Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Baroness Parminter

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

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, I was unfortunately unable to attend the Committee stage on the Bill because it clashed with other meetings. However, I want to use government Amendment 62 to raise an issue that, from what I have heard, was not dealt with in Committee.

I want to go back to the debate that took place on 17 March 2016, when the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, commented on this whole question of the no-scheme world. Perhaps I may read out what he said and then ask some questions about how we should interpret it. He said that the compensation code—which, as I understand it, is dealt with under Amendment 62—

“is underpinned by the principle of equivalence. This means that the owner should be paid neither less nor more than his loss. The code provides that land shall be purchased at its open market value, disregarding the effect of the scheme underlying the compulsory purchase”.

I think that that is what the noble Lord, Lord Young, was referring to, and it is a question of rules. The noble Viscount continued:

“The land is valued in a construct called the ‘no-scheme world’, whereby any increase or decrease in value which is due to the scheme is disregarded. Land will always have its existing use value but market value also takes into account the effect of any planning permissions that have already been granted, and also the prospect of future planning permissions”.


He goes on to talk about “hope value”, and then says:

“In some situations there will be no hope value, because the individual claimant could not have obtained planning permission for some more valuable use. For example, the land might be in an isolated rural location where permission for development would have been unlikely to be granted”.—[Official Report, 17/3/16; col. 2040-41.]


In other words, as I understand that, there is provision within the law whereby we can acquire land at a very low price, depending on what the ultimate use of the land will be.

What I cannot quite get my head around is why, if that is the case, we cannot buy land for housing on that basis. Why cannot we buy land for housing on the same basis as we buy land for airports, motorways, bypasses, railways, reservoirs and other utility uses, and then build housing developments on that land? It could be acquired at a very low price, probably something like £8,000 or £10,000 a plot on which to build, as against often spending £50,000, £100,000 or £200,000 for a plot of land.

On this sort of housing use, Section 226 of the land compensation Act 1965, as amended by Section 99 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, sets out conditions for applying for a compulsory purchase. It must aim for,

“the promotion or improvement of the economic well-being of their area”—

or,

“the promotion or improvement of the social well-being of their area”.

Therefore it is defined in the law that where there is an acquisition for improvements in social well-being, a CPO can be used. So why cannot we use that procedure for acquiring land at a low price to build the hundreds of thousands, if not potentially millions, of houses that are going to be needed here in the United Kingdom?

I go back again to the argument that I have used repeatedly in the House. I do not want to bore noble Lords, so I will put it simply: there is a difference in the cost of land in United Kingdom. You can buy land around the London area—agricultural land—at £20,000 to £25,000 an acre which, at a stroke of a planner’s pen, is worth £4 million or £5 million per hectare. If that is the case, it is the community that has increased the value of that land, not the landowner. Therefore, it is the community that should see the benefit of that land. If the community is to see the benefit of that land, it potentially means that we could create cheaper housing for thousands, or perhaps even millions, of people. We somehow do not do that, because we are always protecting the land value, which is only to the benefit of the people who own the land. I cannot understand why, if we have provisions in the law like this, which allow for the acquisition of land, we do not use them. We have a judgment from Lord Denning where he says that,

“Parliament only grants it, or should only grant it, when it is necessary in the public interest”.

It is in the public interest to acquire cheap land to provide housing for people in the United Kingdom. I have used this amendment as a peg, and I ask Ministers once again: why cannot we proceed on the basis that I keep advocating in this Chamber?

[Baroness Parminter]

My Lords, I sincerely thank the Minister for the consideration that he and the ministerial team have given to the comments and concerns that I raised in Committee. I offer those thanks on behalf of myself and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, who is no longer able to be in her place. In particular, I welcome Amendments 42 and 55, which specifically address the concerns that we had about the impact of the temporary possession proposals on the special land that the National Trust holds for the good of the nation. I am delighted with the way that the Minister has retained the status quo for the National Trust’s inalienable land. I thank him most sincerely.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, particularly to those who welcomed the amendments tabled by the Government to meet concerns expressed earlier on.

If I may respond briefly to the very important issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, no one is more anxious than I am to see more houses being built. In view of his interest, he might like to come along on Thursday, when we have a debate on the White Paper, which will be a broader debate about housing. I will make three quick points about the question that he raised. First, Clause 29, the no-scheme principle, makes no fundamental changes to the principle of compensation. It seeks to clarify where we are by looking at past cases and setting out some clear rules, Rules 1 to 5, so that we can, in future, fairly assess the compensation that people are entitled to if they are affected by a CPO.

The second point, which really arises from that, is that we have always paid the market value. For as long as I have been involved in this type of legislation, when somebody’s land or property has been acquired, we have always paid the market value. That is the right thing to do in a fair society; otherwise, one is verging towards confiscation. If you are going to take away something at less than its value from an individual who does not want to part with it, that is approaching what could be called confiscation.

Water Bill

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Baroness Parminter

Monday 31st March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, as in Committee, I need to declare an interest in that I have a leasehold interest, with my wife, in a band G home on the Thames built on the flood plain. My flat is not threatened by flooding, has never been flooded and can never flood because it is on the second floor, and the whole of the south of England would have to be flooded before we were. Nevertheless, I have to report that a car park area that serves our block of flats was recently subjected to some flooding, and it is with that in mind that I feel that I should restrict my comments today and limit what I have to say, and I will not be voting on the issue.

All I want to do today, without commenting on the issue in the light of what has happened, is to read a letter which has been sent to my noble friend Lord Whitty, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, Mr Owen Paterson MP and Ms Anne McIntosh MP, who I understand is the chairman of the Select Committee in the House of Commons. I simply want to read the letter, which the Minister has seen, because I think that it should be on the record so that all those in the industry outside can read what it says.

The letter is from a Mrs Beverley Morris of Topcliffe Mill, Topcliffe, Thirsk in North Yorkshire, and she has given me permission to read it. Part of it states:

“If I may give a brief summary of our current situation to further expand upon our current predicament.

This building, known as Topcliffe Mill (Mews), and built as a water powered corn mill circa 1800, was subject to a ‘once in 100 hundred year’ flood on 26th September 2012. Apartments 1, 2 and 3 on the ground floor were flooded along with 2 communal areas. Three houses in the same location behind the Mill were also flooded”.

Here we are talking about a leasehold property.

“Much of the North East was flooded during this period and Topcliffe Mill was ‘sandwiched’ between the swollen River Swale to the front of the building and the saturation of the fields to the rear.

Topcliffe Mill building insurance policy is purchased by a small management company, Town & County Properties (Wharfedale) Ltd and the premium (pre flood) was just shy of £5,000 for the year 2012, divided between the 12 homes. Post flood and following the claim, the renewal premium was and continues this year at £23,750 divided between the 12 homes, an increase of almost 500% per home. My husband and I are now paying £2,000 per year for a Band C, 4th floor”—

fourth-floor—

“domestic flat that we have made our home for the past 10 years. As we are not in a position to pay this amount up front and on demand, arrangements have been made to pay by instalment, which in itself incurs extra charges.

The ABI are offering assurances that ‘there is no systematic problem with freeholders being able to obtain insurance for their leasehold properties’. Our management company, have indeed secured building insurance, as I understand they are legally required to do, but at what price? The insurance companies, who know this, have our management company and us over a barrel it seems.

T & C Properties Ltd had their agent, J M Glendinning of Guisley in Leeds thoroughly search the insurance market for a better deal and it was to no avail. As owners, we took on the challenge of checking out the markets ourselves and if required we can supply documentary evidence of refusals, although many refused point bank on the telephone to even consider it. Our management company and their agents are also prepared to lend their testament to the situation we find ourselves in. I am at a loss to see how this scenario fits with the ABI’s explanation either now or in the future if leaseholders are excluded.

Referring again to the Food and Rural Affairs Committee meeting 11th March 2014, Ms McIntosh discussed with Aiden Kerr the issue of SME exclusion from Flood Re. He gave his explanation stating that Flood Re ‘is limited to households’. As we are not an SME but a collection of households, it begs the question, does being a leasehold define us as not a household?

During the session 11 February 2014 you drew attention to the services of the Financial Ombudsman Service. We, however, have no recourse to them to make any complaint into the risk assessment that led to our mighty high renewal premium and nor will we in the future, because the policy is not in the name of the domestic leaseholder. Would the management company complain on our behalf? Doubtful, since they are not financially affected, transferring all the associated charges directly on to the leaseholder …

The notion that one might sell up and move on, being unable to meet the management fees is something of a forlorn hope. Everyone is aware of how property values have fallen and the North East of England is not experiencing the same improvement to values as the south. Add to this a history of flood— albeit the first in 100 years. The financial security of our household stands to be jeopardised, in terms of our ability to meet mortgage payments due to over stretched resources and/or the ability to secure reasonable flood insurance.

The opportunity to afford us the same level of assistance being offered to freeholders is likely to slip by if we are not included in the Flood Re scheme. Given that the decision to have a cap in place in the medium term has been taken, I feel it only fair and just that leaseholder homes are included”.

As I said, my position has changed since the last time I debated these matters, but that testimony is from someone who is directly affected, and a five-times premium increase in the north of England on a band C flat on the fourth floor of a block of flats is something that Ministers should seriously think about. Indeed, I would have thought that Parliament would have addressed that problem.

[Baroness Parminter]

My Lords, the aim of Flood Re is to support people at the highest risk of flooding who would struggle to find affordable insurance on the open market. The way in which it is funded, as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has reminded us, is via a levy to provide a funding pool to use for the purposes of the scheme. Many contributors are likely to be at a low or no risk of flooding, but this approach spreads the risks across a large population to make it more affordable.

The question that we are trying to address here is whether it is fair to include specifically band H council-tax and post-2009-built homes—I am not going to address leaseholders because, as other noble Lords have mentioned, we are going to come back to this with an amendment from the noble Lords, Lord Whitty and Lord Grantchester. There will be a small number of asset-rich but income-poor in band H houses. In Committee in this House, the Minister confirmed that 0.5% of such households are in the five lowest-income deciles, or 45 properties in flood risk areas.

A letter to the Committee in the other place from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary Dan Rogerson on 10 December 2013 confirmed that the cost to add band H houses to the scheme would be between about £1.4 million to £5.4 million, funded by an increase of up to 3% in the levy paid by all householders. Given that small number of asset-rich but income-poor, and the high cost to add these to the scheme, I do not support their inclusion in Flood Re—indeed, it would be a regressive measure—but I would certainly hope that lead local flood authorities will target some of their funding to address the impacts on vulnerable elderly people in their areas. Targeted mitigation of the impacts of this exclusion would be a far better approach and, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said, is supported by the National Flood Forum.

Houses built post-2009 were excluded by the previous Administration from the statement of principles, which preceded Flood Re—the reason being that, with strong planning policies in place, such homes should have been properly assessed for flood risk. Equally, the date as set was important to avoid incentivising development in areas of flood risk. I accept that that is not perfect, but the exclusion of post-2009 from the band H properties was widely consulted on by the Government last year in advance of drawing up these proposals and was broadly supported. Hundreds of thousands of homes will benefit from Flood Re and, frankly, we need to get on with it. I am satisfied that this approach is fair and targeted at those most in need, and with regret I therefore will not be supporting the amendment.