Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention and Levy and Safety Net) (Amendment) Regulations 2018

Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Pinnock

Tuesday 27th March 2018 Grand Committee

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I register my interest as a councillor in the borough of Kirklees, which is part of the Leeds combined authority, rather than Leeds City, for the 100% business rates retention scheme. The people in Kirklees would not be happy to think they were part of Leeds City, so we had better make that clear.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

Not yet.

[Baroness Pinnock]

Not ever, I would say. As the Minister said, these are quite complex technical amendments, which, in the circumstances, I particularly welcome. Obviously, as he has indicated, they are to enable the so-called 100% business rates retention pilot authorities to come into existence next week.

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Pinnock

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

[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.

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Pinnock

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

[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.

Children and Social Work Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Pinnock

Monday 4th July 2016 Grand Committee

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, I also support the noble Lord’s amendment. He said that other bodies might be involved and I would draw particular attention to the position of the justice system in this context. Some of the young people involved will already have been involved in the justice system or may subsequently go into the justice system and, of course, have to emerge from it. It is important that there should be adequate liaison between the local authority and its services and those who have responsibility in the justice system, whether that is a custodial institution or another service. When the noble Lord returns to this—perhaps at a later stage—he might want to consider including that in the ambit of his amendment.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I support what the noble Lord, Lord Warner, proposes in this amendment. Before I make the next remarks, I draw Members’ attention to my interests in the register as a member of Kirklees Council. My concern with the amendment, and others we will discuss in the course of this Committee, is the number of proposals that add to the responsibilities of local authorities. As anybody who is associated with local government will be aware, additional responsibilities nearly always require additional spending. I just wanted to draw the attention of Members of this Committee to what is happening to the budget for children’s services in Kirklees Council, which is no doubt repeated across local government. Kirklees Council is a large metropolitan borough serving 420,000 residents, which puts the figures I shall now cite in context. The budget that the council intends to spend on children’s services, which excludes what it spends on schools, was £71.6 million for last year and is £70 million for this year. For next year, the proposed budget is £53.4 million. Despite every effort by members of the council and officers in Kirklees—we have done all we can to protect spending on children’s services—the reduction over the next couple of years will be £18.2 million. As Members of the Committee will quickly calculate, that is a reduction of 25%. Within that reduction, there is a reduction of 10%—more than £3 million—in services specifically for looked-after children.

Will the Minister take into account the dire consequences of the Bill adding to local authorities’ responsibilities? Of course, it is not that local authorities have no wish to have better services for care leavers and looked-after children, but there is a big reduction in the amount that can be spent on them. Consequently, any additional responsibilities will be very difficult to fund.