consider whether it was a justifiable condition to attach, they are simply not being consulted and are getting word after it is all over and done with.

I suggested a penalty fee in that proposal because planning officers to whom I have spoken have said to me that, at the moment, there is no disincentive whatever to going retrospectively for permission. You can be brave and just have a go and you have nothing to lose because you have no disadvantage: if you find out that you have not got permission, you go for it then and it does not cost anything more; you might have saved yourself a lot of time, trouble and bother, and you have just gone ahead with what you wanted. On the idea of a penalty fee, the Minister said:

“It is a matter which I know previous Governments have considered and to some extent grappled with, but in the interests of fairness have decided not to take forward”.—[Official Report, 6/2/17; col. GC 347.]


In speaking to other amendments in Committee, the Minister said that he would be looking very seriously at various things for secondary regulation, as to what should or should not be regulated and what should or should not be considered. However, I believe that this is the sort of instance that should be looked into. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has said to me that this is more complicated than I imagine. I am sure, from his wisdom and knowledge, which is very great on these subjects, that I would accept that that probably is a fact, but it does not mean that it cannot be investigated and looked into. If, as I understood from the answers in Committee, there is going to be all this consideration of future regulations, then this merits being looked at much more closely. Rather than going on and on, because we have an awful lot to get through today, I beg to move.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, this matter was debated briefly in Committee. I made the point then that I had a good deal of sympathy with the intentions of the noble Baroness’s amendment requiring a retrospective planning application, although it did not seem to me that the rest of her proposals—with all due respect—had been fully thought through in terms of how they might be applied.

In particular, subsection (2) in the amendment is unnecessary, because if there was a planning application then, of course, fees would have to be paid. There is also a real problem with subsection (3)—I think I said this to her in Committee as well—which prescribes the payment of an additional charge without giving any indication of how that might be calculated. I suggested that the matter could have gone forward on the basis that that would be determined by secondary legislation, but that has not appeared in this amendment. For those reasons, I am afraid that we cannot support the noble Baroness’s amendment, although I suspect that she will not divide the House in any event. While her intention is very good, the means of carrying it through do not quite meet what is required.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my interest as a councillor in the borough of Kirklees and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I agree with the principle behind the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. The issue that she has brought to our attention is important, although, in common with the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, I am not entirely clear that the amendment that she has drafted will address the fundamentals behind the issue that she is trying to address.

--- Later in debate ---

I am sure that the House will be pleased to know that we are now nearing the end. Perhaps I may tell noble Lords that this speech is a lot shorter than it was originally. Amendment 63 is the Government’s final amendment to Part 2. It is a minor and technical amendment to correct an omission in Clause 33, which inserts new Sections 403A and 403B into the Greater London Authority Act 1999. It ensures that new Section 403B is treated in the same way as new Section 403A for the purposes of paragraph 20 of Schedule 11 to that Act. I beg to move government Amendment 41.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, this speech will be shorter than that given by the noble Lord, Lord Young, and this speaker is, of course, somewhat shorter than him. I congratulate him on incorporating the two amendments which I had intended to move, Amendments 59 and 60, although I note that there was no attribution in his speaking on the matters which substantially cover them. Nevertheless, I am grateful to him for his clear exposition of all these amendments, for the adoption of the two that I would have spoken to and for clearly listening to the comments, criticisms and suggestions from around the House. I am happy to endorse those matters and I will not move the amendments in my name.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for all that he said about compulsory purchase, both temporary and non-temporary. I think that his comments demonstrate the role of scrutiny and the value of this Chamber. I had a great deal to say on compulsory purchase in Committee but now I have virtually nothing at all to say because the matter has been resolved. It demonstrates the importance of talking with expert practitioners. Perhaps I should also repeat what I said in Committee about the large number of government amendments regarding compulsory purchase although the Bill had come to us from the House of Commons as a finished Bill. In this respect at least—but also on the planning side, as we know—it did not merit the status of a finished Bill. However, I am grateful to the Minister and his colleagues in the department for all the work that they have done. As far as I am concerned, we now have a Bill—assuming that all the amendments are adopted—that will make the statutory position a great deal clearer. I shall say something further when we come on to the question of Henry VIII powers, because some powers will still apply to this part of the Bill. For the moment, however, I have nothing further to add.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I add my thanks to the Minister for the proposed changes. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has said what I was going to say and I will not repeat it. The change of wording in the amendment is significant because, as he indicated, it is no longer the case that the Secretary of State has the power to consider something “appropriate”. Rather, he can make provision in consequence of any provision in this part of the Bill. This is much better. Henry VIII powers should never have been applied to the planning chapters of the Bill.

I said earlier that compulsory purchase is indeed complicated and I accept that consequential provision may be needed, which can be taken quickly if there is found to be a further flaw in the legislation that Parliament passes. That said, I seek the Minister’s confirmation that the wording now being used in relation to compulsory purchase is the standard wording used in other Bills. It has been said that there is a power in recent planning Acts for Ministers to make consequential provision. We need to be clear about that and that we are not doing something in the amendment that has not been in any other Bill or Act. I understand that to be the position but would be keen to hear the Minister confirm that there is nothing unusual in the wording of the amendment.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the Minister and, indeed, in congratulating him on these substantive changes, which are ultimately, I suppose, a concession to the powerful arguments advanced, in particular by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and other Members across the House.

It would have been good to see a similar approach from Ministers when we discussed the Housing and Planning Bill at great length last year. It is not a personal criticism of them; the Minister at that time, the noble Baroness, was not allowed to move in the direction in which Ministers on this Bill have been able to move, which I very much welcome.

For clarification, may I assume that my Amendments 71 and 75 are effectively covered by the welcome amendments that the Government have brought forward? That is right, and that is a repetition in the case of the previous amendments. However, I am not entirely clear about Amendment 67 in my name, which requires the Secretary of State to consult the Welsh Ministers before making regulations under Section 38. That proposal was dismissed on the previous occasion, although it had been a matter of strong concern to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, to which the Government’s official response was extremely negative. I do not know whether the Minister can offer any assurance that, whether or not is contained in the amendment, the Government will consult Welsh Ministers. There was rather a general statement that this happens automatically. The purpose of including it in the Bill was to make sure that more than just custom and practice would apply in this case. It would therefore be helpful if the Minister indicated whether the government amendments cover my amendment or, in the event that they do not, whether he will again confirm explicitly that there will be consultation with Welsh Ministers before making regulations under Section 38. It would be preferable to include that in the Bill but, at the very least, a ministerial assurance would carry some weight. In those circumstances, if that were the position, I would withdraw my amendment.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, perhaps I may respond, particularly to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, in relation to Wales. I will pick them up at the end of this part of the review of other noble Lords’ amendments. I once again thank those who have participated in the debate, including my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, who set out a horrifying “Yes Minister” position. I am sure that one or two officials in our department will be listening but it is not regarded there as a training manual—although it possibly is the case in other departments. However, I give fair warning to anybody who thinks it is that it is not. The point was well made.

I am grateful for the welcome given by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, to the position exhibited in the government amendments, as well as by the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Shipley. It was certainly the subject of my fruitful discussion with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who was instrumental in putting a strong case.

I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that the wording is the usual wording. I hope he is reassured by that.

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Thursday 23rd February 2017 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Beecham]

5: Clause 7, page 8, line 14, at end insert—
“(1CA) The development plan documents must contain references to—(a) a threshold for social and affordable housing in the area;(b) the impact of the proposals in the documents on energy efficiency in dwellings and infrastructure in the local area;(c) flood protection for the local area;(d) the impact of the proposals in the documents on air quality in the area;(e) the provision of green spaces and public leisure areas; and(f) education, health and well-being needs of the population.”

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, this is the second last amendment to Clause 7. It is striking that in a piece of legislation called the Neighbourhood Planning Bill only seven pages out of 49 relate to neighbourhood planning. Perhaps at Third Reading the noble Lord might care to move that the title of the Bill should be somewhat different, because most of it relates to a wider issue.

Having said that, Amendment 5 proposes that a series of issues should be reflected in development plan documents. In Committee, the Minister stated that all these matters are covered by the National Planning Policy Framework, but in fact they are not. There is no mention in the NPPF of social housing, although the word “affordability” comes into it, and there is no mention at all of education, so in that respect the noble Lord was mistaken.

In any event, I argue that it would be sensible to include within the development plan specific reference to these requirements. Members of the public will not be terribly familiar with the National Planning Policy Framework, and I venture to think that some Members of your Lordships’ House—including, I confess, me—are not necessarily fully au fait with its provisions. What is the problem with setting out in what is to be a local document the matters that ought to be considered and then dealing with them? That seems a perfectly sensible way to go forward. I hope the noble Lord will reflect on that and agree that, after all, it makes some sense.

I also want to speak to Amendment 8, which deals with two-tier authorities—a county council and a district council. The object of the amendment is to try to ensure that there is a good working relationship between the two authorities. Where a district council does not carry out its planning responsibilities, it is perfectly reasonable for the Secretary of State to have the power to invite the county council to get involved. However, the amendment sets out some conditions relating to that and, in particular, will protect the lower-tier planning authority provided it can demonstrate that it is dealing adequately and efficiently with the timetable for the preparation of the plan. Conversely, if it requires another planning authority to become involved, the provisions of the amendment will not be invoked.

I think we have to tread somewhat carefully around the relationships in two-tier authorities. I hope that the Minister will accept that the amendment will assist better relationships by ensuring that the position of the district council will be respected unless it demonstrates a failure to respond adequately to the requirements of the situation. I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I support Amendment 5, which contains an admirable list of the documents that a development plan should cover.

I shall speak to Amendments 7, 8 and 8A. Amendments 7 and 8A relate to the same issue in Clause 9 and Schedule 2. We had a longish discussion in Committee about the capacity of a county council to undertake the planning function where it was felt that a district council had not been fulfilling its obligations. I have thought very carefully about this and have concluded that Amendment 8, which stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and to which support has been given by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, seems a reasonable compromise. It provides a procedure that can be followed and it would probably command broad support in the country. Therefore, I hope very much that the Minister will feel able to accept Amendment 8, or at least come back at Third Reading with something similar.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

We do not want the county council network deciding on arbitration.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I am still recovering from the shock of the support of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for anything I have said in this Chamber, particularly on this occasion. However, I am grateful for his support.

I am not sure where the Minister is leading us on situations where county councils are involved or invited to become involved, because it is not clear what happens if they decline.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, it is very clear. The option is available at the moment for the Secretary of State to take direct control. That is the only other alternative to getting a more local solution. That is why this has been included.

[Lord Beecham]

That is an option of what might be called undemocratic centralism, which is not to be relished.

The Minister made a correction regarding education, which I said was not included in the national policy framework. He is right to say that it is found in paragraph 72. As it describes providing healthy communities, I assumed that it was to do with health matters but clearly it extends beyond them. However, I still believe that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and I were right in suggesting that these matters should be referred to in the local plan. I cannot see any difficult in doing that. I regret that the Minister does not seem to be persuaded of the validity of that argument. However, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 5 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness as an ordinary working Peer. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept the amendment. I am not quite sure what the position is in relation to Amendment 38 and whether the noble Baroness intends to move it.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

I do not.

[Lord Beecham]

In that case, I will simply commend these amendments.

[Lord Tope]

My Lords, I, too, support the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner. She is right that probably all good planning authorities do this already and take it into account. Perhaps where it does not happen it is more by accident than by intent. One of the more serious points behind this is that we know that there is, sadly, a deep-rooted distrust of planning authorities. Whereas something may have happened by accident, the public are only too ready to believe that it is a conspiracy. This is a fairly simple measure. Amendment 9 certainly is. On Amendment 10, we may need to consider a little more what constitutes the holiday period. The intention of these amendments is very good and would perhaps go some small way to restore public trust in the planning process or at least to weaken the distrust in that process. So I hope the Government will take seriously these two amendments and look at how the intention can be met.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Beecham]

15: Clause 13, page 14, line 5, at end insert “including in terms of sustainable development and public interest”

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I can reassure the Deputy Speaker that I shall not take long. The amendment deals with restrictions on planning conditions set out in Clause 13, and in particular the new provision which will incorporate into the Town and Country Planning Act new Section 100ZA which deals with restrictions on the power to impose planning conditions.

Amendment 15 is basically a simple amendment that adds something to the conditions that will apply to those regulations. For example, the Bill refers to them as having to be,

“necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms …relevant the development … sufficiently precise to make it capable of being complied with and enforced … reasonable in all other respects”.

The amendment simply adds,

“sustainable development and public interest”,

to the criteria for making those regulations. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept that and I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for moving his amendment. I do not think there is any disagreement between us on the objectives that planning decisions should be acceptable to local people and that planning development should be sustainable.

Amendment 15 covers similar ground to that of the previously discussed Amendment 14, in that it is also intended to ensure that these measures do not have an adverse impact on sustainable development. Sustainable development is at the very heart of the planning system, as reflected in the National Planning Policy Framework, and I can assure noble Lords that Clause 13 will contribute to this goal.

My noble friend has written separately on this matter, as promised, to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in Committee, giving reassurance of our commitment to see that development that takes place is sustainable and in line with the well-established policy tests in the NPPF. Clause 13 will not impact on local authorities’ ability to seek to impose any necessary conditions and appropriate protections for important matters such as heritage, the natural environment and measures to mitigate the risk of flooding. That ability will be maintained, as well as the ability of local people to make representations to the local planning authority on how a development proposal will affect them.

If the amendment were introduced, it would add to the list of constraints on the Secretary of State’s regulation-making power in subsection (2) of new Section 100ZA by explicitly requiring the Secretary of State to take account of sustainable development and the public interest in deciding whether it is appropriate to exercise the power in subsection (1), as the noble Lord explained.

As my noble friend said in Committee, and I say again now, both sustainable development and the public interest are already relevant planning considerations in the NPPF, and I can reassure the noble Lord that these matters are already captured in subsections (2)(a) and (b) of the clause we are discussing. This includes the need to consider the presumption in favour of sustainable development which drives planning policy, plan-making and decision-taking—and local views, which are already central to the planning system.

In terms of taking account of the public interest, and that planning decisions and conditions are acceptable to local people, we continue to ensure that the planning system is centred on community involvement. It gives statutory rights for communities to become involved in the preparation of the local plan for the area, and any neighbourhood plans—including strengthening their powers in this area through the Bill—and to make representations on individual planning applications, and on planning appeals, in the knowledge that the decision-maker will give these representations full consideration. I hope that, for the reasons I have set out, the noble Lord might feel able to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I am reassured up to a point, but I would have thought it would be better to have these as statutory protections rather than protections contained in the National Planning Policy Framework, which does not have quite the same statutory impact. However, I recognise that the Government’s intentions are good, even if they may not quite be embodied in a statutory form. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 15 withdrawn.

Moved by

[Lord Beecham]

16: Clause 13, page 14, line 5, at end insert—
“(2A) Regulations under subsection (1) may not be made in respect of the granting of planning permission for Environmental Impact Assessment development.(2B) In subsection (2A) “Environmental Impact Assessment development” has the same meaning as “EIA development” in the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011.”

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, Amendments 16 and 17 in this group are connected to issues of major concern. They seek to protect communities from extremely controversial decisions in areas with which we are becoming increasingly familiar; for example, fracking and other processes which impact on the environment. Fracking, I guess, is currently the most controversial of these. Similar concerns around minerals, waste development and the like are covered in Amendment 17. The intention here is to make it clear that the regulations which are otherwise authorised by this part of the Bill would not extend to these very controversial areas. In other words, there would have to be primary legislation to embark on changing the position on these particularly controversial areas. Some danger, I think, is sensed at the moment about the Government’s enthusiasm for fracking; their overriding of local authority concerns, for example, in Lancashire, is very controversial. These amendments are designed to constrain the exercise of those powers, which we may see more of under the Bill, in such decisions taken by government over the wishes of local communities, and effectively outside the normal planning process. I hope the Government will rethink their position on these matters. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, I am, again, grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for explaining the reasons behind his amendment and understand the concerns he has expressed about those confronted with substantial developments involving minerals and other raw materials.

Amendment 16 would allow exemptions to be made to any regulations brought forward under new Section 100ZA(1) for certain types of development. In this case, the amendment relates specifically to the environmental impact assessment of development. As the noble Lord explained, environmental impact assessments are demanded of development likely to have significant effects on the environment. These assessments are a way of ensuring that local planning authorities, in deciding such applications, are in full knowledge of the likely significant effects, and take these into account during the determination process.

I recognise that the noble Lord’s amendment appears to stem from a wider concern about the measures—that they might in some way weaken existing environmental protections. I confirm that the Government intend to use the power in new Section 100ZA to prevent the use of unreasonable and unnecessary conditions, which are already well established in the Government’s planning practice guidance as not meeting the tests set out in the NPPF.

A local authority will still be able to impose planning conditions necessary to be able to grant planning permission for environmental impact assessment development, provided that those conditions meet these six tests. The Secretary of State may make provision in regulations under new subsection (1) only if he is satisfied that such provisions are in pursuit of these policy tests.

That is why, as set out in the draft regulations we published in December, we are proposing to prohibit the types of conditions set out in guidance as failing to meet the policy tests. I hope this will reassure the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. I should like to be very clear that our guidance currently advises that these types of conditions should not be applied to any grant of planning permission, whether an environmental impact assessment is required or not. We cannot foresee a situation where a local authority would want to impose such conditions on any planning permission. As a further means of assurance, we propose that these regulations will be subject to the affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament, which will ensure appropriate levels of scrutiny.

Amendment 17 is similar. It exempts minerals or waste development from new subsection (1). The arguments for rejecting Amendment 17 are broadly similar to those against Amendment 16: the Bill will not impact the ability of local planning authorities to impose planning conditions to ensure the necessary protections to achieve sustainable development, provided they meet the well-established policy tests.

I also emphasise that our guidance currently advises, as I have just said, that these types of conditions should not be applied to any grant of planning permission, as they clearly do not meet the national policy tests in the NPPF. We cannot foresee a situation where a local authority would want to impose such conditions on the grant of any planning applications. We therefore do not see a need to make exceptions, as the amendments seek to do, for EIA development, minerals and waste applications, or any other type of development. With those reassurances in mind, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I am partly reassured by reference to the affirmative procedure being applied in these cases, which allows greater parliamentary scrutiny. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 16 withdrawn.

Housing and Planning Act 2016 (Permission in Principle etc) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (England) Regulations 2017

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2017 Grand Committee

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I want to make just one point raised by my honourable friend Roberta Blackman-Woods when the matter was discussed in the Delegated Legislation Committee yesterday. She referred to the remark of the Minister in the Commons that the statutory instrument would amend primary legislation. As she pointed out, during the Bill’s passage there was a promise that a lot more detail on how the procedure would operate in practice would be brought forward in secondary legislation. This is not, by any means, the most substantive set of provisions in relation to what the 2016 Act brought into being—or, at least, forecast would be brought into being. Yesterday she asked whether and when the Minister would expect more information on how permission in principle will operate in practice.

We now have a housing White Paper. Does that mean that the secondary legislation under the previous Act will be held up until there is legislation following the housing White Paper? Are these two things connected, or will the Government proceed with the regulations implementing the provisions in last year’s Act? It all seems somewhat confused. This is a result of the very laborious process that many across the House warned last year was unsatisfactory: that we were being asked to pass legislation without seeing or being consulted on any draft regulations. I hope, therefore, that the Minister can indicate whether this specific issue—how permission in practice is going to work—will be the subject of regulations under the existing legislation, and when we might expect to see them.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated in the debate on these regulations and I will try to address the points they made in the order in which they were raised.

First, on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, the definition of “housing-led development” is that the main purpose of the development is housing: that is central. I have much sympathy with the second issue raised by the noble Lord. As officials in my department know, I fight against acronyms and abbreviations every day, because they confuse me—and, I suspect, a lot of other people—so I will go away to reflect on that and look at our website to see how we make this more accessible for people than it is now or is generally the case. I have some sympathy with that point.

Turning to the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Jones, I thank him, as always, for his courtesy. His point, I think, related to Regulation 5 and the hazardous substances authority. What we are doing here is tightening the restrictions. I know from how this operates in Wales, which I think is essentially the same as in England, that currently if planning permission is granted for a site, the hazardous substances authority, in designating how it can be used—for the storage of oil or whatever—has to consider whether there is planning permission in the vicinity. I am not sure of the precise definition of “in the vicinity”, but I will write to the noble Lord about that, as I suspect that there is a statutory definition of it. The authority has to take account of that and that restricts it, for very understandable reasons. This regulation extends that to permission in principle, in addition to the existing planning permission.

I therefore thank the noble Lord for his considerate and, if I may say so, balanced response—which brings me to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, who I thank for his qualified welcome and excellent impression of Eeyore during the first couple of minutes of his introduction. I know the noble Lord, and suspect that some of that was tongue in cheek. I will, however, address some of the points he raised about the regulations, starting with Regulation 2. This regulation is rooted in the community; a local decision is being made. This does not in any way run counter to the localism agenda. The choice about where to grant permission in principle is a local one. The local planning authority would make the decision in accordance with its own local plan and in line with the National Planning Policy Framework. That is a rigorous process, and I do not see anything unlocal, as it were, that runs against localism in that.

The noble Lord asked about Regulation 3, which amends the 1990 Act, and what it ensures. It ensures that in addition to current planning applications permissions, which are put on the register, permission in principle is put on the register as well. This extends transparency. Without this, it would not go on the register. I am sure the noble Lord welcomes that provision, possibly in a rather muted way.

Regulation 4 amends the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act. I think it was the noble Lord who asked about “vicinity”, and I will ensure that that is covered in a letter to noble Lords who have participated in the debate, as I am not quite sure of the definition. I think there is a fairly tight statutory definition.

The noble Lord then raised an interesting point on Regulation 5, which amends the Commons Act 2006. This is not a new procedure. There are trigger events at the moment—I think they operated under the last Labour Government as well—that, for understandable reasons which I would certainly support, put a halt to registering something as a commons when planning permission has been given for it. I do not think that that is unreasonable, as you have given planning permission. If the planning permission lapses or is withdrawn, the land is available once again for commons registration. That seems to me to be entirely sensible. It is a pause, and the same applies here. This extends the process to permission in principle—dare I say, mutatis mutandis? That operates on both sides, that one. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, raised points on this issue and I will have to write to him on those. As he said, the issue was raised in the Commons, and he makes a very fair point about making clear what we are going to do in this area. I will write to him on that issue and copy noble Lords in. I thank noble Lords who have in general given a welcome to these regulations.

Housing White Paper

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My noble friend makes a valid point on the point I just made, and that is exactly what we are seeking to do. However, across the board we are going for a mixture of tenure. It is important that it is properly regulated; most landlords are perfectly honourable, obey the rules and are quite fair. We want mixed tenure and we are putting fresh emphasis on leaseholds, so that people realise what they are getting, rather than finding, when they thought they had purchased their own house, that they have a long lease with unreasonable terms.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer to my local government interests. I have not read the White Paper in detail but I have certainly looked through it, and I can see no reference to two matters which I have raised on more than one occasion in your Lordships’ House. The first relates to the rent increase imposed on local authorities of 1%, which will cost, as I have mentioned before, £590 million, and which would otherwise have been invested in housing stock in Newcastle, either in existing or new properties. That will translate into billions of pounds nationally, yet it is not mentioned in the report. The other issue is to do with private tenancies. Is there any intention to promote and facilitate more selective licensing schemes to deal with landlords who are simply failing their tenants, not looking after properties, and all too often exploiting their tenants?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, the noble Lord is right that the issue of rent increases on local authorities is not covered by the White Paper. On the position of landlords who act unreasonably, he will be aware that we are bringing in, under previous legislation, the register of rogue landlords, which is due to happen later this year—perhaps he was referring to that point. That is mentioned in the White Paper and it is already scheduled to happen. However, in addition we are, as I have indicated, looking at where landlords are acting unreasonably and holding a consultation on that issue within the White Paper.

West of England Combined Authority Order 2017

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, this part of the country owes a great deal to Conservative Governments. This is the third local government reorganisation that the Conservative Government have effectively imposed on the area in the last 40 years. We had the creation of Avon County Council in 1974, its abolition and replacement with a number of unitary authorities, and now we have the combined authority, while in addition of course we have an elected mayor in Bristol. It is an interesting case of an area being subjected to a number of experiments in local government.

As the Minister may have said, although I did not quite catch a reference to it, one council, North Somerset, ultimately declined to be part of the new organisation. It is interesting that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has reported in some detail on the outcome of such consultation as did take place in the remaining three authorities. Bristol is a large and historic city with a population of around 400,000, and we also have South Gloucestershire and Bath and North East Somerset, with a total population of what I imagine probably runs to about 800,000 people, of whom something fewer than 1,700 responded to the consultation exercise—with rather different views. In Bath and North East Somerset, of those who did respond a small majority disagreed with the proposal to go ahead with the combined authority, but of course they were outvoted because the vote had been taken across the whole area by residents from Bristol and South Gloucestershire. In one sense there was a legitimate majority among the very small proportion of the electorate who voted.

This agreement is rather different from those we have discussed previously which have gone beyond the basic economic functions referred to here. There is definitely a good case for putting them together in any given area. In Greater Manchester, people are looking at health and social care as well as a whole range of issues that go further along the devolutionary model than this. However, I suppose that there is always the possibility of seeking further devolution in the future or, as is more likely, having it imposed upon them by the Government.

It is interesting to note that the pill, such as it is, is sweetened by the customary reference to additional funding over a 30-year period amounting to £30 million a year. This has been offered to a number of areas. It does not seem to alter very much in proportion to the number of residents in the area, or any other factor. It has to be seen against the background of what is happening to the finances of the local authorities that constitute the new combined mayoral authority. In Bristol, for example, an annual cut of £83 million a year was accumulated between 2014 and 2017. That will be doubled by 2020; that authority alone will lose £166 million a year from its budget and services. I do not have the figures for Bath’s losses to date, but it has projected a further loss of £37 million a year. South Gloucestershire had lost £56 million a year by the current year and will lose £27 million a year over the next couple of years. The total annual loss—annual cuts—imposed on these authorities, which are to be rewarded between them with £30 million a year, will be £280 million a year by 2020.

That is the background against which this wonderful devolution agenda is being progressed. It really is a three-card trick; I cannot find any other way of describing it. It is not to say that the bringing together of these authorities to work on strategic issues is not in itself valuable, but to describe this as a wonderful devolution of power is a grotesque misinterpretation, not by the Minister personally but by the Government as a whole, of the reality facing those councils and their communities under whatever system, mayoral or otherwise, they will have to live with. Frankly, the Government would do better to look at the main line funding of local authorities than by creating these structures with a fairly minimal contribution that in no way off-sets the problems they face.

Having said that, these Benches will not oppose the order. We cannot, because we have not tabled a Motion to that effect. This is a decision that has been taken locally. They think it is the best course for them and we have to accede to their view. The reality is that they will continue to suffer massively, notwithstanding the relatively small amounts the Government will provide by way of extra funding.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, the west of England has actually seen the strongest economic recovery outside London since 2008. Its economic output is reported by the Resolution Foundation to be 7% higher than its pre-crisis peak, while the output in many British cities has yet to return to pre-crisis levels. Its employment, at 76.8%, is higher than any other city region in Britain. That is the background to this combined authority order. I think that the order will enable the west of England to build on the success it has had in riding out the financial crisis—but we need to note that, according to the Resolution Foundation, rising house prices and rents are swallowing up the gains in living standards made from the strong economic performance of the three councils that comprise it.

I have three specific questions for the Minister. I understand that North Somerset has made a decision not to be part of the combined authority. However, given its very close proximity to Bristol, I have not understood how the transport investment decisions will be made and who will be responsible for what.

Secondly, will the Minister confirm that the powers of the mayor for the west of England combined authority will be the same as those of the other combined authority mayors in other places? The legislation is slightly different because it covers slightly different matters. Therefore, I seek assurance that the mayor does not have any form of enhanced power against a comparison with, say, Greater Manchester or any of the others.

Thirdly, the mayor for the west of England has the power to pay grants; there are other powers, but there is a specific power to pay grants. I would like to be reassured that the same involvement of the combined authority in reaching decisions and the same rights and powers for each council separately have to be considered by the mayor. In other words, this is not simply a mayoral order where a single person has an absolute power, subject to scrutiny and audit, to make a decision without the agreement, first of the combined authority and, secondly, of the constituent councils.

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 6th February 2017 Grand Committee

[Lord True]

My noble friend makes a strong point but I do not agree with him, I fear. I am not going to repeat the points I made on the previous amendment. The problem with new subsection (5) is that it effectively gives a veto to the developer and therefore a power, which may or may not be a good thing.

However, my noble friend made a good point in relation to, for example, a play area. We all understand that the wonderful civil servants who work for my noble friend are trying to do a reductio ad absurdum of what might happen, so they find a council that has said, “Oh yes, the play area has to have one of those spring things instead of a see-saw”. We all know that that would be ridiculous. Maybe it has happened. But there are things on that list, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said, that are actually quite important and germane. Anyone who has been on a planning committee trying to secure development in suburban or rural areas will know that lighting is one of the most fiercely contested things that local residents care about most. It is also one of the most difficult things to control.

No doubt some things on that list are silly. Perhaps my own authority is one of the bad authorities. We have occasionally have had a run-in with the people who want to put in boxes for broadband, not because we are against it but because they come and say, “We want to bang this box right in front of a grade 1 listed building”, instead of agreeing to put it a little further down the road, and they rush off and have dinner with the Chancellor and the Chancellor says, “This is ridiculous. We must have legislation”. This is the way the world works. We all know that.

Somewhere in the middle of all this is a sensible via media. Saying that you cannot develop until you put a Big Ears statue in would be completely ridiculous. But some of these other things are best dealt with at an early stage. Drainage is obviously a good one, as are sustainability and lighting. The problem with this goes back to my analogy right at the start—the old Dreadnought thing. Time and again, we poor local authorities face legislation in the dock—always local authorities, never the statutory undertakings, never the builders with the land banks. Only the local authority is to blame because the local authority is perhaps trying to reflect some of the opinions of its local people by whom it is elected. We are always put in the dock and the Dreadnought is brought out to deal with the silly local authority which says, “I must have a Big Ears statue before I give any permission to 150 homes”. Of course the Government want to deal with that.

I have an open mind on this clause, as I said, although I hear what my noble friend Lady Cumberlege has said and I do care about neighbourhood planning. Surely there must be a way through that is not just nationalising this massive power to deliver for the exceptions that are causing problems. Surely it must be possible between now and Report, with the spirit that my noble friend the Minister has displayed, to find a way to give the Government a power to deal with the authority that wants Big Ears before there can be a development, without actually taking away the ability of local authorities and neighbourhoods to protect what they think is important and have development with consent. That is all I ask for. If Clause 12 can find a way to do that, let us look at it. At the moment, it does need amendment. We will see what happens between now and Report.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for being absent during the discussion of the previous group, and the very beginning of this group. I am afraid I have had to return from a funeral; otherwise, what I am about to say now I would have said in the debate on Amendment 43A, to which I added my name.

As the Committee will recall, Amendment 43A reflects the recommendation of the Delegated Powers Committee in paragraph 22 of its recently produced report, which came out on 27 January, dealing with the way the Government propose to exercise the delegated powers contained in the Bill, as set out in a document published last December under the intriguing title Further Information on How the Government Intends to Exercise the Bill’s Delegated Powers. Five areas were identified in respect of which the intention is to rely on secondary legislation. For this afternoon’s purposes, we are of course dealing essentially with the planning conditions in Clause 12. However, there are other issues: Clauses 1 to 5 are on neighbourhood planning, Clauses 6 to 11 are on local development documents, Clause 13 is on the planning register and Clauses 14 to 36 are on compulsory purchase. Therefore, although the Delegated Powers Committee drew attention to a series of matters, today we are dealing with the relevant provisions under Clause 12, which I suspect is in any event probably one of the more controversial clauses.

As we have heard, the Bill vests the Secretary of State with powers by regulation to prevent authorities imposing particular types of planning conditions in any circumstances at all or only in particular circumstances, as prescribed by the Government, and to stipulate that no conditions at all are to be imposed on particular types of grants of permission. The Government’s explanation of this was that,

“there is evidence that some local planning authorities”—

number and identity not disclosed—

“are imposing unnecessary and inappropriate planning conditions which do not meet the tests in national policy, resulting in delays to the delivery of new development”.

It is of course interesting that the Government make no mention of the hundreds of thousands of houses for which planning permission has been given but of which not a brick has been laid. They concentrate only on other potential problems.

The Government have admitted that,

“the power to prescribe the circumstances where conditions may or may not be imposed and to set out the descriptions of such conditions is wide”.

They concede that, but conclude that a delegation is appropriate. The committee expressed concern that the power would,

“allow the Secretary of State to prescribe conditions in relation to any type of planning conditions when the key aims of the Bill are to facilitate the building of new homes”,

and expressed surprise that no reason for this was given. Some of us would argue that even in respect of new homes it goes too far, but to make it more general and part of any planning permission seems beyond the scope of what the Bill is supposed to be about.

The committee stated at paragraph 16:

“We consider it inappropriate for the Government to be given a power which could be used to go well beyond the stated aims of the Bill”,


and recommended that it should apply,

“only to planning conditions for housing developments”.

It went on to criticise the proposed replacement of the existing power to provide guidance discouraging the imposition of unreasonable conditions with a power to prohibit such conditions completely, without any opportunity for the relevant planning authority to justify those conditions. Furthermore, the Government have expressed their intention to exercise the Bill’s delegated powers, including draft regulations specifying five types of condition that will be prohibited. The committee points out that there would be,

“nothing to prevent the Secretary of State from using the new power to prohibit many more conditions”,

so we are not necessarily just being confined to five areas. This would give carte blanche to introduce further prohibitions in the future.

Unsurprisingly, and in common with so much legislation, including the Housing and Planning Act, which we spent so much time on last year—the fate of which may be somewhat altered, one hopes, by the housing White Paper that is about to emerge—the committee states that,

“the negative procedure is not an adequate level of Parliamentary scrutiny for the exercise of these new powers, which could substantially restrict the ability of local planning authorities to attach conditions to the grant of any type of planning permission”.

It recommends that the affirmative procedure should apply to proposed new Section 100ZA(1).

The committee goes on to express concerns in relation to proposed new Section 100ZA(5) to (7), which deal with pre-commencement conditions: the controversial provisions which forbid planning permission being subject to such conditions without—extraordinarily —the written consent of the applicant. That is a significant change in the law and a significant move away from the local planning authority to individual developers. But no illustrations of such conditions are included in what passes for the explanatory material provided with the Bill. Although, as I understand it, the committee was provided with some at its request. It is extraordinary that in a matter as controversial as this, the explanatory material completely overlooked the issue. Under the Government’s scheme, in only one case will it be possible to impose such a condition: when the applicant fails to reply within 10 days of receiving notice of a proposed condition. The committee was concerned that there is no duty to consult before making regulations in relation to these provisions and said that,

“the Secretary of State should be required to consult not only developers but also local planning authorities and other interested parties”.

It recommends in paragraph 30 of its report that,

“the Secretary of State should be required to consult before making regulations under subsection (6)”.

If the suggested amendment is made, the Delegated Powers Committee will be content with the negative procedure. If not, it recommends the affirmative procedure.

I do not know what the Minister’s response was—I take it this issue would not have been raised in the opening debate—but I understand he has indicated that there will be a further response to the Delegated Powers Committee. However, I hope he is able to take back the view—which I think will be widely shared by this Committee, across any political divide—that it is simply not good enough to rely again on the use of a negative procedure on important matters of this kind. It has happened far too often and has been the subject of many reports, Bills and committees in your Lordships’ House, and yet the Government seem to ignore all the doubts and objections and continue to use—or propose to use—the negative procedure for dealing with highly controversial matters. The Minister is not able, alas, to change this with the stroke of his pen, but I hope he will convey what I think will be the view of many in this Committee, across the political divide, that this is not a satisfactory way to proceed, particularly as we are dealing with a significant change in the planning regime.

I hope the Minister will take back the strong views that have been expressed and that by the time we get to Report, we will see some Government amendments. Otherwise, I envisage that there will be amendments on Report from across the House seeking to test the House’s opinion on whether the Government should be allowed to get away with what many of us consider—and clearly what the Delegated Powers Committee considers—to be an abuse of process.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this afternoon we have heard a lot of concerns expressed by those who serve or have served our local authorities about the practical consequences of this clause. I want to draw attention to a press release that was on the Planning Portal website, which was published on behalf of the British Property Federation jointly with the Planning Officers Society about this very issue during the passage of the Bill in the other place. I will not read the whole press release because I am sure the Minister will be able to read it for himself, but it draws out some particularly important points, which have perhaps not been reflected in the debate so far.

The press release says:

“The British Property Federation and the Planning Officers Society have advised that current legislative proposals set out in the Neighbourhood Planning Bill do not allow enough flexibility … They have warned that current legislative proposals set out in the Neighbourhood Planning Bill do not allow enough flexibility to account for local circumstances. There is a risk that the measures will delay the planning process further by pushing contentious decisions into the time-consuming negotiation of section 106 requirements”.


The British Property Federation chief executive said:

“Streamlining the use of planning conditions could herald a welcome acceleration for development, and we support government efforts to ensure that their abuse doesn’t pose an unnecessary barrier to delivering the new homes and real estate that are essential to people’s everyday lives. However, clear and appropriate conditions are an essential part of achieving good place making, and developers and planning officers are in agreement that a more flexible approach, with best practice guidance and a clear appeals route, would better serve this objective. With local authority resources already stretched, now is not the time to risk making a time-consuming process even more onerous”.


That sums up the case that Members across the Committee are making. It is being made on behalf of both the developers and the planners—we have heard from Committee Members who see it from a local authority, practical planning perspective. I hope that the Minister will closely reflect on what is being said.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I entirely sympathise with the objectives of the noble Baroness. However, I found the amendments as drafted not workable. Subsection (3) of the new clause proposed by Amendment 49 calls for a liability for a “significant additional charge” but it does not give any method of calculating that or saying how it might be achieved. On Report, an amendment inviting the Government to create such a structure subject to secondary legislation that in this case would probably be acceptable might be a way forward. In terms of subsection (4), I should have thought that if there is a retrospective planning application, it would have to be made public and subject to consultation in the ordinary ways. This subsection may be unnecessary. If subsection (3) were changed to convey a power to regulate for such a retrospective permission, that would be a way forward. Perhaps the Minister already has that in mind. The objective is right but we have yet to find quite the right wording.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, who speaks with great authority on these areas and here with personal experience. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for his contribution. How we deal with unauthorised development is an important issue that concerns many people. The Government are clear that unauthorised development is unacceptable and unfair to the vast majority of people who abide by the rules. However, the retrospective planning application process is there primarily to give those who have made a genuine mistake the opportunity to rectify the situation. There are, of course, such people. It also gives local planning authorities the flexibility to invite a retrospective application where they consider that it is the appropriate course of action.

It is important to note that retrospective planning applications must be determined in exactly the same way as any other application, that is, in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham is therefore right in relation to subsection (4) of the new clause proposed by Amendment 49. That for which it provides would be the case anyway.

There is no guarantee that planning permission will be granted just because the development already exists. The noble Baroness cited the haystack example and there are many more in which houses have been built that occasionally people find quite acceptable, but which because they did not have planning permission and because of what planning policy indicated, have had to be demolished. Therefore, those who undertake unauthorised development put their development, their investment and perhaps their professional reputation at risk. The sale of properties built or adapted without the necessary permissions may also present considerable difficulties.

Local planning authorities can impose planning conditions on the retrospective grant of planning permission to mitigate the impact of the development. Where unauthorised development proves to be unacceptable, local planning authorities have at their disposal a wide range of enforcement powers with strong penalties for non-compliance. I note that where an enforcement notice is served, as does happen on occasion, and the person appeals on the ground that planning permission ought to be granted, they are deemed to have made an application for planning permission and must pay a fee. That fee is twice the fee that would have been payable in respect of a planning application to the relevant authority seeking permission for the matters stated in the enforcement notice as constituting a breach of planning control. I appreciate that that is only where an enforcement notice is served, but in that situation there is already a double charge. This recognises the additional work involved for the planning department in dealing with both an appeal and an application.

The effect of my noble friend’s amendment would be to make retrospective planning applications compulsory for all breaches of planning control under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This would be difficult to enforce and could lead to unnecessary delays where a local planning authority is clear that such an application would be refused and enforcement action taken. Clearly it would be not be helpful to delay effective enforcement action by local planning authorities where it is evident that the unauthorised development is totally unacceptable. That could well be the case in some situations.

My noble friend’s amendment would also introduce a penalty fee in addition to charges in respect of the costs over and above the double charge I have referred to which is incurred by the local planning authority in carrying out its functions connected with a retrospective planning application. This would unfairly penalise those who have made a genuine error and discourage the submission of such an application for proper consideration by the local planning authority. It is a matter which I know previous Governments have considered and to some extent grappled with, but in the interests of fairness have not decided to take forward. I appreciate that this is an important issue and I thank my noble friend for airing it and giving the Government some time to consider it, but for the reasons I have outlined, I would ask her respectfully to withdraw the amendment on this occasion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, we on this side support the amendment. It is particularly welcome that there is a proper reference to obtaining affirmative approval for any regulations that are required. It is important to address the issue of land that is difficult to develop. My noble friend has just reminded me of the very successful redevelopment at Greenwich, which was a pretty bleak landscape. It required significant investment but it has paid off very well. We certainly need to encourage development there. It does not necessarily have to be private building development for sale. Local authorities and social housing can also be very involved in the process. Indeed, we want to see mixed communities of that kind, but this is not inconsistent with the amendments.

We need to facilitate development here, partly, as has been said, to avoid putting undue pressure on green space—whether it is green belt or not—but also because if they are not developed these sites bring down the quality of life in the surrounding community, of whatever nature that might be. So there is a triple benefit: first, for those moving into the accommodation; secondly, for the surrounding community; and, thirdly, because you are not building on areas that ought to be left as open space for the enjoyment of the community as a whole. We are very supportive of the amendment.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated in this debate on Amendments 49A and 49B, particularly the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Pinnock. The amendments cover two important areas.

On the new clause inserted by Amendment 49A, I agree with the noble Baroness that there should be transparency around land assets held by public bodies. Public bodies must be accountable for the assets they hold, and where land assets are no longer required to support the functions of the body, they should be released so that they can be put to good use, including the provision of much-needed new homes. I can reassure noble Lords that the proposed new clause is not required. A great deal of work is already under way to ensure that this transparency exists, and it may help the Committee if I briefly outline the measures that are either in place or being put in place.

First, information on government land assets is already made available through the Cabinet Office electronic property information mapping service, e-PIMS—that trips off the tongue. This feeds the Government Property Finder website, where anyone can search to obtain a list of government land assets locally, regionally and nationally. Where land is made surplus for development, the e-PIMS system also makes this clear.

Secondly, for land owned by local authorities, the Local Government Transparency Code 2015 requires local authorities subject to that code to publish, on an annual basis, details of all land and building assets, including undeveloped land. In 2016 we consulted on updating the transparency code. We proposed that in addition to the existing data on land and property assets published by local authorities, they should also publish, on e-PIMS, the extent of the land in hectares for each piece of land; whether that land is surplus to requirements; whether there are current or future plans to release the land for housing development; if there are plans to release the land for housing development, what the current planning status is; if there are plans to release the land for housing development, how many homes can be accommodated, and, for properties of 10,000 square feet or larger, the floor area of that property, the number of floors and the number of car parking spaces it has. We are carefully considering the responses we received and will be responding to the consultation in due course.

Thirdly, nearly three-quarters of local authorities in England are now part of the Cabinet Office and Local Government Association’s One Public Estate programme. This is expected to grow to 95% in 2018. The One Public Estate programme brings together public bodies across a local area seeking to unlock the value in land and property assets for better local services, efficiencies and local growth. In doing so, land that is made surplus can then be released. A condition of membership of the One Public Estate programme is that local authorities and their public sector partners must upload their land asset data to the e-PIMS system. Work is already under way to bring central and local land data together in the e-PIMS system. This will make land asset data across the public sector readily available to anyone in a single place, rather than having registers held by individual authorities. I hope that this reassures noble Lords that the Government are committed to ensuring transparency in the use of land assets and appropriate release across the public sector, and that they have a clear plan to make that happen.

Amendment 49B, in relation to brownfield land, is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and was spoken to by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. He cited the example of Greenwich. A development corporation is involved across the river as well—I am sure that the London Borough of Lewisham will have something to say on that, but I will move swiftly on.

I think we all agree that previously developed land, more commonly known as brownfield land, has an important role to play in delivering much-needed new homes. The Government remain committed to ensuring that 90% of suitable brownfield sites have planning permission for housing by 2020. That is our stated policy, but I appreciate that the noble Baroness is looking for more concrete action, and I will be moving on to that.

The Government already have a strong policy framework in place to encourage the reuse of brownfield land. We are also developing further policy measures in regulations, which will help unlock housing being built on suitable brownfield sites and maximise the number of dwellings built on brownfield land. It is an appropriate mechanism, as noble Lords have mentioned, in order not to have to build on the green belt, which of course we do not want to do and is not anticipated. That is why building on brownfield land is so important.

Paragraph 111 of the National Planning Policy Framework asks local authorities to encourage the reuse of brownfield land if it is not of “high environmental value”, and planning guidance reinforces the expectation that local plan policies should reflect the desirability of reusing brownfield land. Furthermore, in December 2015 our consultation on national planning policy sought views on proposals to create a presumption that brownfield land is used unless there are clear reasons why not. This consultation also set out proposals to make more efficient use of land by encouraging higher densities around commuter hubs and to encourage more starter home-led development on brownfield land. We intend to set out our response to these proposals in the imminent housing White Paper.

Our proposed changes to planning policy sit alongside other proposals to bring brownfield land back into use. The list is not exhaustive. We intend to bring regulations into force this spring requiring local planning authorities to publish and maintain brownfield registers, which was part of the Housing and Planning Act 2016. I hasten to say that I do not have personal and direct experience of the legislation, but I believe that that happened through the Act. These regulations will also enable local authorities to grant permission in principle to suitable sites on their registers. We are also committed to widening permitted development to help give new life to thousands of underused buildings, as well as accelerating the disposal of surplus public sector brownfield land for new homes.

I fully recognise that some brownfield sites have more constraints than others, and that will probably be particularly the case where land values are not so high. Greenwich had its challenges but of course the land values were greater there. Some sites may also require additional costs to bring them back into acceptable use. A number of financial measures are in place to bring such sites back into use; for example, £0.4 million has been made available to local authorities during 2016-17 to help with the costs of dealing with urgent remediation cases and, if possible, ongoing remediation projects. We have created a £3 billion home building fund to provide loans for small and medium-sized building firms, custom builders and offsite construction. Some £2 billion of that fund will be long-term funding available to developers to deliver infrastructure to support a strong future pipeline of housing supply and will help unlock between 160,000 and 200,000 homes.

We expect at least half of this £2 billion to be used to support brownfield sites, including land remediation. I am very happy if the noble Baroness wants to engage further with officials on that particular point.

Furthermore, where brownfield sites suffer from contamination, land remediation relief, offered by Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs for remediating contaminated land, provides relief from corporation tax, comprising a deduction of 100%, plus an additional generous deduction of 50%, for qualifying expenditure incurred by companies in cleaning up land acquired from a third party in a contaminated state. That is also significant. However, we must remember that not all brownfield land is suitable for housing development, and not all our housing needs will be met by building on brownfield land alone. As I have indicated, the Government have a clear plan and vision, but I am very happy to make officials available to explain the detail should noble Lords require more information.

To conclude, the Government are already taking action to support development on brownfield land. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and other noble Lords that the Government will continue to seek prioritisation of brownfield land for development. That is central to what the Government are seeking to do in relation to housing. Without giving too much away about the housing White Paper, this aim will be reflected in that. I hope noble Lords will forgive the somewhat lengthy explanations I have given in relation to these two amendments, but they are both important. I hope that, with the assurances I have given, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Beecham]

56: After Clause 13, insert the following new Clause—
“Review of sustainable drainage
Before exercising his or her powers under section 41(1), the Secretary of State must carry out a review of the impact on communities’ resilience to flooding of planning legislation, government planning policy and local planning policies concerning sustainable drainage in relation to the development of land in England.”

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 56. Some Members of the Committee may recall my account of the surreal experience I enjoyed some 13 or 14 years ago when I was telephoned at home on a Saturday morning by my noble friend Lord Prescott, at that point Secretary of State for the Environment, as York was being submerged by flood waters. He inquired of me as to where sandbags may be obtained for the purpose of dealing with this—surrounded as he was by the cream of the Civil Service, who apparently did not know. That is an extreme example of the then Government’s lack of foresight—I expect it has not entirely gone away—in dealing with what is a growing problem in the context of climate change, about which we have already heard a little this evening. It is imperative that there is a thorough review, not only of planning new development but, in my submission, of the condition of already developed land. Even now, for example, we are finding front gardens paved over in a way that simply contributes to the problem of excess water and, ultimately, places undue pressure on the drainage system in established areas, as well as making it more difficult to develop new homes in particular.

This is not a particularly radical amendment—far from it. It asks only for a proper review by the Secretary of State. I imagine that the Government might not be unsympathetic to that. It is not a matter, I suspect, that we will necessarily want to place in legislation. Of course, it may be one of the little revelations to emerge from the forthcoming White Paper—perhaps the Minister cannot tell me but we will find out in a day or two. If it is not, it should be. If it is not, there is even more purpose in raising the matter this evening. I suspect that the Minister will be sympathetic to this because it is a growing problem in many parts of the country. Alas, even now, insufficient money is being devoted to dealing with flood prevention generally, as well as the more detailed local applications of dealing with the issue in existing properties and developments. In the light of that and looking forward to a warm response to the Minister, I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for moving Amendment 56, and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for her contribution. I am afraid I will probably have to let the noble Lord down on this occasion. I am not convinced of the need for this.

First, as has been noted, Section 171 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 includes a requirement for the Secretary of State to,

“carry out a review of planning legislation, government planning policy and local planning policies concerning sustainable drainage in relation to the development of land in England”.

My department had already commenced work on the review prior to this section of the Housing and Planning Act coming into force by order on 1 October last year. The objective of that review is to examine the extent to which planning policy has been successful in encouraging the take-up of such drainage systems in new developments. My officials are working closely with colleagues at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency to gather evidence to inform the review. The first stage of the review—to survey local plan policies related to sustainable drainage systems—has been completed. We are now working towards the next stage of the review—to collect evidence on how sustainable drainage systems are deployed in practice.

Stakeholder involvement is a critical element throughout the review. We have been engaging with a broad range of stakeholders through two dedicated groups set up specifically to support the review. The first is a high-level project steering group comprising members of the DCLG, Defra and the Environment Agency, the Climate Change Committee, the Adaptation Sub-Committee’s secretariat, the Association of Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning and Transport, and the Local Authority SuDS Officer Organisation. A second-tier engagement group, comprising key SUDS-related stakeholders, will function largely as a sounding board of expert advice to be drawn on as the review progresses. This comprises members from organisations including the Institution of Civil Engineers; Water UK; the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust and the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management. Membership comprises representatives from local planning authorities, professional and statutory bodies, environmental non-governmental organisations, house- builders and other agencies.

We remain committed to working constructively with the Adaptation Sub-Committee of the Committee on Climate Change—an independent, statutory body established under the Climate Change Act 2008—so that the review informs their progress update on the national adaptation plan, due in the summer of 2017. Whenever I hear the mention of sandbags I always think of the organisation which the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, led so well. She did considerable work on climate change through that particular organisation.

In addition to this review, the National Flood Resilience Review, published in September last year, assessed the resilience of key local infrastructure, such as energy, water, transport and communications, and identified ways to protect it better. The flood resilience review includes an action plan that the water, telecoms and electricity utilities will develop and implement, with long-term plans—where not in place already—for improving permanently the resilience of service provision to significant local communities from the flooding defined by the Environment Agency’s extreme flood outlines. Both of these reviews, when considered together, address the role of planning relating to sustainable drainage and the resilience of local infrastructure in response to a flood incident.

It is in that context that a requirement for a third review is unlikely to add anything new. I am happy to discuss this further with the noble Lord, but I do think it is unnecessary and I respectfully ask him to withdraw this amendment.

[Lord Beecham]

I will withdraw the amendment, but I would like to ask for a little clarification. Is the review concerned with new or existing development? Drainage issues are something many of us can see in our neighbourhoods. Front gardens are concreted over for car parking purposes and other things, with adverse consequences for drainage. Is that sort of issue part of the review which the Government are conducting?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I think the noble Lord is asking about the first of the reviews—either the one on the Housing and Planning Act 2016 or the National Flood Resilience Review. In any event, I think the former of those—in connection with sustainable drainage—will certainly encompass that. I will double check that and be in touch with the noble Lord on that point. The second of the reviews is already complete. It was published in September last year, but I will ensure that he gets a link on that particular review if it is helpful.

[Lord Beecham]

I am grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 56 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Parminter]

My Lords, we clearly need new homes but we need to future-proof them. With homes accounting for nearly a quarter of our total greenhouse emissions in the UK, we need new homes to contribute cost-effectively to meeting our greenhouse gas targets, but also to lower fuel bills for home owners and avoid the costs of retrofitting. That would also enhance quality of life. All the evidence is that the frail and elderly, and indeed young children, face significant hardships and challenges from insufficiently heated homes. The Minister knows the strength of feeling on this matter from across the Chamber during the passage of the Housing and Planning Act. This is therefore a probing amendment to ask what the Government are doing on this extremely important matter in advance of the review that was alluded to at the time of the Housing and Planning Act. Given the time, I am not going to revisit the arguments that we went through on the Housing and Planning Act. However, since then there have been a number of places—Oxford, Cambridge, Wales and Scotland—where homes have been built and large developments put up showing where zero-carbon homes can be delivered at scale.

I have three questions for the Minister. First, following the Housing and Planning Act, what are the Government’s plans to meet our carbon emission reduction targets if they do not introduce zero-carbon homes? We have seen no indication in the industrial strategy or in any other government plans of how the Government intend to meet their carbon emission reduction targets if we do not deliver the savings on new buildings, which, as the Minister knows, the climate change committee says are absolutely fundamental.

Secondly, can the Minister confirm that the Government will not prevent local councils requiring higher building standards? There is some lack of clarity about whether local authorities can carry on insisting in their local plans on higher standards. Prior to the withdrawal of the zero-carbon homes standards, places such as Brighton required in their local plans higher building standards. Will the Government confirm that they will not prevent local authorities including a requirement for higher building standards?

Thirdly, and again another standing cycle, the cost optimality review of building regulations is imminent—I believe it will be completed some time in the summer. Will the Minister say a few words about that? When will it be forthcoming? In particular, will there be public engagement and a public call for evidence so that all interested parties can play their full part in making sure that we move forward?

Higher regulatory standards in this area should not be considered as burdensome red tape but as an essential requirement to reduce both energy poverty and the threat of catastrophic climate change. There should be no exemptions. The big volume housebuilders have the scale and resources to take it forward and the smaller housebuilders are fleet of foot and able to cope. Unless we do something soon on housebuilding requirements, this Government are not going to be able to live up to the commitments that they so proudly and rightly trumpeted following their achievements at Paris last year. I beg to move.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, we support the amendment of the noble Baroness. It is regrettable that having started off by beginning to tackle this issue, the coalition Government, it must be said, reduced the carbon standard requirements instead of building on what was a sensible approach. I hope that the Government—

[Baroness Parminter]

Just to confirm, it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, who, after we had moved out of coalition with our partners, withdrew the zero-carbon home standards.

[Lord Beecham]

I am happy to accept that plea from the noble Baroness and put the entire blame on the Government. In all fairness, it is usually the case. Of course, George Osborne is now history and perhaps some of his policy decisions can be reviewed—I certainly hope so in this particular context. It is outrageous that we lag so far behind most European countries on environmental provision and space standards for properties. I hope that the White Paper—tomorrow or whenever it comes—is going to address those issues. If it does not then they will certainly be raised when we eventually come to discuss the White Paper. I am happy to support the amendment.

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 2nd February 2017 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Beecham]

17: Clause 6, page 5, line 27, at end insert—
“(1CA) The development plan documents must contain references to—(a) a threshold for social and affordable housing in the area;(b) the impact of the proposals in the documents on energy efficiency in dwellings and infrastructure in the local area;(c) flood protection for the local area;(d) the impact of the proposals in the documents on air quality in the area; and(e) the provision of green spaces and public leisure areas.”

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer again to my interests as a Newcastle city councillor and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. My noble friend Lord Kennedy referred to Queens Park. Perhaps I should declare an interest, given what their Rangers did to my team last night. However, I do so not to wish Queens Park Rangers well.

Turning to this group, Amendment 17 stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Kennedy and the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege; Amendment 18 is in my name and that of my noble friend; and Amendment 17A is in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay of Llandaff and Lady Watkins, who do not seem to be in their places, although I assume that somebody will speak on their behalf.

The amendments in this group flesh out the Bill’s prescription of matters that must be included in development plan documents. Amendment 17 includes five substantive issues that ought to be addressed, and on which current government policy is either non-existent or inadequate. The first relates to the provision of social and affordable housing. As noble Lords are aware, affordability appears to be a pretty elastic concept for the present Administration, exemplified by the definition of affordability in relation to rented housing, as 80% of private sector levels, and the definition of starter homes for purchase, as up to more than £500,000 in London. A much more realistic approach is required, but the principle should at least be explicitly acknowledged in development plans, which should, as exemplified in the other areas covered in the amendment, be designed to provide not just “development” but communities.

Despite President Trump’s refusals to acknowledge them, energy efficiency and flood protection issues are increasingly important areas of concern given the growing evidence of the damage that climate change engenders. So is air quality, as underlined by the recent appalling revelations of schoolchildren suffering from the effects of vehicle emissions while they are at school, just a couple of miles away from where we are today—my noble friend Lord Kennedy referred to that issue. Clearly, the provision of green spaces and public leisure spaces should help in this context, as well as being an obvious requirement for any development, new or old.

Noble Lords will no doubt recall the famous picture of David Cameron and the husky in his green days, proclaiming that a Conservative Government would be the greenest Government ever. Well, he shot the husky—metaphorically speaking—and the green agenda became, in his less than elegant phrase, “green crap”. Now is the opportunity for the Government to return to that agenda and, in particular, to ensure that it is embodied in this Bill.

Amendment 18 seeks to ensure the provision of a minimum number of dwellings in any development plan, after consultation locally. In that context, it will be important for locality not to be confined to the area where development might take place, and to ensure that the need for housing in the wider local area is taken into account. The experience of Stevenage, hemmed in by its surrounding county and district areas and without developable land of its own, should not be repeated.

The amendments do not include reference to an issue that I have repeatedly raised; namely space standards, which my noble friend touched on. As noble Lords will recall, in recent years, space standards have fallen substantially below those in Europe. Perhaps when moving his amendment concerning guidance on the housing needs of the elderly and the disabled, which we very much welcome, the Minister could indicate whether this too could be included alongside those matters.

Clearly, we endorse the suggestion in Amendment 17A that the education, health and well-being needs of the population are also reflected in the development plans. I beg to move.

Amendment 17A (to Amendment 17)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, my noble friend Lady Andrews and the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin. My noble friend Lady Andrews touched on the issue of the necessary provision of suitable accommodation for the elderly. That resonated strongly with me. Just in these last few days, I have been contacted by a tearful lady whose elderly mother is living in two-bedroom accommodation—a house rather than a bungalow—where she is effectively confined to the ground floor. Alas, the poor lady is incontinent and is finding it almost impossible to manage in that accommodation. She is applying to be rehoused, but we have very few alternatives to her present accommodation. Over time, we have not provided nationally for this kind of problem, which unfortunately will grow, as she has made clear.

The Minister, in reply, suggested that everything we have discussed today is already included in legislation covering different aspects of planning and development, but Clause 6 specifically concerns the content of development plan documents, and it seems sensible to bring together the various strands in one place. He is gilding the lily somewhat when he speaks as though everything is being done to secure proper guidance in relation to the matters raised in the amendments and our discussion, notably energy efficiency and climate change. To be fair, I am not sure whether it was the present Government or the coalition Government who reduced the standards. Whatever the standards are, they ought to be part of a development plan so that everybody can grasp what is required of such a plan, be they developers or those in the community anxious to see proper development in their area.

I do not want to sound unnecessarily critical of the Government in this matter, because they are moving broadly in the right direction, but I regret that we cannot have the whole picture reflected in what should be an important development in planning policy. However, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 17 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

I have some doubts and concerns about these provisions. How does Clause 7 relate to combined authorities? How does it fit with the devolution proposals if:

“The Secretary of State may direct two or more local planning authorities to prepare a joint development plan document”?


A number of areas are about to elect a mayor and become a combined authority. Within that combined authority, however, there will still be constituent local authorities. How does the provision in Clause 7(2) apply to those areas? Can the Secretary of State direct two or more of the authorities within that area to prepare a joint development plan document, when there is an elected mayor and a whole new structure is being created?

Clause 8, on the county councils’ default powers, states:

“Schedule 2 makes provision for the exercise of”,


those powers,

“in relation to development plan documents”.

That assumes a straightforward situation of a county and districts, but in at least one controversial area, I think I am correct in saying that a court case is proceeding about the proposals which affect some parts of Nottinghamshire County Council and the Sheffield-led new combined authority. That may not quite be its name but the Minister will understand what I am talking about: the mayoral authority that will encompass Sheffield and adjoining authorities, to which I think two Nottinghamshire districts wish to affiliate for some purposes. They will, however, remain part of the county council for other purposes—unless of course this is seen, as the noble Baroness implies, as a step towards a back-door reorganisation of local government. Some of us have concerns about that.

How would these default powers affect that area, assuming that the mayoral authority is created with these two district councils? I think I may have said Nottinghamshire, but Derbyshire is in fact involved in this, rather than Nottinghamshire. There may be a similar problem in Nottinghamshire. How would those arrangements be affected by the provisions of Clause 8? I quite understand that the Minister may not be able to answer that immediately but, if that is the case, he will no doubt write to me.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I shall be very brief but want to ask the Minister four specific questions about Clause 8, which will help us when we come to Report. Clause 8 was a late addition to the Bill; it was not in the initial draft that went to the House of Commons. It would help if the Minister could explain why it was felt necessary to include it.

My first specific question is: can a county refuse to undertake the work and, in that case, what would happen? Secondly, can a county subcontract the work to somebody else, which would presumably include the use of consultants? Thirdly, if it does, how is local knowledge about the district in question going to be guaranteed in constructing the plan? Fourthly, with reference to Schedule 2, it looks to me as though a county can charge a district whatever it likes, so what action do the Government plan to ensure that cost recovery is reasonable?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, these amendments are broadly welcome—I think. The devil will be in what the regulations say, of course, but if they are not as benevolent as the Minister is suggesting, we will have a row then. Otherwise I think they are all right.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for enlightening me, if not other members of the Committee, as to the otherwise completely incomprehensible terms of Amendments 21 and 22. Not having been given a crystal ball to look into, I could not really understand what they were about, but he has partially explained them, for which I am grateful.

However, on Amendment 23, we are again in the business of secondary legislation. I do not know whether the Government have yet consulted at all on the regulations and whether there is any chance of seeing any draft regulations before Report, but it would be interesting to know whether they had embarked on a consultation with the Local Government Association, for example, about the contents of any such regulations. Again, it looks like the Government imposing a particular way of proceeding on local government, possibly without any real exchange of views about how that might best be achieved. As we know, other Committees in your Lordships’ House have expressed great concern about the increasing reliance on secondary legislation that all too often emerges without any real evidence of effective consultation about what it should contain.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

I thank noble Lords for their participation in this debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for his almost wholesale welcome, and I hope to avoid the punch-up—

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Beecham]

24: After Clause 11, insert the following new Clause—
“Guidance on clustering of betting offices and pay day loan shops
(1) Before exercising his or her powers under section 41(1), the Secretary of State must issue guidance to local authorities on the granting of planning permission for change of use to betting offices and pay day loan shops.(2) This guidance must set out the manner in which policies in neighbourhood plans and local plans about the number, density and impact of betting offices and pay day loan shops are to be taken into account when determining applications for change of use, in a way which prevents a deleterious effect on the neighbourhood or local area.”

[Lord Beecham]

I am really disappointed: I thought we would have a long debate on the technical amendment replacing “and 10” with “10 and 11”, government Amendment 130, but perhaps we can defer that pleasure.

Some of your Lordships may recall the almost holy alliance that I entered into with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark and—I cannot read my own writing, but two bishops—in connection with fixed-odds betting terminals and betting shops, and the damage they were inflicting on local communities. I referred to high levels of crime affecting local communities and involving a great deal of police manpower, exposure of staff to violence and the facts that a large proportion of commercial crime occurs in these premises, that they are generally aimed at relatively poor communities and that they are a social menace.

The object of this amendment is to require the Secretary of State to issue guidance to local authorities on planning permission having regard to concerns expressed nationally, not just in debate on the Policing and Crime Bill, when we discussed amendments and the Government assured us that consultation was taking place. Can the Minister tell us how that is progressing and, if it is making progress, whether the Government intend to use this Bill to provide measures in the planning system that might help to deal with what is a growing problem in many places?

A similar concern, although hopefully without any violence involved, relates to payday lenders. I seem to recall reading fairly recently in one newspaper that payday lenders had more than one outlet in an area and people go from one to another. The individual lender will have a limit, but someone can go to three, four or five of these places and take out loans. Obviously, they are usually people in high financial need and very vulnerable. There is potential to attack that problem, in part at least, through the planning system, which is what the amendment is intended to facilitate, without prescribing anything beyond the fact that guidance should be issued. We are not asking the Secretary of State to lay down and impose rigid rules, but to offer guidance to authorities, which I think are increasingly sensitive to this issue, especially, but not only, in more deprived areas. I hope that the Minister will undertake to see whether agreement can be reached or an alternative proposal made when we get to Report. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for his amendment, and other noble Lords who participated in the debate, including the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy. The amendment reflects the importance of planning at the local level to address local issues. I was particularly interested to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about the all-party parliamentary group covering betting, the experience of Newham and the local action that it has taken on fixed-odds betting terminals in betting shops.

It may be helpful, first, to remind noble Lords of the important planning changes we made in April 2015 specifically to allow local planning authorities to consider the merits of any application for such uses, and to provide the community with an opportunity to comment. Prior to April 2015, the use classes order grouped betting shops and payday loan shops with other financial or professional services in the A2 use class. This meant that any financial or professional service could change use to a betting shop or payday loan shop without a planning application. Now they would need such an application. Additionally, under permitted development rights, new betting shops or payday loan shops could be opened in any property used as a restaurant, café, pub or other drinking establishment, or hot food takeaway. These changes could be made without local authority consideration.

Responding to concerns raised at that time about the clustering of such uses on the high street, the Government made changes to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order. We took betting shops and payday loan shops out of Class A2 and made them sui generis, or a class of their own. This change was made precisely so that a planning application would be required for any additional such shop. This would allow for local consideration of any issues that might arise due to the change to such a use in that area. Local planning authorities, therefore, already have the ability to manage any additional clustering through their local plan policies. It is not for national government to set out how many betting shops or payday loan shops there should be, and where they should be.

Where a local planning authority is concerned about the clustering of such uses, it should ensure that it has an up-to-date plan with robust policies in place. We know, as has been demonstrated, that some local authorities are already putting in place detailed policies in respect of betting shops and payday loan shops that reflect their individual local circumstances, and setting out the position in respect of the numbers and location of those shops.

The National Planning Policy Framework provides local planning authorities with the policy framework to plan for a mix of uses, promoting the viability and vitality of their town centres. Such policies should be based on sound local evidence and tested at examination. Policies contained in the local planning authority’s development plan must be taken into account when determining any application for a new betting shop or payday loan shop, unless any material considerations indicate otherwise.

Noble Lords will be pleased to know that, as he committed to do in the other place, Gavin Barwell, the Minister for Housing and Planning, met yesterday with the Minister for Sport, Tourism and Heritage, who has responsibility for gambling. They were able to discuss the issues emerging from the review of gaming machines and social responsibility measures undertaken by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. As noble Lords would expect, there was a positive discussion to consider how we can continue to work together effectively to take forward any proposals arising from the review, which I understand is likely to report later in the spring. I have not as yet had the opportunity to have a detailed discussion with my honourable friend in the other place. If there is any additional information, once again I will include it in the write-round. There is, therefore, an agenda that will continue to have our attention, recognising the concerns that are widely expressed, and of course this goes much wider than planning.

Although we consider that local planning authorities have the tools they need, we will continue to work closely with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. However, it is not for national government to set out in guidance how many betting shops or payday loan shops there should be in an area. The tools are already with local authorities. These are local issues that should be dealt with through local planning policies. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Beecham]

I am slightly disappointed with the Minister’s reply. The Government are not slow to offer guidance about a range of issues when it suits them, but on this occasion they seem to be something of a shrinking violet. If the Government are concerned about this, I do not understand why they will not take the opportunity to push for change—which is all they would be doing—by offering guidance. They would not be instructing local authorities as to how many such shops there should be; they would be offering guidance in a way that guidance is offered across a range of issues.

If the Government are taking this problem seriously—I am prepared to concede that that may well be the case—I encourage the Minister, in consultation with his colleagues, to recognise that this Bill provides a way of highlighting the issue and advising and supporting local authorities in dealing with what is a growing social problem. Otherwise, ultimately we may have to resort to primary legislation, but goodness knows when that might be. This could make a contribution at an earlier stage, and, after all, I do not think that the Government would be entering into a hugely complicated issue if they were to accept the amendment. However, in today’s circumstances, I am prepared to beg leave to withdraw it but I may wish to return to this on Report.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

I did not want to say that this was not an issue—that certainly was not my intention. I wanted to say that we have engaged with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I await a detailed discussion with my honourable friend as to how that meeting went, because I think that there are broader issues. If there are specific planning issues where I think we can make a difference, I shall be very keen to look at those, but I think that the tools are already there for local authorities and perhaps we need to get that message across. However, it is a specific subset of a planning class. They already have the powers and we certainly do not want this to be an imposition. I am not suggesting that the noble Lord was saying that; indeed, he was saying the opposite—that it was directing them.

I shall be very happy to report back further on how the discussions went, perhaps involving the noble Lord’s ally, although I have some doubts about the security of an alliance where you cannot remember the name of your ally.

[Lord Beecham]

If I had an ally at all, it would be the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol.

Amendment 24 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Duke of Somerset]

My Lords, when I first saw the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Cameron, I was not sure that I would be able to support it. However, in his introduction to the amendment he certainly clarified some points, and I agreed with a lot of what he said. However, I see both good and bad points in this short amendment, and would like to offer two comments. First, I declare an interest as a landowner who has recently benefited from a housing development planning application.

On the one side, there are often planning circumstances in which a housebuilder will submit a new, revised planning application on a site where he already has planning permission. This could perhaps be to squeeze in more houses, to improve the layout or to take account of a potential Section 106 condition. The real aim, of course, is to increase profit on the scheme, which is often to the detriment of the vendor of the land.

The disadvantages of the amendment arise where it talks about the “area”. I am not sure whether there is a definition elsewhere of the word “area”, but I take it that it means the local authority area or the district council’s geographical area. Large national housebuilders may have various schemes on the go throughout an LPA, the aim of which is to provide more houses of the type that we really need, as we have already heard. The amendment could thwart these types of concurrent developments, to the detriment of aspiring occupiers. Therefore, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord for missing the first part of his speech moving the amendment. Like other noble Lords, I strongly sympathise with the objectives but I am not sure that the amendment as drawn is viable. The noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, has identified one or two issues with it, notably what is meant by “area”. We are not necessarily talking about a small area or even a city. There are now unitary authorities—for example, Durham and Northumberland in my part of the world—that are geographically large counties. For them, 50 homes is neither here nor there.

The objective that the noble Lord seeks to pursue is absolutely the right one, but the noble Baroness’s amendment is a better way of dealing with matters. She is looking amazed. I am always happy to congratulate the Liberal Democrats on getting something right; it usually happens in leap years, but not always. I think she has identified a better way of approaching the matter than the noble Lord, but what is important is that the noble Lord has raised the issue, which is something that has been in people’s minds for a long time.

I hope that this is an opportunity for the Minister to indicate what, if anything, the Government are considering doing to deal with what is something of a scandal. We apparently have something like 500,000 or 600,000 permissions not acted upon, at a time of huge shortage. The Government want to increase housing numbers, and there must be ways in which developers can be persuaded to get on with it or lose their permission. That could take a variety of forms, and the noble Baroness’s suggestion may more workable than the noble Lord’s. However, the main thing is that the Government should accept there is a problem and agree to do something about it in one form or another, in a way that will help to incentivise the implementation of planning permission and effectively remove the risk of permission being outstanding for long periods with nothing happening on the ground where it is most needed. I am looking forward to a sympathetic reply from the Minister on the issue, without his necessarily committing to either of the two projects.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated in this part of the debate, and in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for so ably speaking to an amendment at short notice. I wish the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, well and I am sorry to hear about her indisposition. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said at Second Reading and reiterated here today, there is one thing on which we are all agreed: the fact that we need more houses. I thank him very much for stressing that this was a probing amendment; I appreciate that point.

Before us are two amendments that take separate approaches to achieving essentially the same important objective of ensuring that once planning permission is granted, the development of the site should be taken forward as quickly as possible. That is absolutely right. Of course there may be circumstances that affect it, but I appreciate that it can be taken care of in legislation. This is what local authorities and the communities that they represent expect. I therefore thank noble Lords and the noble Baroness for putting forward the amendments in this group, which allows us to have an important discussion on the question of developers making good on their permissions.

Amendment 25, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, would give local authorities the right to refuse to determine a planning application if a developer already had a live permission in that local authority’s area for 50 homes or more. The amendment targets an issue that the Government are determined to address: the gap between permissions granted and the number of new housing units that are completed. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, that the amendment as drafted is not quite what is needed; to be fair the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said so too. It is a question of degree—the number of 50, for example, and some of the definitions that would be needed.

We have already taken important steps to tackle delays in the delivery of housing development once planning permission is granted. For example, a key point of concern and delay for many developers is the time taken to comply with planning conditions that can be discharged at a later stage in development, something that this legislation of course seeks to address. Issues with infrastructure can also delay or prevent housing development going ahead. To help tackle this problem, we have already launched the £3 billion Home Building Fund and a separate £2.3 billion Housing Infrastructure Fund. The Home Building Fund will provide loans to small and medium-sized enterprise builders, custom builders and off-site construction, and will unlock large sites throughout England. The Housing Infrastructure Fund will provide investment funding to local authorities to help support the development of necessary site infrastructure, such as water, energy and internet, to deliver up to 100,000 new homes.