Devolution: English Cities

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2019 Grand Committee

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to contribute to this debate and to join others in expressing warm thanks to my noble friend Lord Heseltine for this report. Like the right reverend Prelate, I rather enjoyed reading it, and not simply as an exercise in nostalgia. It was asserted, perhaps on this side, that we sometimes think of this as an obsession on the part of my noble friend. In fact, we do not; we properly regard it as a mission which he has not given up, and all credit to him for that.

I feel a bit like a Johnny-come-lately. Starting in the 1980s, I have been engaged in these issues for only just over 30 years, rather than going back to the 1960s and 1970s. Before I talk about them, I wish to draw attention to two of my interests. I am chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum, and I shall talk about the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority, and I was the deputy director-general of the British Chambers of Commerce, and I shall talk about private sector involvement in devolution, which also goes back to the 1980s.

At the end of the 1980s, when I was deputy director-general, we very nearly succeeded, on the basis of an understanding on the part of government that comparisons with other countries included an adverse comparison of the relative strength of the business community to generate infrastructure and investment and a focus on private sector decision-making at a local level, which we lacked. Part of the argument, which my noble friend was engaged in, was that we should have public law chambers as they do in most parts of Europe and around the world. We did not take that view. We took the view that we could achieve some of the benefits that public law chambers of commerce achieve while retaining private law status but taking responsibility for public functions.

I know from discussions with colleagues at the British Chambers of Commerce today that, in a sense, that is where they still are. They do not want to become part of government. They want functions that impact on the business community—including business investment, the promotion of trade and exports, and the development of skills—to be something that the business community can take responsibility for, including a responsibility for funding that activity. Back in the 1980s, we did it on the basis that one penny on the new national non-domestic rate would be available principally for the business community to invest in the training and skills of their community. In that sense, it is not unlike taking responsibility now for the apprenticeship levy or something of that kind.

I know that the chambers of commerce would want to take on this kind of responsibility. In the past, when the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce and Industry was working hand in glove with Birmingham local authorities, it was able to achieve dramatic things; including, for example, the establishment of Birmingham Airport, the National Exhibition Centre and so on. It can do more of these things in future. The problem is that government does not trust local bodies, and that extends to local business bodies.

That is where we were in the 1980s. The then Government had established local enterprise agencies, which should have been part of the responsibility of chambers of commerce, and then let them go and stopped the funding for them. We were in discussion with the Government about supporting the chambers of commerce to do training and enterprise promotion. They said that chambers of commerce were variable across the country and patchy, with quality differing from place to place. They therefore set up training and enterprise councils, which took all the money and employed all the people—who coincidentally were most of the people who used to work for the Manpower Services Commission. About 10 years later, training and enterprise councils were abolished on the grounds that they were variable in quality across the country and not reliable. That is exactly what happens time and again. It happened to local employer networks; it happened to training and enterprise councils; and it happened to Business Link in due course, which my noble friend established.

At some point in the past 30 years, we should have had the confidence to say that if the Government give the responsibility, funding and accountability to the business community, it will step up to the plate. We should not be surprised if it does not step up to the plate, when we do not give it the responsibilities and the funding. That is what I think we should do.

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough have a combined authority that embraces cities and countryside. It is not large; if anything, in my book it is sometimes too small for the 30-year vision required to be achieved. Arguably, for the Cambridgeshire-Peterborough city region to be looked at holistically, it is always a good idea to think about Suffolk and Norfolk alongside them to achieve scale. None the less, we are where we are. However, what should not have happened is that we ended up with one more tier of government. Parts of my old constituency have a parish council and the district council, and then there is the county council and the combined authority. People wonder what on earth they need all those tiers of government to do.

To echo what my noble friend said, at the very least the responsibilities of the county council and the combined authority must be put together—perhaps with those of the police and crime commissioner, as my noble friend suggested. Certainly, we must do that, because otherwise we are asking the combined authority to set out its vision—for example, in the non-statutory spatial strategy—without it being able to deliver it; it does not have the wherewithal to make it happen. The same is especially true of the local transport plan, and to some extent true of training and skills. If we give the combined authority and the mayor those wider responsibilities and the capacity to deliver, we will be impressed by what Cambridgeshire and Peterborough can achieve.

We are benefiting from the rebuilding of the A14 and the Government’s sponsorship of the east-west rail link from Cambridge to Oxford, but we are not asking in the long run to have more money from a limited government pot. What we want in a place such as Cambridge, which has the highest employment rate for a city in Europe, is to be able to invest for ourselves and through tax increment financing to demonstrate that the private sector borrowing that supports that can be repaid with interest. I hope that we can tackle that.

As my noble friend illustrates on page 67 of his report, we know that it is down to us to deal with the deep inequalities that continue to persist, literally only a few miles apart, in a city such as Cambridge. We know that we have to deal with that and that it is not somebody else’s responsibility.

Devolution: Sheffield City Region

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Monday 5th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, the former is largely already happening. For example, with Sheffield, training is moving forward; it is part of the essence of devolution deals. I do not think that it would really rest with smaller authorities, but with devolution deals, the noble Lord has a very good point.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps my noble friend can enlighten me. Am I right in thinking that all the authorities concerned and the elected mayor are Labour? In my area, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, we have Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative authorities working together successfully to support the Greater Cambridge Partnership and our city deal. Should not the same, at the least, be expected of Labour authorities working together rather than pointing their fingers at the Government?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, noble Lords will be aware that I do not seek to be partisan on these things, but my noble friend has a point in that regard. It is best when local authorities come together, across parties, to move things forward. As he has indicated, that is happening in relation to Cambridge and Peterborough. It is also happening in relation to Teesside but—alas—not at the moment in Sheffield or broader Tyneside, although I am pleased that last week we took the decision to move forward with north Tyneside.

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority Order 2017

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 2nd March 2017 Lords Chamber

In short, the order devolves new, wide-ranging powers to Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, putting decision-making into the hands of local people and helping the area to fulfil its long-term economic and social ambitions. The draft order we are considering today is a significant milestone, contributing to greater prosperity in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough and paving the way for a more balanced economy, improved housing supply and economic success across the country. I commend the draft order to the House.

[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.

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

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

[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.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps I may interject on this group, although not in relation to Amendment 5. I am sure that the noble Lord understands that, if one were to incorporate that amendment as it stands, one would in effect create in statutory form a small subset of factors which might and should be taken into account in determining a local planning authority’s strategic priorities but which in no sense encapsulated what those strategic priorities might be. The alternative seems to be to incorporate pretty much everything in the National Planning Policy Framework into a statutory provision setting out what the strategic priorities should be. I think that the legislation is right as it is: it is the job of the local planning authority to set its strategic priorities, and those should be set out through the consultation and then through any subsequent process of approval of the development plan.

However, I want to talk about Clause 9 and Amendment 8 in particular. I would have thought that the Secretary of State would invite a county council to take over the development plan process from a district council only in extremis. I cannot quite see how the Secretary of State could enter into such a plan other than in the most extreme circumstances. The county council is not in any shape to do this. I think that my own county council would be horrified at the prospect of that happening. If district councils are told that if they do not get on with it, this will happen, they will regard that as an empty threat. There is even a fear that if district councils which resisted completing their development plan process—there are very few of those because they know how important the plan is for the local community—thought that they could hand the responsibility over to the county council, that might be an attraction rather than a deterrent.

Therefore, I am not sure that I see the purpose of Clause 9. If the Government feel that they need a toolkit, including a measure that they could take in extremis, it must be set out as that. However, your Lordships will recall that Schedule 2 says that the Secretary of State can do this in circumstances where he or she,

“thinks that a lower-tier planning authority are failing or omitting to do anything it is necessary for them to do in connection with the preparation, revision or adoption of a development plan document”.

That is far too sweeping. So I apologise to my noble friend on the Front Bench, but I rather like Amendment 8. It helps because it sets out straightforwardly that this should happen where the development plan process is not making, or could not make, progress because there is no timetable or capacity and the authority is not trying to attract the necessary capacity. I do not think that Amendment 8 could be incorporated into the Bill, not least because it should include the words “in the view of the Secretary of State”; otherwise the questions of whether the authority had a satisfactory timetable, or whether it was thinking of inviting a district authority to do the job, would become completely open to argument. The Secretary of State must have the power, and it must be the Secretary of State’s view that the local planning authority is not doing what it ought to do by reference to a timetable or to alternative capacity.

In responding to this short debate, will my noble friend say that he will at least take this amendment away and look at it with his colleagues to see whether there is a mechanism—acceptable to the Government at Third Reading—for demonstrating that the Government would enter into a process of this kind only in extreme circumstances?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who participated in the debate on the amendments in this group. I turn first to Amendment 5. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for raising an issue that is, I acknowledge, of some importance. I checked the NPPF and he is right that social housing does not have a separate section, although it is covered by affordable housing. He is wrong in relation to education; it features in paragraph 72, which covers education facilities in schools and so on. However, let me turn to the substance of the amendment. I thank my noble friend Lord Lansley for his participation. There is a fundamental difference in approach. We believe that these matters are more properly addressed in national planning policy, independently of where the list takes us, whereas I think the noble Lord wants them to be included in the Bill. The Government could not support that. We believe it is best left to local authorities to decide their priorities, and I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

I turn now to Clause 9 and the amendments relating to the provision to ensure that the Secretary of State could, in extremis, ask county councils to step into a void to help prepare a local plan. I stress the word “ask”—this is not an imposition; they would be invited. The Secretary of State currently has the power to intervene in a development plan document, so there is nothing new here. Noble Lords seem to think that this is some radical departure from previous practice, but that is not the case—it could happen now. All the Bill does is provide the Secretary of State with a further, more local option for getting a plan in place.

In February 2016 we consulted on our proposed criteria for making decisions on whether to intervene in plan-making. Those criteria are: where the least progress in plan-making had been made; where policies in plans had not been kept up to date; where there is higher housing pressure; and where intervention would have the greatest impact in accelerating local plan production. We also proposed that decisions on intervention be informed by the wider planning context in each area, specifically the extent to which authorities are working co-operatively to put strategic plans in place and the potential impact that not having a plan has on neighbourhood planning activity. We also made it clear that authorities would have an opportunity to put forward any exceptional circumstances before we took a decision on whether to take intervention action. In other words, there is necessarily a dialogue here: this is not something that just happens out of the blue. The housing White Paper—an important document which has already been mentioned—confirmed that the Government intend to make a decision on intervention on the basis of these criteria. As I have indicated, that consultation closes on 2 May. If noble Lords or others want to influence the process, there is an opportunity to do so.

As I said, this proposal supplements the Secretary of State’s existing intervention powers to provide a more local solution and provides an important backstop to ensure that communities are not disadvantaged because their district council has not put a plan in place. It would happen only in the rarest of circumstances, but we believe that it adds to the range of powers that the Secretary of State has and offers an alternative to the direct power he would have at a more local basis. I stress again that it is only an invitation: a county council is quite open to say no and would be reimbursed for the costs if, in extreme circumstances, we should get to that position. It is for county councils to decide whether they wish to accept the Secretary of State’s invitation. Where they choose not to, the only remaining alternative would be for the Secretary of State to intervene more directly. On that basis, and with the reassurance that this is included in the consultation on the White Paper, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments and that Clause 9 stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Lansley]

Before my noble friend sits down, will he undertake to at least look at defining rather better the circumstances in which he and the Government think it appropriate to invite a county council to take on these planning powers? The broader intervention powers that are currently available do not necessarily translate well to the circumstances in which a county council could, in effect, create a capacity to do this. There would have to be a pretty substantial problem with a district planning authority for a considerable period, and the county council would have to go to a lot of trouble and expense to put a plan in place. Therefore, it must be only in extremis. Schedule 2 does not explain that it is in extremis. My noble friend has said it, but he has not explained it. Perhaps he might yet, in Schedule 2, set out rather better why it will be only in exceptional circumstances.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Before the noble Lord responds to that, could he also say a little about the reimbursement process? Who will do the reimbursing? Will it be the district council that has had a plan taken off it? How then does it agree any dispute over who pays what and how much it will cost? Who will arbitrate that? We may find that a district council is very cross to have a plan taken away from it and will then dispute the amount to be paid to the county council. It seems to me that the noble Lord has opened a can of worms.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I had not intended to speak on the amendment, but my degree of rage is rising so I feel I need to say something. I declare an interest, because the very phenomenon that has been described—reducing the number of people who could object to the creation of a vibrant, attractive and charismatic garden city that nevertheless ruins one village next to it—is precisely the situation I find myself in in North Bedfordshire.

I make one plea in all of this. There can be an unholy alliance between the proposers of such a development and the local authority, because it plays very much to the business of achieving housing targets in a publicly very sellable way and reduces the angst felt in many communities across the whole of the planning authority’s patch, where previously the proposals to meet housing targets would have been infill, edge-of-village development and attempts to boost the viability of smaller settlements within the planning authority’s area, of the sort the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, talked about. I sound a note of caution about the unholy alliance that can arise, because it can be seen as the line of least resistance.

Having been involved in a similar development in Cambridgeshire, in Cambourne, where there was a considerable commitment to get the design of the settlement right ab initio on a greenfield site, I believe there needs to be a clear view of how the promised benefits touted at the beginning of the planning process actually get delivered over a substantive period. The experience is that they can gently dribble away during the course of many successive years until the settlement is complete.

[Lord Lansley]

My Lords, the noble Baroness mentions Cambourne, which of course was in my former constituency. The benefits did not dribble away; they disappeared because the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, when Secretary of State, imposed a density requirement on building so the masterplan could no longer be effected. That is why the change from the original planning had such a material impact on the environment in the village.

[Baroness Cumberlege]

My Lords, we have had examples of new developments that were produced centuries ago, in the 1800s or whatever, I think we should look to today. Poundbury near Dorchester is a very interesting new development. Of course, it has a very distinguished landowner, and I am sure he or his people negotiated extremely well with the local authority. My nephew lives there, so I know it quite well. There is a variety of housing there, which is a good start for a community. It was phased—it was grown over time. Critically, it has employment; it is not a dormitory. It has Dorset Cereals and all sorts of different employment opportunities. It is not all on an industrial estate that is marked “Industrial Estate” on a map. It weaves through the whole of that village and community—that growing little town. We must think seriously about this issue in our planning; otherwise, as I have said before—I apologise for repeating it—we are going to have a Secretary of State not for communities but for dormitories. We should avoid that. We should be building proper communities, and proper communities have employment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, I will try not to embarrass the co-pilot any more but he is a reasonable man, and these amendments seem to be reasonable. They attempt to help the Government to make clear what is genuinely not clear at the moment.

On the principle of pre-commencement as set out in the Bill’s requirement for a written consent, the question of evidence is important—that is, whether the lack of that at the moment is generally slowing down the planning application process. I am not convinced, and clearly few other noble Lords across the House are. There is clearly a lack of detail about how this will actually be applied.

However, I am more concerned about the unintended consequences that might occur as a result and the confusion inherent in the situation. I would like to know from the Government whether it is correct—and therefore Amendment 18 would genuinely help—that the Government intend to stick to the NPPF. If that is the case, Amendment 18 would ensure that pre-commencement conditions in line with the National Planning Policy Framework could still be imposed. That is all that we are seeking to do to establish some clarity. If that is not the case and the Government want to go further, we should know exactly what they want to do, how they see any extension of that process working, why they think it is important to do it, what effect it will have, what problem it will solve and what benefits it will bring.

To come back to archaeology, which is a key area and an exemplar of what might happen, there are concerns among the archaeological and heritage bodies about the clause. Of course, for most applicants the archaeological work is done in advance of development work to mitigate risks—we all know that; we have been over it many times in this House. The archaeological bodies are concerned that it would potentially allow less scrupulous developers to try to avoid paying for archaeological work by refusing to accept a pre-commencement condition. That means that, essentially, they could just walk away and nobody would benefit, which seems a rather draconian situation.

I know that the Minister is inclined to say that that should be governed by regulations and guidance, but an awful lot goes into guidance and regulations in this Bill, and something as crucial as being clear about the status of the NPPF in relation to pre-commencement orders should be established in the Bill if there is any difficulty around what is intended.

[Lord Lansley]

My Lords, pre-commencement planning conditions arise in both this group and the subsequent one. Clearly, we have entered into the debate on this group, so perhaps it might be simpler if I speak now rather than in the debate on the subsequent group. I will try not to detain the House for too long, but there are essentially three good reasons why we should proceed in the way the Government propose, by seeking written agreement with applicants before the planning permission is granted.

First, I draw attention to my interests in the register. I am chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum, and in that context I am reminded partly by this debate that, on the last occasion that our forum met—quite contrary to the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, represented the views of the development sector—the head of the historic environment team for Cambridgeshire came to the meeting, made a full presentation on what that team does and why it does it, and responded to questions. They agreed to work on a collaborative basis, because the development community appreciates that satisfying the needs of the historic environment is an essential part of their responsibility. However, I will come back to that as an example in a minute.

The second thing is that we have to remember that at the back of this is the fact that local planning authorities have an obligation not to grant planning permission in circumstances that would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework if an applicant would not agree to a condition that was implied by it. We are having a debate that is not based in reality. The implication is that the applicant does not sign up to this pre-commencement planning condition, and therefore planning permission is granted without it. That is not the situation. I am afraid that these two amendments in particular seem to have ignored that local planning authorities would be quite within their rights—and indeed are required by the legislation—to proceed on the basis of the NPPF. If they fail to do so and grant planning permission, they will be in dereliction of their planning responsibilities.

I come back to three points. I do not mean to steal the thunder of my noble friend on the Front Bench, because his thunder will be better than mine, but, first, this is about creating an expectation. The Government are promising to issue guidance. This is driving towards the situation where a written agreement with applicants will direct them towards trying to anticipate and meet the proper expectations of a local planning authority and a local community in advance, and to proceed probably by way of a draft set of conditions associated with a planning application in the first place, which would relieve the pressure on local planning authorities. It is also perfectly clear from local experience that it would also assist local planning authorities, which are short of experienced planning officers. It is the inexperienced planning officers who tend to put forward long—and often arguably unnecessary—sets of planning conditions. Experienced planning officers recognise what is required and are then likely to get to a better result more quickly. It will therefore enable that to happen more directly.

Secondly, it will avoid the ambush—the sense that at the last minute conditions can be applied, and the applicant has very little opportunity to respond or to decide whether they can proceed with a planning application on the basis of something that is applied at the last minute.

The third point is really important. It has come to my attention that pre-commencement planning conditions can create a problem because often, like other conditions, they have yet to be drafted after planning approval is granted. We are trying to avoid delay—we are trying to build the right housing in the right places as quickly as possible. Drafting the conditions after planning approval is granted causes unnecessary delay, and seeking written agreement to the conditions with an applicant in advance will ensure that we get rid of that delay.

Finally, we need to minimise the number of pre-commencement planning conditions. There is always a debate about whether something is pre or post commencement. If the number of pre-commencement planning conditions can be minimised, that too will help with the difficulty of discharging the conditions. Where there are a lot of consents, discharging the conditions is often a considerable source of delay in moving from planning approval to the point where build-out actually starts on site. We want to see those starts on site taking place. For all those reasons, I feel that the Government have a perfectly reasonable basis for proceeding in the way they have set out in the Bill.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone]

My Lords, I too commend the trustworthiness of the noble Lord, Lord Young, mainly because we Youngs are totally trustworthy.

I must admit that when I read this whole section on planning conditions, my brain began to hurt, and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has just made it hurt even more. Achieving the desired outcome through a series of double negatives seems incredibly tortuous. Considerable anxiety has been raised about this whole area by a variety of groups from different ends of the spectrum—planning groups, environmental groups and heritage groups. It does appear to be complicated. It seems that the Secretary of State can say no to local authorities saying no, but he cannot say no to local authorities saying no unless that fulfils the NPPF. That is a very tortuous way of going about things. I think that these two amendments are extremely elegant and send a very clear signal to both developers and planners, providing reassurance to those concerned with the environment and heritage. I believe the amendments should be supported.

Housing White Paper

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I am not aware of the page number. However, I am happy to meet the noble Baroness afterwards and point out where it is in the White Paper.

The point the noble Baroness made on housing benefit is beyond the scope of the White Paper. We talk to the DWP regularly and do not find its staff as hard-hearted and difficult as she does. However, she makes a very valid point and I will ensure that it is appropriately discussed, as it has been in the past.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for repeating the Statement and draw attention to my entry in the register as chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum. As regards the provision of utilities and connections to support planning for housing, rather than waiting to see whether this is a problem will the Government step in and make it clear to utilities providers that they must put in the necessary connections to planned development alongside the local planning process rather than wait until the houses are given planning permission?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, once again, my noble friend is very experienced in this area. He is right to draw attention to the importance of utilities. That, of course, extends not just to the normal utilities, as it were, that we all recognise from the past but also to broadband, which, again, is mentioned in the White Paper. My noble friend is absolutely right; we need to ensure that these parts of the infrastructure are taken care of in moving forward with the plans for the additional housing.

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

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

If a builder is going to sell the house, the details of a play area may be important to the purchaser. Is this a grass field?

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, but I am confused. I thought the Committee was talking about pre-commencement planning conditions—which are required to be discharged before the building commences—not other conditions that may have to be complied with during the course of building.

[Lord Shipley]

I do not know whether the noble Lord has read paragraph 26 of the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, but it says:

“We wanted to see some specific examples of pre-commencement conditions to help us understand the effect of subsection (5)”.


This was commented on by my noble friend Lady Parminter. The DCLG gave a list, setting out,

“details that developers have had to provide to local planning authorities before building works could begin”,

the first of which is,

“full details of a play area”.

I cannot see what the problem is with a builder telling the local planning authority where the play area will be and what will be on it. Secondly, there is a complaint—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley]

It is not my job to defend what the DCLG is saying, but if that is treated as a pre-commencement planning condition then it would be objectionable. If it was simply a condition applied to the consent, to be pursued in the course of building, it would be perfectly okay.

[Lord Shipley]

As the noble Lord might understand, the problem is that once building has started it is much more difficult to get agreement on some of these details. The point that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has drawn to our attention is that there is nothing to prevent a builder telling us what the full details of the play area are planned to be. Indeed, if I was buying the property I might want to know that, because I might have children who would be interested in using it.

The details of all lighting on the development, including siting, design and lux levels, are seen as unnecessary pre-commencement conditions. They are not. As I mentioned, the installation of superfast broadband infrastructure is central to a housing development. There are others. I noticed,

“the full details of soft landscaping”.

Yes please: these are important. When a developer has sold all the houses on a site, it is much more difficult to get the soft landscaping put in to the standard that it should be. Also,

“precise location of bin collection points for specific plots”,

is seen to be an unnecessary pre-commencement condition. If you are living there, it may be that no one told you that you would have to take your wheelie bin 50 metres to the collection point because the bin lorry cannot turn round. Some of these are real-life examples. We need to be very careful when criticising local planning authorities for having set conditions that they think matter.

Because this is based on the complaints of housebuilders, will the Minister, when he replies in the letter we will be sent, copy in the replies to the letter the department sent to all the local authorities about these complaints to get their view on whether they felt builders’ complaints were justified? I very much hope that the department has taken on board the views not just of builders, but of the local authorities concerned.

I do not wish to detain the Committee any further, but the case for Clause 12 is no longer proven. As things stand, I do not think this can form part of the Bill any longer.

[Lord Lansley]

First, I apologise to the Committee: like my noble friend I was unable to attend the Committee last Thursday because I was abroad, but last Tuesday, while noble Lords were meeting here, I chaired a workshop that the Cambridgeshire Development Forum —once again, I declare my position as its chair—held with planning officers from Cambridge City and South Cambs councils. It considered a wide range of issues. I thought it important to talk to planning officers directly, not least to inform some of my contributions to our debates.

I want to speak because built into the structure of Clause 12—I address my remarks in particular to new subsection (5)—is the intention that best practice should be consolidated in a way that is likely to help us in our objective of building more houses more successfully and more speedily. What it comes down to is this: my colleagues on the forum and I spent a lot of time last year finding out some ways the planning process could be improved. Of 30 areas this was just one—it was not necessarily even the most important one, but it was important. There was a recognition among those in the development sector locally that there are issues with the way planning conditions are constructed. Conditions are imposed that are often non-compliant with the test that they should be imposed only where they are necessary and relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, and where they are enforceable, precise and reasonable. None of us wants to end up with unnecessary appeals because of excessive or inappropriate conditions. That delays everything and increases costs for everybody.

I am prompted also by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. He talked about conditions generally. Here we are talking specifically about pre-commencement planning conditions. There is a considerable problem, which I can see in the evidence the Government have given, in that if one has too many unnecessary pre-commencement planning conditions, the risk is that the discharge of those conditions will add to the delay. In fact, when one asks developers, as I have, it is often the issues associated with the discharge of those conditions that create more problems for development than agreement to them in the first place.

However, best practice is very clear. Joint working is what everyone should aim at, so as to reach the point where the committee making the decision can see what the agreement between the developers, the applicants and the local planning authority is likely to look like. It is a necessary part of informing members of the character of the decision they should be making. What we do not want is to allow some of the things that inhibit best practice—arising, for example, from planning officers’ inexperience. It was made clear that inexperienced planning officers simply load in conditions because they think that is the way to cover their backs. Experienced planning officers get their conditions right in the first place, so we want to encourage a process in which experienced officers negotiate and agree conditions with applicants.

We want to encourage applicants, which this legislation would do, to take the initiative and propose draft conditions. Obviously, those conditions should in large measure be standard conditions, and the structure of the legislation will encourage the use of such conditions, which should expedite matters. It will also inhibit the prospect of some of kind of last-minute ambush in the committee, because the conditions must necessarily be agreed with the applicant or the application must be referred back. If they are not agreed they can be refused, so I am not sure I understand the argument that authorities would be hesitant about refusing an application where a pre-commencement planning condition has been sought that is supported by planning policy in the NPPF. Why would they not refuse it when it is their job to pursue the appropriate response to an application that does not meet those criteria?

[Baroness Parminter]

The noble Lord is challenging my view. There is a real risk that a local authority will not refuse an application for 20 homes in a rural area, to use the example I quoted earlier. It will have the approval of the local plan and the neighbourhood plan, but the sustainable drainage option proposal that it can get the developer’s agreement to is for a weak tank underneath the ground, whereas what it actually wants is a sustainable solution that will enhance the housing development in the way described by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege—one that is to the long-term benefit of the area and will increase biodiversity. The developer will not agree to that; it will agree only to a tank under the ground, which is perfectly reasonable under the standards we have at the moment. The local authority might want to go that step further but it cannot. Should the entire application then be turned down—as I say, it has the approval of the local plan, the neighbourhood plan and local people—because the developer will not agree to the sustainable drainage option? That will increase the delay. Local authorities will not do this because of the risks. They will say, “Okay, we will accept the weaker proposals”.

[Lord Lansley]

The noble Baroness has constructed her own example, and I understand the point she is making. It seems to me that this legislation does not change the situation at all. At present, if it cannot agree the condition it is looking for with the applicants, it will refuse the application and the applicants will go to appeal. I do not see why on earth the situation will be any different after this legislation is introduced. To that extent, I do not see how the legislation causes any harm. On the contrary, it promotes on the part of the applicants the need to draft planning conditions with a view to seeking agreement. Moreover, this promotes not only best practice, as I said, but an expectation on the part of both the applicants and the local planning authority—both officers and members—that the conditions should be standard and/or drafted at the point at which the decision is made.

Another issue is conditions being drafted after the committee meeting has taken place, which can cause considerable delay. What new subsection (5) is driving towards is for best practice to be encapsulated in legislation and for there to be an expectation via a written agreement that the parties to the application and the local planning authority will get together and produce an agreement to put before the committee. That is entirely laudable and I am very sorry that Members of the Committee want to throw this rather important and useful baby out with the bathwater.

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 17th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, it seems like we were discussing the Housing and Planning Act only a minute ago. I hope that during the consideration of the Bill we will see the housing White Paper. That probably presages more legislation in the course of this Parliament—it normally does—and we should not be too surprised by that. However, what is more important is that we can set it in the strategic context; that is one of the reasons why I hope that we will see the housing White Paper, preferably during the early stages of consideration. That is what it is all about. We need not always think that we cannot have more legislation—we often find reasons why it is necessary to legislate. But the point is to give the system the stability that comes from knowing that, even if new legislation comes forward, it is intended to strengthen the strategy rather than to change it. That is something that we should certainly be looking for in the rest of this Parliament. If we are to achieve what I think is the shared objective of building more of the houses that we need, then not only planning authorities but, even more so, those responsible for development will need that stability over the next few years. In that context, I should declare an interest as chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum.

Sometimes the contributions to this debate have seemed to suggest that development involves a constant adversarial relationship. I could take your Lordships out at night up on to Castle Mound in the middle of Cambridge and they would see nothing but cranes. They would see industrial and residential building all round Addenbrooke’s Hospital—the Trumpington development, the Clay Farm development, the southern fringe and the north-west Cambridge development. Frankly, I do not go along with the idea that developers do not get on with development where they have the opportunity to do so. Cambridge, where admittedly the land values are high and the property prices equally so, is a place where they have an incentive to build and they are building. That does not mean that they do not have problems. As somebody who, on an unremunerated basis, chairs the local development forum, I know that we approach it from the standpoint of promoting delivery not through an adversarial relationship but through a collaborative relationship with local authorities. Indeed, that is precisely what we have fostered and are seeing. However, we need a system to develop and to enable that to happen.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, talked about land banking. The principal site in Cambridge where outline planning approval was given a very long time ago but no development took place was Northstowe. It was even meant to be the first garden village. The first house has just been built but, according to the original outline planning application, 6,000 homes should have been built by this stage. That is down not to developers but to the Homes and Communities Agency. We have to acknowledge that sometimes, as in October 2008 and at other points, it is extremely difficult to assess and deliver viable sites. I emphasise that, particularly when looking at things such as pre-commencement planning conditions.

From the development point of view, assessing viability and delivering certainty in relation to a site are becoming increasingly difficult, and, frankly, we added to the difficulty with the Housing and Planning Act. The demands in relation to affordable housing and starter homes have made it more complicated to carry out viability assessments. Now, we need to make sure that, perhaps by returning to a standard list of conditions but certainly by endorsing what this Bill does and making it clear that pre-commencement planning conditions must be agreed between the local planning authority and developers, we enable them to be clear about the viability of their sites at the point at which they go into a planning committee.

I do not think we should take it for granted that by legislating in this way we solve the problem. Delays in the system are, in my experience, often likely to emerge through the inability of local authorities—due to the lack of resources, the lack of will or certainly the lack of incentive—to discharge planning conditions. There might have been agreement at the point at which the application was approved, but that does not mean that they get on with the process of discharging the planning conditions. Delays can make the whole process very difficult.

That is why I hope that the housing White Paper will, among other things, as I think has been mentioned, address resourcing for planning authorities. I hope that it will do so with a mechanism that gears additional resources to planning performance agreements so that the resources for planning authorities are geared directly to delivery—perhaps through a process akin to the BID process for business rates. I know that planners and developers are willing to subscribe to additional resources for planning departments if they feel that, as a consequence, they are able to get better certainty about the planning timetable and the delivery of housing. That is what we need to look at in the context of the pre-commencement planning conditions that are coming forward.

I want to mention two other things. First, recalling last year’s Housing and Planning Act, I hope that when we look at pre-commencement planning conditions we look very carefully at how they interact with the permission-in-principle route to approval. If they are not incorporated effectively into the permission in principle, we increase the risk that the pre-commencement planning conditions will all be incorporated into the so-called technical application. However, they will not be technical at all; they will be instrumental to the question of whether planning approval is granted. As has rightly been said, if promoters are not able to agree to a condition, the local authority will be entirely justified in not granting approval. However, if that arises regularly and frequently at the point of the technical application, the whole permission-in-principle approach will be frustrated and undermined.

The other thing that I want to mention is neighbourhood plans—the parish plans that I experienced in my former constituency. There is serious concern about the extent to which parish plans, made in good faith with a considerable investment of time, energy and often money on the part of parishes and their residents, are undermined by the simple fact that the local plan is not adopted sufficiently quickly, which makes it out of date. Therefore, what was said in a ministerial Statement just before the recess was extremely welcome. It gives a degree of protection to parishes—at the moment for the next two years—in the face of the risk that their allocation of sites for housing in relation to a local plan is undermined by the local plan not giving a five-year supply or, as the noble Lord said, not meeting the strategic housing market assessment.

In the context of the South Cambridgeshire and Cambridge City councils, it was argued in the strategic housing market assessment that the local authority was 10,000 houses adrift from the necessary five-year supply—that is, that 43,000 rather than 33,000 homes were required. We currently have a lot of appeals going through and being granted on the basis of a lack of a five-year supply. This is immensely frustrating to local people. I was the Member of Parliament and I remember the South Cambridgeshire local plan being submitted to the Secretary of State on 28 March 2014. We are now in 2017 and the inspectorate is still issuing further dates for hearings through to April. The dates will go beyond that—beyond even three years after the local plan was submitted. We are already starting to find that some of the assumptions that underlay the original public consultation that led to the local plan are being overtaken by events and certainly being overtaken in time.

It should not be like that. If we are about delivery and minimising delays, the Government must look at the beam in their own eye as well as the beam in the eye of others. Looking at the delays in approving local plans is an instrumental part of the examination of where delays can be minimised. The system is designed around the integrity, speed and authority given under local plans and, by extension—I hope increasingly in future—neighbourhood planning. If we do not deliver that, I am afraid that the system will be seriously undermined.