Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Stunell

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 31st January 2017 Grand Committee

[Lord Stunell]

My Lords, I was quite surprised to see this amendment, which takes me back to the Commons Committee stage on the Localism Bill when a long succession of amendments were proposed by Labour Members that could be summed up as wrecking amendments designed to disable the process, but they were swept aside. I had thought, from what I have heard from Labour Members in this House and Labour spokespeople in the House of Commons, that it had now become part of the accepted culture of the Labour Party that the neighbourhood planning process is a beneficial one for local communities and should be supported.

That made me look at the numbers which are being talked about. It is 40%. If we divide it by 10, we have 4%, and that would still be more than 10 times as many local residents involved in a local plan than are involved in a district local plan or what used to be a unitary development plan. In fact I could probably add another nought to that because the percentage of local residents in an area who have actively participated in the standard pre-existing planning process is minute. They become engaged only after the plan has been signed off and when a developer puts in a proposal. That is precisely what is wrong with the current situation and is what the neighbourhood planning system is designed to overcome. So there should be no threshold, or perhaps it should be more than the number who contributed from the planning area to the preceding local plan. It would be so small a number that we would not need to consider it.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I intervene only briefly because I made reference to turnouts in my speech at Second Reading. It may well be that the figure of 40% is too high, but our concern is that a plan can be approved on a very small turnout, which itself could cause problems. That is why we have put this amendment forward for debate, but it is certainly not an attempt to wreck anything. As I have explained before, I am a councillor in Lewisham where we are actually producing our own neighbourhood plan. We are about a year into it because it is a very complicated process, but it has definitely involved many members of the local community and I am supportive of that, as is my noble friend Lord Beecham.

Perhaps there should be a discussion about what would be a legitimate figure. Would a turnout of 1%, 2% or 5% be legitimate? At what point would a plan genuinely have community backing when it is put to a referendum? That is the point of the discussion today, rather than any attempt to wreck the provision. I think that we have had a useful discussion that has covered a range of issues.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Stunell

Monday 25th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I support the amendment proposed by my noble friend, which has been supported also by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and my Labour colleague. There is absolutely no inconsistency with Conservative policy, or the Conservative Government’s policy, in supporting this amendment. I remind the Minister that although the genesis of this measure lay with the preceding outgoing Labour Government, it was strongly supported by both parties in the coalition agreement. Indeed, last year the Prime Minister said at the conclusion of COP 21:

“The talks at the COP21 conference in Paris have culminated in a global deal, with the whole world now signed up to play its part in halting climate change. In other words, this generation has taken vital steps to ensure that our children and grandchildren will see that we did our duty in securing the future of our planet”.

Therefore, I say to noble Lords on all sides of the House that this is absolutely a mainstream and necessary policy move to take. Of all the things that can be done to improve the UK’s performance on reducing climate change and the impact of CO₂ emissions, tackling the built environment is right at the top of the list. Buildings account for 34% of our carbon emissions and within that homes account for two-thirds—that is, 22% of carbon emissions—significantly more than the whole of the transport sector. Governments devote many brain cells trying to find ways of reducing vehicle emissions and CO₂ emissions but contribute nothing like the same level of policy input or intensity to reducing the much bigger output of carbon dioxide emitted from homes.

That brings me to the reasons given by the Minister when we discussed this in Committee. I do not want to rehearse all the arguments deployed then, but one which came across very strongly was that the Government were placing a lot of reliance on the additional cost that this measure would impose on the construction of an average house. Connected to that was their understanding that if there was such an additional cost, it would automatically lead to a reduction in the volume of homes that would be built. As my noble friend said, at the time the Minister relied on a Zero Carbon Hub estimate that the extra cost would be £2,885 per home. Unfortunately, the Minister did not complete the quotation from the Zero Carbon Hub report, which said that the cost would fall very substantially over subsequent time. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, mentioned a range of values. It is highly likely that at this stage, two years after that estimate was made, the likely cost, given existing technology and building experience, would be about half that figure—perhaps, say, £1,500. If the cost was £1,500, the annual saving mentioned by the Minister in Committee would be repaid in five years. In other words, the additional cost would be repaid in five years given the reduced energy costs for the inhabitants of those homes. Given that the typical house built today will still be standing and occupied in 60 years, I would have thought a payback period of five years suggests that there is not too much of a problem on that score.

A second leg of that argument was that the increased cost of construction would result in fewer homes being built. I have put some questions to the Minister which I hope she will be able to answer when she responds to this debate. I thank her for the very constructive meeting with her that she arranged for a number of us who support this amendment. The reality is that building costs go up each year in any case for lots of reasons, such as shortage of labour, increased pay rates, shortage of materials and higher costs. For instance, the average cost of building a three-bedroom home in Hertfordshire has been slightly higher in each of the last five years. It has been increasing. I hope the Minister will be able to give us those figures later on. It is even more true that the cost of the land on which that home is built has been increasing as well, by a very much larger amount. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us what that increase is.

It ought to follow, from the theory deployed in Committee by the Government Front Bench, that as those costs rise the number of homes should fall and, presumably, so would their price. It is interesting that the sale price of a typical three-bedroom house in Hertfordshire has been rising faster than any increase in construction costs. It is also the case that this has not led to a reduction in the volume of housebuilding. It seems that neither leg of the argument stands up in regard to the link between the cost of providing high quality and the impact on volume or quantity. I hope the Minister will provide the House with some additional information on that and, perhaps, tell noble Lords which leg of the argument the Government will now use to advance the view that this amendment should be rejected.

It has also been said, and was mentioned in Committee, that the Federation of Master Builders is against this proposal and is very important. I do not think anybody in this House would deny its importance, but its members are responsible for only some 20% of the new homes built each year. As has been reported, the overwhelming concerns of builders large and small are access to finance and land and shortage of labour. Right down at the bottom, at only 4%, are concerns relating to regulation and red tape. I do not know what other arguments the Minister may rely on. There is certainly a need for more consultation, but all the consultation on this proposal has already been carried out and the Government had already reached the conclusion that it was appropriate to go ahead. Any consultation which may still be necessary will easily fit into the 12-month period allowed for in this proposed new clause.

I guess that the final argument will be that such a provision should not be so precisely and explicitly stated in the Bill: it ought to be in regulations. The Government have brought this upon themselves. The regulations already exist; they have been printed and published. However, the Government have announced that the next triennial uplift in building regulations has been cancelled. They could reinstate it and give an undertaking to proceed with the stalled regulations. They have not done so and that means that the only way forward, the only way to demonstrate that Britain is sincere in its signature on COP 21 and the only way of helping the Prime Minister to demonstrate that this Government, like the preceding one, intend to be the greenest ever is for this clause to receive the support of your Lordships today.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer to my declaration of interests. I am an elected councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham. Although the government amendments which we will be looking at later on today may, in some cases, be responding to points raised by noble Lords in Committee and on Report, the fact that they are there highlights how unprepared the Bill was when it arrived in your Lordships’ House. The Government should reflect on that when bringing legislation to this House in future. Even when we do not like legislation, we at least expect it to be fit for purpose. That has not been the case here and I hope we see no legislation in that state in the next Session of Parliament.

Amendment 118, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, has the full support of these Benches and if she wishes to test the opinion of the House today we will support her. The issues raised in the amendment were debated in Committee, as we have heard.

We all agree there is a housing crisis, but any attempt by the Government to deal with it must ensure that homes are built to a high-quality standard and meet the challenges that we are all aware of rather than ignore or fail to address them. The zero-carbon homes standard is important to deliver on our climate change commitments, and the cost of building to standards that will achieve this and provide homes that will drive down energy bills and reduce carbon emissions could now be much less than the £3,500 we heard about in Committee; we have heard today that it could be as low as £1,500. The cost is initially borne by the homeowner but over the long term it will reduce fuel bills and getting it right in the first place will be much cheaper than having retrofit measures at a later date. This is good and we support it.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Stunell

Monday 14th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, as this is my first detailed contribution during today’s Committee consideration of the Housing and Planning Bill, I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the register of interests and declare that I am an elected councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham. However, I feel bound to repeat the point, notwithstanding the points made by the noble Baroness earlier, about the complete failure of the Government to provide the regulations that enable proper scrutiny of this Bill. I again place on record how unacceptable it is that a Bill as complex and controversial as this is brought before Parliament in such a poor state of preparedness. It is nothing short of an outrage that not only have the Government treated the House of Commons and House of Lords in such a manner, but that local authorities, social housing tenants and others affected by the Bill are being treated in the same way. The consequence is a failure to allow the proposals to be properly considered. The line from the Minister last week that the contributions from noble Lords are helping and informing the consultation just underlines the weakness of the Government’s position. We have also heard a variety of apologies and expressions of frustration, and I am sure that the noble Baroness must be frustrated with the problem, which is entirely of the Government’s own making, and the effect it is having on the proper consideration of the Bill by your Lordships’ House. At the end of the day, the power is in the hands of the Government to make the process considerably more acceptable, but they have not gone far enough as yet.

Of course, the Minister is a Minister in the department responsible for this Bill. Instead, we have heard the manifesto defence deployed in Committee, even though it is more usually deployed when the Government are fearful of an imminent defeat on Report or during ping-pong. I shall not be surprised if I hear it suggested from the government Benches that it is all the fault of the last Labour Government that we have not got the regulations before the end of consideration of this Bill.

I oppose Clause 73 standing part of the Bill because it is totally unnecessary. It really is a bit rich: when a local authority has paid too much money in a particular year, that money should be returned to them immediately. The clause will put it the Government’s back pocket as a deposit for next year’s bill. That is totally unacceptable.

However, it gets worse. In our debate last Thursday the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, told noble Lords that there was a process to return money overpaid by local authorities under Clause 67. Through this clause, that process is totally negated. There is not even a suggestion that a local authority would get any interest from the Government’s holding its money. There is more. The money can also be offset against liabilities owed under Section 11 of the Local Government Act 2003. I am sure we will be told not to worry and that it will be offset only against housing debt, but the fact is that Section 11, on my reading, goes wider than the Government suggest, and that is unacceptable. This clause should not form part of the Bill and should be removed.

I take a similar position regarding Clauses 74, 75, 76 and 77, which I also oppose standing part of the Bill. Clause 75 appears to add in a further matter that could lead to a local authority being refused permission to dispose of an asset: any reduction in the amount the local authority would be liable to pay under Clause 67. By way of belt and braces, the Government propose to add a similar provision to Clause 43(4)(a). In respect of local authorities in Wales, Clause 76 makes sure that the Secretary of State can offset against what they should pay to an authority amounts they believe should be paid by the authority under Clause 67, or the relevant section of the Local Government Act. It is like a Government money-hoovering operation.

Clause 74 sets out the conditions and requirements for a local authority to sell its vacant council houses. We on these Benches believe that that is just wrong. It is an attack on council housing, whether by selling the council house or by paying the levy. It is making the duty of an authority to meet its housing need much harder. It does nothing for large families, who often live in larger properties that are usually of higher value. I have said before that I come from a large family, by modern standards, and grew up in a large council property. Living in such a property improved all our lives and helped us progress as a family. I fail to see what this measure does for families in similar situations today who cannot afford to buy their own home.

Amendment 69A, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Beecham, seeks to help the Government change this disastrous course of action in future if they will not see reason today. It places a sunset provision on Clause 74, meaning it would expire three years after the Bill is enacted. This should not cause the Government any real problems. I specifically set the expiry at three years because we are in the first year of a fixed-term Parliament which is due to run for five years until 2020, so it is this Conservative Government who would be making the required regulations to prevent the clause being repealed. I do not have a crystal ball but unless there is some unforeseen event, it is not unreasonable to assume that the present Government will be in office in the summer of 2019 and able to take the action they need with the benefit of seeing the policy in action.

That is all I have to say at this stage but I may intervene later, as in Committee, that is permitted. I beg to move.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

Does the noble Lord agree that the potential for overpayment by local authorities is made much worse by the capacity of the Government to change the meaning of words and interpretations as they go along? A “new affordable home” means what the Government say it means in Clause 72(7); then Clause 72(9) states:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations amend this section so as to change the meaning of ‘new affordable home’”.

In other words, local authorities are going to be charged under a regime that may change as the period of the agreement goes on, leading inevitably to miscalculation and overpayment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I agree entirely with the noble Lord. I know the Minister is trying to deal with the point I made earlier about regulation, but where we are today really is unacceptable.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Stunell

Tuesday 8th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stunell]

My Lords, I hope that the Minister did not get the impression that, if a high-value house becomes free in Stockport, it is then not ready to be let to another tenant on the waiting list. It is not surplus property, it is empty property in the course of transition from one tenant to another. If the incoming tenant is to be told that the property is not available because it is being sold to participate in some government confiscation scheme, that does not provide the social welfare outcome which this House wants.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I grew up in a large council house in Southwark and my family benefited very much from that. Denying other, larger families that is just wrong.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Stunell

Tuesday 1st March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

When the Minister writes, can she specifically say how many residents in Stockport, which is the borough in which I live, have the two full-time incomes to which she refers? That would be quite a handy ready reckoner for us as regards assessing the information she intends to give us.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, makes a very good point; for example, would it apply to Norfolk, where my noble friend lives? Whether it is one person or two people, they will not get to the £45,000 she is talking about.