Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Lord Lansley and Baroness Pinnock

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 23rd October 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I briefly intervene on this group to make two points, one on Motion F1 and one on Motion J1. I am prompted on Motion F1 by what the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, was asking about South Cambridgeshire. I declare an interest as I am chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum and used to be the Member of Parliament for South Cambridgeshire.

To set this in context, the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority is a mayoral combined authority and is not intending to be a county combined authority, but this does prompt a question. One of the essential problems with a mayoral combined authority is the difficulty of there being both a combined and a county authority infrastructure. For many people in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, this is too confused and duplicatory a structure.

For the sake of argument—this is not one that has been advanced in Cambridgeshire, but it might be—let us say that it moves from a mayoral to a county combined authority. As the legislation is presently constructed, one could clearly not do that as it would, in effect, disempower district councils in the process. So if my noble friend Lord Howe is saying that the nature of a county combined authority requires that it is for upper-tier authorities only—in this context, the county and Peterborough, and not the district councils—and if the local devolution settlement were found to be unsatisfactory and a change were desired locally, why are there no legislative provisions to allow that to happen? That is the question I put to my noble friend.

Secondly, I support my noble friend Lady McIntosh. Her Amendment 22B very reasonably says that the Government may make regulations relating to remote participation in local government meetings. That creates an opportunity for Ministers to think about this and, if necessary, move slowly. It is clearly not their wish to move rapidly but, without dwelling on the detail, there are physical, demographic and personal circumstances that mean that members may wish or need to participate in meetings remotely. Frankly, there might also be meetings where there is a relatively modest need for everybody to come together. As we know, there can sometimes be large numbers of meetings in local government that are not places where large numbers of votes happen and it would be perfectly reasonable for Ministers to enable such meetings to take place remotely. Given the permissive nature of Amendment 22B, which my noble friend has put forward, it is rather surprising that she was not able to find a compromise.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Motion J1 and then Motion ZE1. I support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. There is one element that has not yet been discussed, which is that this House allows for hybrid meetings of its committees. Now, you have to say to yourself, if it is right and proper for this House to enable Members to take part virtually in its committees, why is it not possible for local democracy to have the same rights? The arguments have been made for inclusivity—or, as it will be, exclusivity if the Government unfortunately fail to hear the arguments that have been made.

I will point to one example, which I think shows the strength of the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. The Government have, in their wisdom, created new unitary authorities, one of which is North Yorkshire. Now, North Yorkshire is a very large area to be in one unitary authority. It also does not have the best of weather in the winter. So, if you live towards the south or even the east of the area, because the county council headquarters is more or less in the middle—so it is useful in that sense—you will have a round trip of over 100 miles to go to a council meeting. If, as often is the case, you have to go across the Yorkshire Dales or the North York moors, where roads are impassable, you will be excluded from the meetings—not because you want to be excluded but because the weather is excluding you. And, if you are not able to drive, I can tell you now that you would simply not be able to get to a meeting in Northallerton in the heart of North Yorkshire.

For those reasons alone, it seems to me practical that the Government should allow for flexibility for local government to make those sorts of decisions, to enhance local democracy and be more inclusive. So we support the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh in her quest to enable hybrid meetings to take place.

I turn to Motion ZE1. It is a travesty of local democracy if a fundamental change to the constitution of a combined authority—which is what we are considering in the instance of the West Midlands combined authority—can be made without a full consultation and involvement of all those who wish to have their voices heard. I live in West Yorkshire, so I can absolutely confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said: that at the heart of the discussions was the combination of the two roles of mayor and PCC. Not all of us agreed, but the outcome was as it was. The consequence of combining those two roles in West Yorkshire and in the Manchester combined authority is that we elect a mayor and then the mayor appoints one of their colleagues to be police and crime commissioner.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise for intervening before the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has a chance to speak to Motion R1, but I have to disagree with my noble friend on this occasion. Last week, we had a debate on planning fees, in which I participated. The risk in what the noble Baroness proposes is that it would lead to local authorities significantly increasing the fees that would be charged for householder applications.

I remind the House that I chair the Cambridgeshire development forum. As far as larger developers are concerned, the point I made last week is that we should promote planning performance agreements to enable local authorities and developers to come to proper agreements, with potential sanctions and performance obligations on the part of the local planning authority. They would give them access to greater resources in dealing with major developments. I fear that what the Liberal Democrat Front Bench proposes would just lead to increases in fees for householder applications.

I also want to say a word about Motion M1 on climate change. The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, knows that I thoroughly agree with what he proposes but, at this stage, sending back the same amendments is inherently undesirable if it can be avoided. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will tell us more about how the Government will use the new national development management policies, which will have statutory backing. If the Government set down NDMPs in terms that are clear about the importance of decisions that take account of mitigation of and adaptation to climate change, they will have the effect that my noble friend and other Members of the House look for from this Motion.

The distinctive point of the original Amendment 45 was that it would extend specific consideration of mitigation of and adaptation to climate change to individual planning decisions—there is plenty in the statute about the application of this to plan-making—so that is where the gap lies. That gap can be filled if national development management policies are absolutely clear about how decisions are to be made on the impact of climate change. I hope that my noble friend says something that allows me to feel that we do not need to send the same Amendment 45 back to the other place.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Earl most sincerely for the time he has spent with me and my colleagues in discussions about these issues. They were, of course, of great interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, and I repeat my good wishes to her for a speedy recovery.

It is not often that you get a Motion both agreed and disagreed with before it is proposed, but here we go. I will speak to Motion R1, about planning fees, which is in my name. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for his support. He has made the powerful case in favour of enabling local authorities to determine their planning fees to cover costs: no more, no less.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I apologise for interrupting the noble Baroness, but surely we discovered from the documentation that came with the statutory instrument last week that after the increase in fees, the great majority of that subsidy would be to householder applications? What the noble Baroness is looking for is for householder application fees in effect to be doubled.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for his comment. What we did discover, and I have the papers with me, was that there would still be a subsidy for major applications—that was in the papers—and that there would be a subsidy for householder applications. But the case I make is this: if householders wish to add an extension to their house or improve it in some other way, then there is a cost to that, of which the planning application fee is a minor part. Why should their next-door neighbour subsidise it? I do not think it is a just or fair way of spending taxpayers’ money. If we told them that this was happening, I think they would be as cross as I am.

We need to recover costs because the principle that I have just outlined, but also because without local planning authorities being fully resourced, they will not turn around the situation that is well recorded by professional bodies, by the Local Government Association and by the Government in the papers that we had for the statutory instrument last week—that there is a significant shortfall in planning officers in local government because of the lack of resources. If we are going to reverse that, local planning authorities need to be properly resourced, so that in a plan-led system we have experienced and well-qualified planners who have the responsibility of ensuring that local and national plans are respected.

The only other point I want to make on this issue is this: many councils across the country are under severe financial pressure—let us put it like that. Some, as we heard from Birmingham, which was the latest council, are on the brink of having insufficient resources to fulfil their statutory obligations. Particularly in those circumstances, it seems quite wrong to expect councils to use council tax payer funding to subsidise planning applications, hence my continuing pursuit of a fair and just planning application fee process.

I suppose my final point on this is to totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, when he asks why on earth in a local democracy cannot local government have the right, responsibility and duty to set its own fees? It does on everything else, so why not on that? I will push this to a vote if the noble Earl fails to agree with me and others’ powerful speeches on this.

On the other amendments, I endorse the “healthy homes” Motion that the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, has pushed again today. He is absolutely right: why do we continue building places that produce problems, when we could solve it from the outset? If the noble Lord wishes to press his Motion, he will get our full support, as will the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for his Motion on climate change. He is absolutely right; it is an existential threat to our country. We must take it seriously, and here is one area of policy where we can be seen to be doing that.

Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Debate between Lord Lansley and Baroness Pinnock

Tuesday 17th October 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the House of my relevant interests as a councillor and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Swinburne, for her detailed explanation of the content and purpose of the changes proposed to planning fees. She obviously thought that at least someone in the Chamber today would raise the fundamental concerns about full cost recovery; I will raise that issue because it is vital that it be considered.

There are two big issues of principle to raise, the first of which is why planning fees are set nationally for England. We have spent many months in this Chamber discussing levelling up, and part of that was a discussion about devolution to local areas of England. Surely, if we are serious about devolution, one aspect would be to devolve responsibility to set fees and charges for planning locally, as indeed it is, I think, for nearly every other fee and charge that a local authority can levy. The Government worry that varying fees will lead to inconsistencies across the country, but that is the very essence of devolution: that local fees are set according to the area in which they are made and the area a council represents. I suspect that there must be varying costs to planning applications—for instance, in London boroughs compared to some other parts of the country where costs are not as high.

My second major concern is the failure of these proposals to enable full cost recovery. The Government’s own assessment estimates that, currently, council tax payers are subsidising the planning service to the tune of £225 million a year. For me, it is totally unacceptable that council tax payers, who are often very hard pressed, are funding, for example, major developers who are making vast annual profits. The cost of a planning fee against the total cost of even a so-called minor development is very small as a proportion of the total, so surely full cost recovery must be not only fair but justified in not requiring council tax payers to subsidise developers. These regulations provide the opportunity to remedy that unacceptable situation, so perhaps the noble Baroness can think again about not enabling full cost recovery.

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said that he hopes that the increase in fees will not lead to a reduction in local authority subsidy for the planning service. I have to disagree with him, because I think the whole purpose of a rise in fees is to reduce the subsidy paid by council tax payers for the service. Otherwise, we should have full cost recovery, because many local authorities are on the verge of issuing Section 114 notices, which indicate that they have run out of sufficient money to run services as a whole in their areas.

Only today, I received an email on behalf of London Councils saying that it estimates that its councils will run short by £500 million in order to provide statutory services. Given that that is replicated across the country, it seems totally wrong for councils to take money from their budgets to subsidise planning development when they are making cuts to children’s services and adult social care. I urge the Minister to go back to the department and suggest that full cost recovery would be a better way forward.

On the details of the proposals, of course, given what I have just said, I welcome the increase in fees, which is better than nothing. However, the Government’s own estimate is that the proposal to increase fees by 35% for majors and 25% for all others will transfer £65 million of costs to planning applicants but will still leave a shortfall of £125 million of subsidy for local planning authorities. I could not reconcile the figures in the Explanatory Memorandum for the regulations, so perhaps the Minister can do that for me. There is a current shortfall of £225 million and a fee increase of £65 million, and yet apparently a resulting shortfall of £125 million. Those figures do not add up, so something must not have been provided in the Explanatory Memorandum.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

Is it not to do with the removal of the “free go”, which I think is worth about £25 million in itself? However, the other changes, not just the fee changes, are the reason.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I thank the noble Lord; that probably is the explanation. However, it would be good to hear the Minister to confirm that.

The issue I still have is that if we do not have full cost recovery, local planning authorities will not be able to appoint all the planning officers that they need to provide an efficient and effective service. We know that the Local Government Association and other professional bodies have indicated that 58% of councils overall and 83% of county councils have trouble filling planning posts, and the RTPI reckons that one in 10 planning posts are currently not filled. Therefore, unless the fees are increased more than is proposed here, that challenge will remain, which will then lead to a less efficient and effective planning service. I hope the Minister will be able to respond to that, because it is at the heart of what is proposed today.

The other significant issue I have is with the way the planning guarantee works in practice. Of course, it is right to have a requirement to fulfil confirmation of planning applications in a timely way, but the starting point of a planning guarantee is that an application is “valid”. This can mean that the applicant has supplied the relevant information, but it does not mean that the content of the information is of the necessary standard. Herein lies the problem.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Lord Lansley and Baroness Pinnock

Report stage
Wednesday 6th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I know that we are on Report but in response to that, it is exactly the structure that we have seen before. Essentially, in the five-year period between one local plan and the review of that plan, clearly, the housing delivery test is applied to what is adopted in that plan in the first instance. When it is reviewed after five years then clearly, as the amendment would say, the local plan must then be reviewed, taking account of the Government’s targets and standard method as applicable at that time.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, was absolutely right when he introduced his amendment in saying that this is the most important part of the Bill and is at the heart of the housing debate we have been having. I am very fortunate to be following the noble Lord, Lord Deben, who has given this whole debate a new dimension and a new focus for our thoughts, on whether we should be fixated on numbers or considering other elements of housing provision.

There is complete agreement across the House and support for building the homes that people need and the country needs. It means building homes in all parts of our country. I agree with the argument made by the noble Lord, Lord Young, about how we will provide the homes that folk need, and the analysis of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, on how vital it is that homes be provided for social rent so that families can have a stable background, and with a housing cost that they can meet within their tight family budgets. Like her, I am a councillor, and I am saddened by the number of families where I live who are pushed into renting in the private housing sector on short-term lets and every six months are having to post on Facebook, “Is there a home to rent in this locality at this price with this number of bedrooms, so that I don’t have to move schools for my children?” That is not the sort of country we want to create, in my opinion; we ought to be providing stable homes for people whose incomes restrict their housing options to homes for social rent.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Lord Lansley and Baroness Pinnock

Report stage
Tuesday 18th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I want to speak to Amendments 96 and 98, to which my noble friend Lord Young has just spoken so eloquently and compellingly. I share with him a sense of gratitude to our noble friends for the time they have given and for the way in which they have addressed a range of concerns. However, I have to confess that not least my noble friend’s detailed examination of community land auctions in theory caused me to inquire of several people how it might work in practice, although we have not seen that in reality. Those are a few hours of my life I shall never see again, but the conclusion I reached at the end of that was that it will not happen. That is probably the main reason why my noble friend may choose not to press this amendment to a Division to remove this provision from the Bill: it will sit in the Bill, it will become part of the Act and it will never see the light of day beyond that point.

Why? First, because as we have just debated, Part 4 provides for what is, in effect, a mandatory system for all local authorities for deriving developer contributions. Unless that is an utter failure, I cannot see why local authorities would want to go down the path of community land auctions, as opposed to having a much fairer and more equitable system of levy. Secondly, let us look at how it actually works. My noble friend is saying that the regulations will tell us in due course under what circumstances a local authority can enter a scheme. Clause 133(2) says:

“The local plan may only allocate land in the authority’s area for development … if the land is subject to a CLA option or a CLA option has already been exercised in relation to it”.


So, in preparing a local plan—this is before the planning process is completed, so following a call for sites—the local planning authority must seek options from all the sites put forward before they are chosen to be allocated or not to be allocated.

Let us have a look at that. I declare my interest again as chair of Cambridgeshire Development Forum. In 2019, in preparation for a local plan, the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning service issued a call for sites. It received 675 applications. In 2020, it allocated 19 sites. We therefore have, I think, in this joint plan area, 656 sites that have to go through the process of agreeing a community land auction option and disclosing the price—actually, as the lawyers rightly tell me, not only disclosing the price, which many landowners and developers will resist, but agreeing a legally watertight potential option before the point at which the allocation is made. These options will cease to have effect only when the plan is adopted or approved. In this instance, that is expected to be in the middle of 2025, just ahead of the Bill’s cut-off date. That means that, under these circumstances, the community land auction options would subsist for nearly six years, during which 656 sites will be held in abeyance and nothing can effectively be done with them. The price on those 656 sites, at which they are willing to sell, would have been disclosed, while the actual value will continue to change.

I do not see any evidence that local planning authorities have any desire to go down this path and engage in this process. Of course, it is optional, as my noble friend will no doubt remind us—local planning authorities do not have to do it. The conclusion I have reached is that they will not do it. Therefore, in reality, my noble friend did the Government a service by suggesting that it be taken out and the Bill be lightened. As it happens, I suspect Ministers will not do that, but I think they must be realistic and understand that this is proceeding with very little chance of success.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Lansley, for throwing some much-needed light on the practicalities of community land auctions. During the debate in Committee, a number of us expressed scepticism about the value of having this in the Bill and how it will work. Nevertheless, it is a pilot scheme; there are plenty of reservations in the Bill itself that may make it more difficult for the blue-sky thinking of the think tanks, this having been brought forward at a late stage of the Bill.

There are some voices in the housing sector that support the proposal of community land auctions. Their argument is that this is the best way of extracting a fair portion of the enhanced land value that allocation for development ensures. That is what they say. Others argue, as did the noble Lords, that it will have the perverse effect of buying planning permissions—I think that was the phrase the noble Lord, Lord Young, used in Committee. For me, time will tell. The noble Lords have said they will not push this amendment, so time will tell whether the scheme is attractive to councils and whether it will then deliver what its proponents claim.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Lord Lansley and Baroness Pinnock

Committee stage
Monday 27th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, how do I follow that? I will not, as it is dangerous territory.

This is a very interesting and important debate because it is about creating part of the hierarchy of a plan-led process. At the moment, we have quite a mixed pattern across England. Obviously, London has the ability to make a spatial strategy policy and plan; so do just some of the metro combined authorities, as they are known. In 2018, there was a statutory instrument which enabled three combined authorities to create spatial strategic plans: they were Greater Manchester, Liverpool City Region and the West of England. The others do not. Why not?

Here is an opportunity to create a more coherent approach to spatial development strategies across the country. I am speaking as someone living in a metro area, in West Yorkshire. It does not have the ability to make a spatial development plan but is getting round it by creating lots of plans which it hopes will be adopted by the constituent authorities so that it, in essence, has one. That is not satisfactory because what is needed is an overarching approach that all the constituent authorities can agree on. At the minute, it is a series of plans for different elements—for example, flooding, transport or economic development.

It is not just the county areas which are being omitted from a coherent approach. I hope that, given this debate, the Minister will be able to give us some hope that there will be a bit more coherence attached to this for all the metro mayors and—as has quite rightly been argued—for the counties. It is a nonsense otherwise. I do not know how you can plan, certainly for economic development and transport infrastructure, unless you have an overall approach which a spatial development strategy would enable.

I was very taken with what the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said about thinking about which elements we would want included in a spatial development strategy. He quite rightly included economic development in Amendment 200. I do not know how you could have a spatial development strategy without thinking about economic development and setting aside sites for business development. That must be included.

Having said that, you need to include transport infrastructure. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said, climate change must be a part of that as well. Alongside that, if you have housing sites and a broad approach to spatial development and business development, you need to think about public service facilities. At the moment, even in a big metro area such as where I am, these are often so piecemeal, and it is so frustrating. Why can we not have people think about what you need for schools, hospitals, and local general practices, for instance? What about thinking about provision for nature, which was the subject of the first group of amendments this afternoon on local nature recovery plans? That ought to be integrated into an approach to spatial development, as well as leisure facilities. All that needs to be there.

I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, who talked about using travel to work areas as the boundary. That makes it extraordinarily difficult if those are not coterminous with the local authority boundaries which are being used. I will give noble Lords an example from my own experience. Travel to work areas in West Yorkshire include York, Barnsley in South Yorkshire and even Doncaster. People from Manchester come and work in West Yorkshire and Leeds and vice versa.

One of the challenges for the Minister is to try to come up with an answer to what boundaries are used because Schedule 7 talks, quite rightly, about the constituent authorities and members of a combined authority, a combined county authority or even—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Deben—just a county council. You need to know what boundaries you are using.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I am sorry to interrupt, but I think it is actually a bit simpler than that. The participating authorities that choose to be in the spatial development strategy choose to be in it and bring their territory with them. Everybody else, from my point of view in Amendment 205, are other authorities that are consulted. They are not making the strategy, they are consulted about it, so their geography does not matter so much.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Lansley and Baroness Pinnock

Tuesday 22nd March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I am confused—or perhaps puzzled—because earlier this afternoon the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, said that the Government’s legislation on localism puts local planning at the heart of the system. Yet what we have heard so far this afternoon about permission in principle seems to be very much at odds with that principle of putting local people and local planning at the heart of what happens in communities. Both the previous speakers, with their knowledge and expertise gained over many years, have understood the Bill’s proposals. I decided to seek to understand what might happen in my own locality as a consequence of this proposal.

It seems there are two possibilities. One is that land that has not previously been allocated in a local plan could be appropriated and allocated as a site with permission to build. Therefore, if a developer needed greenfield land on which to build as opposed to a more difficult brownfield site, the relevant land could be appropriated and given permission in principle regardless of the wishes of the local community. It is of huge concern that the democratic process has been totally disregarded. Anyone who has ever served as a local councillor—as I do—will tell you that the issues which engage local people more than any other are developments taking place on their doorstep as they have such a significant impact on their lives in terms of increased traffic on the roads or the number of children trying to access schools which may already be full. All this sort of thing needs to be considered. Having permission in principle is totally contrary to what we regard as a local planning authority, making local decisions based on a democratic principle.

Having thought of that site, which was appropriating new land, I then wondered if they were thinking about brownfield sites—white land, as we sometimes call it—which want to change their use. I know about one in my ward: a former hotel which has closed. A developer has bought it and wants to develop it. There are huge issues about access, because I live in a hilly part of the country; about the height of the houses and their impact on other local residents; about drainage. You name them, those problems are there. Yet, under this proposal, that site could be allocated for housing development without any consideration of the impact it would have on the neighbouring properties. For those reasons, I am very concerned.

My second concern, which I hope the Minister will be able to give some assurances on, is that, since the 1947 planning Act, we have developed a process of engaging with local people about changes and developments in their area. They have their say; their voice is heard even if, at the end of the day, they do not achieve their outcome. If people feel that they have had a chance to put in their objections and contrary suggestions, they are more likely to be satisfied with the outcome than if they are disregarded and a proposal goes on despite them. I am very concerned that that element of local planning will just disappear under this proposal. If this does come to pass, I will be pointing out to people exactly why it has happened.

The last issue I want to raise is why this proposal has suddenly appeared in the Bill. If it is because developers are putting pressure on the Government about an inadequate supply of land for housing then we ought to look at the evidence, which simply does not support that idea. In my own ward, I have planning consents for over 500 units, 300 of which have had consent for over three years. Nothing is happening because the developers are waiting for property prices to rise. All we will get with permission in principle is more land-banking by developers. Who benefits from that? It is the developers. It is not local people, who will lose opportunities to try and shape their community and have a say in what goes on. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure me on some of these points and will listen to the expert comments and concerns raised earlier.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, the amendment to Clause 136 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, enables us to consider some of the principles of permission in principle. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Lords’ Interests as the chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum. When we discussed the principles of the Bill at Second Reading, and in other debates in Committee, I said that we have to keep our eye on the purpose: our capacity to build more homes. If we are successful, through the mechanism of the Bill, in enabling and encouraging more homes to be built, many of the issues we have discussed in Committee will be expedited as a consequence.

Permission in principle is a measure which stands a good chance of enabling us to deliver more homes more quickly. I refer to the example which I gave at Second Reading from my own constituency, which continues to be current and interesting. When it was first proposed, Northstowe, to the north-west of Cambridge, would have been the largest new town built in this country for some 30 years. In 2003, as the local Member of Parliament, I participated in the public examination before the inspector as part of a detailed structure plan inquiry. The purpose of the inquiry was to identify the best location for the establishment of a large new town with some 10,000 homes. The structure plan identified Northstowe as the best location for such a development. It was intended, and subsequently incorporated into local planning, that there would be 6,000 new homes built there by 2016. It is now 2016 and no homes have yet been built. Governments of all political colours always included Northstowe as an example of development potential: the coalition, this Government, the previous Labour Government—Gordon Brown mentioned it when he announced eco-towns. Indeed, Simon Stevens from NHS England included Northstowe as one of the new healthy towns when he talked about them three weeks ago. It is no kind of a town unless we build it: we have to make it happen.

I draw attention to this because the structure plan inquiry went into detail—often exhaustive detail—about the suitability of the location for a development of that size. It looked with great care at the questions which permission in principle is intended to treat as the particulars. What was the location? It was a housing-led development, but what other associated uses were in the master plan? What was the amount of development? What were the density issues? The particulars were all there but, under our existing planning system, the fact that so much had been, as we understood it, agreed in the structure plan did not make any difference to the amount of cost, complexity and time that needed to be absorbed by the lead developers to bring this through to even an outline planning application. As noble Lords will understand, that is before the point at which they go on to the full planning application which follows.

What is intended here is very straightforward. Under such a set of circumstances, where major sites for housing development are contemplated and there is a local or neighbourhood planning process or an appropriate register as a qualifying document, we should go from three processes to two. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is right that the balance and the boundary between those two things is important. However, the implication of what he was saying was that, because the Government identify three particulars as the basis on which the development order will be granted, those particulars therefore exclude, by definition, some of the issues which enable the particulars to be determined.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley]

It is probably more for my noble friend the Minister to explain how the processes work. My point is simple: it is said that permission in principle is inimical to a local planning authority’s processes or democratic input, but that is not the case. It should prompt a much greater involvement on the part of local people. It should also focus the local planning authority on engaging with the people they represent, not only to ensure that there is a plan-led system, but so that it is understood that the local plan will in many instances give rise to permission in principle. That will cause people to engage with a local plan more than they have previously. For that and other reasons, I support Clause 136 and permission in principle.

[Baroness Pinnock]

Following on from what the noble Lord said—although perhaps the Minister will put us right—my understanding is that permission in principle has two routes. One is through the local and neighbourhood plan. Giving permission in principle is really what such plans do. It is the second route that I am concerned about. Through this route, an application can be made directly to the local planning authority for a site that may not have already been allocated for development—if it had been, it would be in the local plan. That is my concern with this proposal. If it just said that sites allocated in a local plan have, by the very nature of their being in a local plan, permission in principle, I could probably live with it. I am concerned about the second area, and I hope that I will get answers and reassurances.