Building Safety Bill

Debate between Lord Greenhalgh and Lord Duncan of Springbank

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Report stage
Tuesday 29th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

I was under the impression that this was grouped with a whole group of amendments that had been debated and therefore there was no need for a further debate. If I am wrong, of course I apologise.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

I will take the blame for that. I should have said moved formally and that would have encouraged the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, to say “moved formally”. I will accept the admonition on that point. The noble Lord has saved the House some considerable time because I can see the page of that speech now fluttering in the wind.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

Moved formally.

Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021

Debate between Lord Greenhalgh and Lord Duncan of Springbank

Tuesday 29th June 2021 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move that the House has considered these draft regulations, which were laid in draft before this House on 27 May. If approved and made, these regulations will introduce fees for new permitted development rights that are currently, or will be, conditional on obtaining prior approval from the local planning authority. These permitted development rights relate to constructing additional storeys on existing dwelling houses, changing the use of commercial, business and service-class buildings to residential use and the development of university buildings.

I turn to the details of the regulations. A fee of £96 for prior approval is introduced for the enlargement of a dwelling house by construction of additional storeys made under class AA of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the general permitted development order. This fee reflects the resourcing impacts on local planning authorities in processing such applications, and it is the same as the fee for applications for prior approval for larger home extensions. This is less than the fee for a planning application—£206—had the permitted development right not been introduced.

A fee of £100 per dwelling house is introduced for prior approval for the change of use from commercial, business and service use, or class E, to residential use, or class C3, under class M(a) of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the general permitted development order. Responses to the consultation for this permitted development right indicated support for the introduction of a fee per dwelling house to help to meet the costs of local planning authorities. There was support for a higher fee, but we believe that a fee of £100 per dwelling house meets the right balance between encouraging development and meeting the costs of determining such applications.

Finally, a fee of £96 is introduced for prior approval for erection, extension or alteration of university buildings made under class M of Part 7 of Schedule 2 to the general permitted development order. The introduction of a prior approval condition was a response to the concerns raised at consultation. The fee reflects the costs to local planning authorities in assessing these types of application and is the same level as fees for other applications for other non-residential prior approvals where a similarly limited number of additional matters are required to be considered. The development rights to which the fees relate have already been introduced. If these planning fees are not introduced, the cost to the local authority to process these applications would have to be funded, or would continue to be funded, by taxpayers.

We have announced ambitious reform of the planning system to support the delivery of more homes as well as key transport and infrastructure projects. The draft regulations that we are debating today reinforce our commitment to ensuring that local authorities have adequate resources to deliver a high-quality planning service. I commend the instrument to the House.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Jones. The noble Lord, Lord Jones, is not with us today, so I will move straight on to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan.

Fire Safety Bill

Debate between Lord Greenhalgh and Lord Duncan of Springbank

Consideration of Commons amendments & Lords Hansard
Wednesday 17th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

My Lords, is there anyone present in the Chamber, who has been here since the beginning of the debate, who wishes to contribute? No? In which case, I revert to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I have listened carefully to the debate and will take this opportunity to address noble Lords’ comments and concerns in more detail. I start by addressing Amendment 2B. I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, for his constructive engagement with me on this. I reiterate again that the Government remain steadfast in their commitment to deliver the Grenfell Tower inquiry phase 1 report’s recommendations in full. It is understandable that the House wants to see visible progress on this and to have a better understanding of the timing of next steps and of the proposals that we will bring forward.

Today, the Government published their response to the fire safety consultation. This is an important and clear demonstration of our progression towards implementing the inquiry’s recommendations. I am clear that, subject to the Fire Safety Bill gaining Royal Assent, the Government intend to lay regulations before the second anniversary of the Grenfell Tower inquiry phase 1 report that will deliver on the inquiry’s recommendations. These will include measures around checking fire doors and lifts.

I am also committed to seeking further views, as soon as practicable, through a further public consultation on the complex issue of personal emergency evacuation plans. We already know that some of our proposals from the consultation will require primary legislation. They include strengthening the guidance relating to the discharge of duties under the fire safety order and the requirement for responsible persons in all regulated premises to record who they are and provide a UK-based address. We intend to include these measures, and possibly others that come out of the consultation, to strengthen fire safety in the building safety Bill, which will be introduced after the Government have considered the recommendations made by the Housing, Communities and Local Government Select Committee, and when parliamentary time allows.

I thank the noble Lord for, I hope, not pressing this matter to a vote. He is right in his role to hold the Government to account for delivering on the Grenfell recommendations, and I am pleased to have provided the reassurance that he sought.

I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for not pressing her amendment. I understand her interest in this area. More generally, we are looking at specific information-sharing provisions in the regulations and later in the building safety Bill, which we see as a first step to meeting the Grenfell recommendations on this issue.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, the other reason for resisting the public register amendment is that anyone from the general public would be able to access fire safety information about a building, which poses a security risk in the event that the information were accessed by someone with malicious or criminal intent. But the Government do agree with the principle that residents should be able to access critical fire safety information for the building that they live in, and we include proposals for this in the fire safety consultation.

I will now address Amendments 4B to 4F. First, I reiterate the intention conveyed in the other place that we share the concerns around the costs of remediation and the need to give leaseholders peace of mind and financial certainty. I have always been clear that all residents deserve to be and to feel safe in their homes. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government has committed to taking decisive action to deal with the cladding crisis, and, through the Government’s five-point plan, to provide reassurance to home owners and build confidence in the housing market.

First, as has been commented on, the Government will provide an additional £3.5 billion to fund the removal and replacement of unsafe cladding on residential buildings. This will be targeted at the highest-risk buildings—those over six storeys or above 18 metres—that have unsafe cladding. This is in line with long-standing expert advice on which buildings are at the highest risk. This brings the Government’s investment in building safety to an unprecedented £5 billion or more.

Secondly, we have been clear that leaseholders in lower-rise buildings, with a lower risk to safety, will gain new protection from the costs of cladding removal through a long-term, low-interest, government-backed financing scheme. Leaseholders in a residential building that is 11 to 18 metres in height with unsafe cladding will never pay more than £50 per month towards this remediation.

It is important that this government funding does not excuse building owners of their responsibility to ensure that buildings are safe. We have been clear that building owners and industry should make buildings safe without passing on costs to leaseholders. They should consider all routes to meet cost—for example, through warranties and recovering costs from contractors for incorrect or poor work.

As the Minister for Building Safety and Fire Safety, I will ensure that we drive forward to ensure that remediation of unsafe cladding is completed. I am clear that we have an ambitious timescale to do so. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, progress has not been as fast as we would have liked, but we are making great progress, particularly given the constraints of the pandemic this year. Around 95% of high-rise buildings with Grenfell-type ACM cladding identified at the start of 2020 have completed remediation or have works on site to do so by the end of the year.

I want to be clear that, while this issue is vital, it would be impractical and confusing to include remediation measures in the Bill. This is because the fire safety orders are a regulatory framework that sets out the duties of a responsible person in relation to fire risk assessments. It does not cover the relationship, including potential financial obligations or prohibitions, between freeholder and leaseholder. The Bill is so important because it allows for effective enforcement where responsible persons are not abiding by their responsibilities. It addresses the situation where responsible persons refuse to remediate, which is an issue that I am sure the whole House wants resolved as soon as possible.

In contrast, the draft building safety Bill is the appropriate legislative mechanism for addressing the issue of who pays for mediation. Through the building safety Bill, the Government will strengthen the whole regulatory system for building safety, and ensure that there is greater accountability and responsibility for fire and structural safety issues throughout the life cycle of buildings within the scope of a more stringent regime. That Bill’s provisions will put the management of risk front and centre. It is important that remediation is addressed using its proactive mechanisms for managing fire and structural safety issues, such as the safety case. Remediation and costs to leaseholders should be dealt in the context of the Fire Safety Bill to ensure that legislation is coherent with the aims and scope of the new regime.

In response to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, I point specifically to Clauses 88 and 89 in the building safety Bill, which relate to charges. These clauses facilitate regulations that would amend the building safety Act and the Landlord and Tenant Act. We will add to what is already in the draft Bill, including additional duties on the accountable person to seek alternative funding before they pass costs on to leaseholders.

While I appreciate the desire that many noble Lords have for a quick legislative solution to the “who pays” issue, we also have a duty as parliamentarians to implement a clear framework and transparent legislation to support fire and building safety reforms. Even more than this, it is important to ensure that the practical implications of any legislation are properly worked through, rather than being rushed on to the statute book in this Bill. In this vein, I am clear that these alternative amendments do not work.

Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Lord Greenhalgh and Lord Duncan of Springbank

3rd reading
Tuesday 9th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)]

My Lords, in moving this Motion, I express my thanks to noble Lords for their helpful insights and support throughout the proceedings. I especially thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock, Lady Bakewell and Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy, Lord Addington, Lord Shipley, Lord Stunell, Lord Moynihan, Lord Bourne and Lord Thurlow. I also thank the Local Government Association and the Valuation Office Agency for engaging with my officials during the passage of the Bill and, indeed, even before it was introduced in the other place.

Every revaluation requires the co-operation of all stakeholders involved in business rates. I thank the Rating Surveyors’ Association, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation. Their expertise and support have been, and will continue to be, a central part of the revaluation process. Finally, I thank my department’s Bill team—Nick Cooper, Rhys Tomlinson, Nick Pellegrini, Tom Adams and Lee Davies, as well as Sam Loxton in my own private office—for their support throughout this process. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

The Question is that this Bill do now pass. As many as are of that opinion shall say “content”.

I am sorry—I am being too quick this time. I call the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, this has indeed been a very narrow Bill but a very broad discussion. I thank noble Lords for the many points that have been raised during its passage, particularly in considering how we can support our town centres, especially our high streets, that give such a high quality of life to the residents of our towns and cities.

I point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that we are very clear that we will ensure that we keep a close eye on the impact of timings as this exercise is carried out and that we intend to look at the future of business rates. However, that is predicated on the fundamental review of business rates taking place later this year. I also assure the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, that, as far as is practical, local authorities’ finance will be protected via the business rates retention scheme and other measures to ensure that there should be no material impact on local authority finances.

A number of issues have been raised, and it has been an important Bill.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

A bit of a longer debate than I anticipated, but a worthy one none the less.

Rough Sleeping

Debate between Lord Greenhalgh and Lord Duncan of Springbank

Tuesday 2nd March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, it is indeed blue-sky thinking to guarantee someone an income that is paid by the state. I point out that in the pandemic we have seen the national debt increase substantially to the level of our economic output for a year, which is some £2.2 trillion. In that environment, it is very difficult to make these kinds of spending commitments, and I will certainly leave something like that to the Chancellor.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

My Lords, all the questions have been taken. Before we move on to the next business, I suggest that we take a short breather to allow people to move in and out of the Chamber.

Covid-19: Housing

Debate between Lord Greenhalgh and Lord Duncan of Springbank

Monday 18th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)]

A number of questions have been put; where I do not know the answer, I shall write to the noble Baroness or the noble Lord and place a copy of my response in the Library.

I shall start with the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. A ban on evictions is in place, which we shall review in due course once it is released. We have engaged with a number of stakeholders regarding rough sleeping. It is incredible that 90% of rough sleepers—some 5,400 people—have been taken off the streets. Engagement is happening with local authorities, charities and, as I know, the Local Government Association, to come up with a big, bold plan to ensure that these people remain in secure and settled accommodation and do not just get handed back on to the streets.

The noble Baroness mentioned being able to resume construction safely. I note the ONS figures. We know that guidance has been issued on how to restart safely, including a charter on construction safety. Over 100 construction companies have signed that charter and we look to more to do the same. Obviously, the raised levels among construction workers are not necessarily down to construction; there could be other factors such as underlying conditions. We will continue to monitor that.

We assume that access to PPE should be no problem with routine construction. Construction workers have access to testing, as do other key workers, as we reopen the economy. I note the comments around low-interest rates to tenants. I shall write specifically on that to the noble Baroness. We need to recognise that restarting construction is a key part of reopening our economy. The Government recognise that between 600,000 and 900,000 people are employed in the housing sector alone and many millions in the wider construction sector; but we understand the need to do this safely.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

We now come to the 30 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. I ask that the questions and answers be brief so that I can call the maximum number of speakers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greenhalgh]

The noble Lord made a very powerful speech on rough sleeping last week and I learnt a lot about the generations of people who were not well served by successive Governments. I note his call for a bold plan to end rough sleeping, finally, and his concerns, which are quite right, about the people who have suffered great economic loss during the pandemic. That is why we need to reopen the economy as safely as we possibly can and in a way that does not cause a second peak. The department is reviewing the situation with regard to evictions, but no decision has been taken yet.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I will be replaced as Deputy Speaker by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, after this intervention. The noble Lord, Lord Balfe, is not there, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

Does my noble friend agree that there is a real opportunity and an urgent need to increase the use of digital technology across the construction sector, not least in the supply chain, to ensure that the various industry bodies produce the skills and talent to enable us to flourish in all our digital futures?