High Streets (Built Environment Committee Report)

Lord Mair Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Mair (CB)]

My Lords, it was a privilege to be a member of the Built Environment Committee under the expert chairmanship of the previous chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. Our inquiry on high streets received more than 60 submissions of evidence from many organisations and individuals. I thank our excellent clerk Kate Wallis and her team, our specialist adviser Dr Lucy Montague and our impressive witnesses. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, on his introductory speech for this debate.

I welcome the broadly positive response of the Government to our report. There can be no doubt that high streets have encountered numerous challenges in recent years. There are at least two principal reasons: first, the falling consumer demand for retail shopping and an increase in online shopping; and, secondly, the presence of out-of-town retail parks and shopping centres. In many towns, these have led to shop closures, declining footfall and a general loss of appeal of the high street.

Our committee recognised that local high streets should be at the heart of communities. We set out to elucidate answers to three key questions. What makes a resilient and thriving high street? Who needs to be involved in making it a success? What is the role of government working with local communities in both policy and funding? I will briefly address some aspects relating to these three key questions.

First, what makes a resilient and thriving high street? Our committee found from oral and written evidence that there is no magic formula. Each high street faces different challenges. It was clear that what people want from their high street has constantly evolved and will continue to do so. This means that conforming to a fixed vision should be avoided. There is a need for adaptability and diversity. However, some common themes emerged. Ideally, communities want a mix of retail and services, green spaces and ready accessibility in terms of safe and easy access—the latter meaning good public transport connectivity, nearby parking for car access and careful design of pedestrianisation. Our inquiry emphasised the importance of celebrating the local history and character of a place, conserving and repurposing historic buildings wherever possible. Celebrating the character and heritage of the high street has a highly beneficial effect, encouraging a greater sense of pride in place, and it potentially draws more people in, increasing footfall.

Linked to celebration of local history is the existence of markets. Many markets to this day still operate under historic charters or local laws. We received evidence that around 80% of markets are owned and operated by local authorities. They enhance the vitality of a local high street, increase footfall and can act as catalysts for new businesses. We strongly recommend that local authorities and other market operators should continue to support market traders.

A thriving high street also needs attractive, well-designed and sustainable public space, notably including green areas. We heard about the value of people having space to socialise and spend time—without necessarily spending money—on the high street. Our committee undertook an engagement event with students from Lancaster and Shrewsbury; they told us that they want to see more and safer green spaces, giving them space to hang out and socialise. Ensuring that there are clean and well-maintained places for young people to socialise can contribute to the high street being used by a larger proportion of the community. This, in turn, can improve footfall and hence sustain local businesses and public services.

Secondly, who needs to be involved in making a successful high street? Ideally, landlords, business owners, local community members and local authorities all need to be involved. A sense of community, local pride and belonging—in other words, pride in place—is widely recognised as a vital ingredient for a thriving high street.

A Private Member’s Bill, the High Streets (Designation, Review and Improvement Plan) Bill, introduced by Jack Brereton in the House of Commons and sponsored by the noble Lord, Lord Whitby, in this House, received its Second Reading in this House in May 2024. Unfortunately, the Bill, which had cross-party support, did not progress in time before Parliament was dissolved for the general election in July 2024. It would have required all local authorities in England to designate at least one street, or a network of streets if appropriate, as a high street in their area.

Once in place, improvement plans would need to be reviewed at least once every five years. Consultation would have played a key role in the development of improvement plans. Local authorities would have been required to consult on the designation of high streets, as well as on the plans themselves. Ensuring community buy-in and support for a designated improvement plan for high streets was a particularly welcome feature of that Private Member’s Bill. Will the Minister support this principle and will the Government consider introducing a similar Bill?

Local planning policy is clearly a key determinant in the future of successful and thriving high streets. The previous Government amalgamated a number of use classes within the planning system into a single use class E to increase flexibility in building usage and revitalise city centres. It allows change in use across existing commercial, business and service buildings, without the need for planning permission. For example, a retail shop could be converted into a café, or an office into flats. Our committee noted that the introduction of use class E in the planning system has made high streets more adaptable.

However, too many retail premises converted into flats could have a damaging effect on the success of a thriving high street. If most of the shops were converted into flats, the character and vitality of a high street would change radically. We therefore recommended that the Government should undertake a review of the policy of expansion of permitted development rights to convert use class E properties into homes; there is a need to examine the impact that this is having on high streets relative to the number and quality of new homes delivered.

In response, the Government stated that it was important to achieve a balance—a balance between business owners and landlords adapting buildings and the ability of local authorities to implement improvement strategies for high streets. Consequently, the Government are not currently intending to review the policy regarding use class E properties, but are keeping this position under review. The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, referred to this. Can the Minister confirm that this is still the Government’s position? Does he agree that the use class E policy potentially risks damaging the vitality of high streets?

Thirdly and finally, what role should government have in funding high street improvements? Our committee received evidence that there is a wide range of different government programmes providing funding to local authorities for high street regeneration, but the wide range is confusing and lacks policy clarity. Moreover, the bidding system for awarding funding has historically been inefficient and costly for local authorities applying for funding. As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, this is time-consuming and a strain on already limited resources for local authorities. Our committee therefore recommended that any future programmes created as part of the local growth funding reforms should have a highly simplified bidding process.

We also recommended that the Government consider implementing a two-stage bidding process, with a simplified, cursory first stage. This would ensure wider participation by local authorities in bidding for funds for much-needed and vital improvements to their high streets. Can the Minister give an assurance that a simplified bidding system will soon be available? This would greatly assist local authorities in the often much-needed regeneration of their high streets.

Housing: Modern Methods of Construction

Lord Mair Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mair (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as a civil engineer, both in practice and as an academic, at Cambridge University, and as a consultant to Laing O’Rourke, the company that pioneered MMC in the construction industry. I am currently a member of the House’s Select Committee on the Built Environment; I was not a member when that committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, undertook its short inquiry on MMC for housing, culminating in its excellent letter to the Government.

However, I was a member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which in 2018 undertook an inquiry highly relevant to today’s debate, its report being entitled Off-Site Manufacture for Construction: Building for Change. That report concluded that off-site manufacture, synonymous with MMC,

“provides clear and tangible benefits which make a compelling case for its widespread use”.

Recognising these benefits, in the Autumn Budget of 2017 the Government announced a “presumption in favour” of off-site manufacture for five specific government departments: transport, health and social care, education, the MoJ and the MoD. Significantly, that presumption in favour was not stated as applying to MHCLG. For infrastructure generally, there have been many success stories: high-rise buildings, hospitals and schools are increasingly being built with MMC, demonstrating excellent design, significantly faster and higher-quality construction, and less waste.

The Science and Technology Committee heard that a significant barrier to MMC for house construction at scale was the need for longer lead times: the housebuilder has to commit to a production schedule well in advance of actual unit sales, risking that market conditions might deteriorate. This and other barriers could be overcome if there were a substantial guaranteed pipeline of MMC housing across the country—the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington of Fulham. My question for the Minister is therefore this: should not MHCLG—and Homes England—confirm its wholehearted support and announce forthwith a presumption in favour of MMC, as five other government departments have done?

High Streets (Designation, Review and Improvement Plan) Bill

Lord Mair Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mair (CB)]

My Lords, I warmly support this Bill. As set out by the noble Lord, Lord Whitby, in his introduction, high streets have faced numerous challenges in recent years for a variety of reasons, notably the falling consumer demand for retail shopping, the increase in online shopping and the presence of out-of-town retail parks and shopping centres. In many towns this has led to shop closures, declining footfall and a loss of appeal of the high street.

This House’s Built Environment Committee, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is currently undertaking an inquiry into high streets in towns and small cities. I have been privileged to be a member of that committee, along with the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth. Our committee has received more than 60 submissions of evidence from many organisations and individuals and heard from a large variety of oral witnesses. Views differ on what should be included on high streets to meet the needs of the whole community while, at the same time, supporting a thriving local economy. It is clear that this will very much depend on local circumstances. Each high street or town centre is different. Correspondingly, local authorities will have different views as to what improvement plans would be most appropriate for the designated high street in their area.

The Local Government Association was the only organisation that gave evidence to our committee to specifically refer to this Bill. It also commented ahead of the Bill’s Committee stage in another place. It has raised concerns that the Bill is legislating to give local authorities responsibility for something that they increasingly have limited control over, due to the impact of national policies. The LGA particularly emphasises permitted development rights, introduced in 2013, which allow changes of use between offices and residential uses. These were extended in 2021 to allow change of use between the very wide range of use class E properties and residential units. The LGA argues that these development rights should be revoked because they undermine a council’s place-making and strategic planning ambitions; property owners can change or remove high street uses without needing to seek planning permission from the council. In the context of this Bill, the LGA surely makes a good point.

The Bill will require local authorities to have regard to an improvement plan when exercising planning functions. How, if at all, would this relate to permitted development rights, and will such rights that allow significant changes of use without planning permission potentially impede the effectiveness of a council’s improvement plan required by the Bill? When the improvement plan is reviewed within five years of its publication, as required by the Bill, that review will presumably be by the council itself. When assessing the effectiveness of its own improvement plan, the council will have to take into account any changes of use under permitted development rights during the previous five years. Those changes of use could be very significant and, outside the council’s control, have adversely affected the council’s improvement plan.

Regarding financial implications of the Bill, the Government have allowed £26 million, the bulk of which will be for all local authorities in England to prepare and review up to three improvement plans for their designated high streets. Is this enough funding? Our committee has heard compelling evidence of local authorities being increasingly deprived of funds; they are already finding it difficult to allocate resources for planning and applying for the many government funding schemes, as referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth. Moreover, this £26 million probably covers only the costs of preparing the improvement plans; it almost certainly does not cover any significant costs of the actual improvement. In practice, this means that in preparation of improvement plans local authorities will be restricted to confining their plans to relatively unambitious, low-cost improvements.

I commend to noble Lords the excellent book, recently published by the RIBA, High Street: How Our Town Centres Can Bounce Back from the Retail Crisis. One of its authors, Dr Lucy Montague, from the Manchester School of Architecture, is a special adviser to our Built Environment Committee’s inquiry. She and her colleagues undertook a three-year study of over 100 high streets, which highlighted the importance of broader policies, such as town centre first planning policies. The book is refreshingly optimistic about the future of the high street, arguing that the crisis on the high street is a misleading term. There is indeed a crisis in big retail, and town and city centres dependent on multiple retailers have certainly suffered, but the authors argue that the high streets more reliant on independent retailers and emerging new sectors have a brighter future.

In summary, this is broadly a very positive Bill. By requiring councils to designate a priority area and propose high street improvement plans, the Bill has the potential to pave the way for future government policies specifically to support that designation and those improvement plans. The Bill may be less useful in isolation if other government policies are not introduced or modified in alignment with the Bill. Nevertheless, the Bill’s principal objective is to create thriving high streets, and this is to be warmly applauded.

International Women’s Day

Lord Mair Excerpts

Friday 10th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

That this House takes note of International Women’s Day and steps to support the education of women and girls in the United Kingdom and worldwide.

[Lord Mair (CB)]

My Lords, I will take the opportunity of this International Women’s Day to emphasise the vital importance of educating and attracting more women and girls into engineering.

The UK has a real shortage of engineers and there is a pressing need to diversify our engineering workforce. According to recent analysis by EngineeringUK, only around 15% of engineers are women. The supply of UK engineering skills has largely stagnated in recent years. In higher education, the proportion of students studying it has remained at around 5% for 15 years. UCAS data on university application and acceptance figures for the 2020 cycle shows that women represent just 18% and 16% of accepted applications to engineering and computing degrees respectively. At the current rate of progress, gender parity among entrants to engineering degrees will not be achieved until 2085. The number of young people starting engineering and manufacturing apprenticeships has also been in decline.

The UK is not unique in this. There is a global skills shortage in engineering; there are simply not enough engineers to tackle pressing global challenges, such as climate change. Engineers play a hugely important role in shaping the world we live in, not least in the engineering response to the Covid-19 pandemic and in helping us reach net zero emissions by 2050, so it is even more important that the engineering profession reflects the whole society it seeks to serve.

Over the last five years, the Royal Academy of Engineering has made it a particular mission to show what engineers and engineering really look like, changing public perceptions of engineering and inspiring a new generation to choose it as a career. The academy’s digital This is Engineering campaign aims to inspire young people from all backgrounds to consider engineering as a career.

The All-Party Parliamentary Engineering Group, the APPEG, is very active in inspiring young people about engineering. I declare an interest as its co-chair, along with Laurence Robertson MP. Sponsored by a range of engineering companies and organisations, we invite schools from all over the country to lunch events in the Cholmondeley Room here in the Lords. Typically, each event is attended by about 100 schoolchildren, all doing A-levels in sciences. Around 50% of them are girls. Each event covers a different engineering subject and brief presentations are made by three practising engineers, two of whom are usually young women. There is plenty of time for questions, and there are always many from the schoolchildren.

Recent APPEG events have covered a wide range of topics: engineering for disaster relief in developing countries; engineering for the space industry; engineering for the food industry; and, most recently, the engineering of skyscrapers. The feedback from the schoolchildren at these events has been superb. All of them have had their eyes opened to the huge variety of opportunities in engineering, particularly the girls, and many of them resolve to apply to engineering courses at university.

Progress in engaging young girls in technical subjects is steadily being made, albeit slowly. A 2022 report from EngineeringUK, Women in Engineering, found that around 15% of those working in engineering are women, compared with around 10% in 2010. This proportion is still much too small, but at least it is increasing. The engineering sector is aiming for 30% of the workforce being female by 2030, which is not high enough but would be a substantial improvement.

How should the education of girls change to achieve further improvement? The real barrier to girls entering the engineering profession is perception. At a very young age, peer pressure has a strong influence on what girls decide to study. Many girls miss out because they perceive that engineering is about only machinery or hard hats and construction—apparently subjects only for boys—and they do not want to be thought of as the odd one out. This perception of engineering as a boy’s subject is also widely held by parents and many teachers. In fact, engineering is very much wider than machinery or hard hats and construction. It is simply applied science, and covers a huge range of subjects, including building the net-zero world of tomorrow— ranging from biotech to environmental solutions, and from innovative new materials to novel energy systems such as hydrogen. These subjects are all very creative and potentially very attractive to girls.

Arguably, the misperceptions about engineering are already there by the time a girl reaches secondary school. Education about science and technology should really begin at primary school age. Primary Engineer, an organisation founded in 2005 by Dr Susan Scurlock, does just this. Each year, it engages around 4,000 teachers, 60,000 pupils and 1,500 engineers from hundreds of companies. When children as young as three and four are exposed to exciting engineering, they become inspired. Importantly, when engineering is offered at such an early age, gender is hardly an issue—not only can girls be engineers but the boys know that girls can be engineers.

Inspiring girls about STEM subjects, especially at primary school level, is all important. We must make it an urgent priority to provide many more girls with the skills needed for the exciting, highly varied and fulfilling world of engineering. They are the future, and have so much to offer.