Secure Tenancies (Victims of Domestic Abuse) Bill [HL]

Lord Porter of Spalding Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 24th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I support this amendment and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, that it is a probing amendment. I will ask the Minister a specific question about the obligations of housing associations. In a message on 19 January the Minister said:

“In a housing association property the tenancy standard protects social tenants who had a lifetime tenancy granted before April 2012 by requiring that they must be given a further lifetime tenancy if they move to another social rented home”.


The meaning of that is clear. However, what is the position for those granted a housing association tenancy after April 2012 who may be victims of domestic abuse? If they move to a local authority home, again, the situation is clear. But what advice will the Government give to housing associations which will not have the same obligation to give a lifetime tenancy if a tenant moves to another housing association property?

[Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman of the Local Government Association and as the leader of South Holland District Council. I put on record my personal support and the wider sector’s support for the Bill. I am not aware of any council in the country that would want to resist any of the good proposals in the Bill. However, as the Minister said earlier on the previous set of amendments, and as the noble Lord opposite just raised, there is an anomaly between types of landlord. While the Government may not be able to compel registered social landlords to offer like-for-like tenancies, given that most registered social landlords use taxpayers’ money to build those homes in the first place, perhaps the Minister could find a form of words that would give some form of encouragement to anybody who is expecting to get taxpayer-funded properties of the expectation that they would voluntarily put their properties into a scheme that allowed secure tenancies for victims of domestic abuse if they should happen to flee to an area where the council is not the primary landlord.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

I support this amendment. Towards the end of Second Reading I questioned the Minister about this issue during his summing up. He responded:

“The intention is for the legislation to cover that”.—[Official Report, 9/1/18; col. 161.]


Later on he said that,

“it is central to the legislation that we want to cover the Luton-to-Leicester situation”,

that I had referred to. I invite the Minister to say something rather more definitive now, because “intention” and “want” seem to me, as a non-lawyer, perhaps not to give quite the reassurance that somebody in this situation might look for in the legislation. Therefore, if it is necessary to spell it out more explicitly in the legislation, perhaps the Minister could give a commitment to come back on that on Report, or, at the very least, if the legislation covers it now, he could make a more explicit statement at this stage.

Secure Tenancies (Victims of Domestic Abuse) Bill [HL]

Lord Porter of Spalding Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 9th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)]

My Lords, it is probably pertinent that I declare my interests in so far as I am the chairman of the Local Government Association. I am also the leader of South Holland District Council, which is one of the few councils in the country that still owns housing stock.

I should congratulate my noble friend the Minister on his personal commitment to getting this legislation through. It is always good when good people do good things, so my congratulations. But one of the Bill’s shortcomings is that it addresses council tenancies, not all the social market. Given that most social properties are now owned by non-councils, some further work probably needs to be done—if not to compel RSLs forcefully, then at least to do so surreptitiously, so they do not know they are having their arms twisted to make them do it. A way of coercing them informally needs to be at least considered, given that the majority of those affected will be their tenants and the majority of the properties available will be theirs. To truly look after some of our most vulnerable citizens, widening the scope of the landlords covered would be a good thing to do.

I am really pleased that my noble friend the Minister said that we are considering widening the scope regarding vulnerable people who may be able to access lifetime tenancies or at least secure tenancies. Clearly, a number of other vulnerable groups really need the security of knowing that the home they live in will be the home they will always be able to live in, should they choose to and if their circumstances remain the same. That is particularly true for people with mobility impairments whose homes have been adapted for them, or people with mental health problems for whom there is no foreseeable chance of recovery. It seems pointless to make them look over their shoulder every five years at whether they might get a new tenancy.

I will not address directly some of the other comments made but they all stem from one problem. My noble friend the Minister would not forgive me—at least, he would think I had taken leave of my senses—if I did not take the opportunity to say that the reason we are having to ration the limited supply of available, affordable homes is simply that for the last 40 years, and under Governments of all colours, we have failed to build enough affordable homes in the right places for people to live in. This is not a criticism of the current Government but of all Governments. “Affordable” should not have just the interesting, latest variations in meaning; it should also mean social homes.

By social homes, I do not mean the fad from the 1980s of calling an RSL house a social home. That was a failed experiment. Social homes really does mean council houses, and if we are serious about this—clearly, the Prime Minister wants to be the most serious Prime Minister for years in tackling the housing crisis—the only way to do that is by allowing councils to take up their historic role as the main provider of social homes. I know from speaking to colleagues in all parties across the country that they are more than willing to do as much as possible, provided that the Government—whatever colour they end up being—give us the scope and freedom to do what we all know needs to be done: to build at historic levels again. I seriously congratulate my noble friend the Minister on getting this part of the legislation, at least, to address helping this most vulnerable group of people.

Local Government Finance Settlement

Lord Porter of Spalding Excerpts

Tuesday 19th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)]

My Lords, first, I remind noble Lords of my interests listed in the register— namely, that I am the chairman of the Local Government Association. I am also the leader of South Holland District Council, which is in Lincolnshire, so I thank the Government very much for letting us be one of the pilots. We much appreciate that.

As my noble friend might expect, I need to be critical of the fact that again adult social care was not mentioned. I cannot see the new funding in a positive light, as the £2 billion will not actually be £2 billion; it will be about £900 million this year, which will be insufficient to deal with the pressures. However, I have every faith that my noble friend and the Secretary of State will be able to persuade the Treasury that it will be in this Treasury’s best interests to find additional money. We all know that the people most affected by adult social care crises are those who vote. Also, as has been said, there has been a massive rise in the number of looked-after children. That will need to be reflected in direct funding to local councils, which will have to pick up that burden. However, I am confident that there is still time for my noble friend and the rest of the DCLG team to persuade the Treasury that that needs to be met.

I do not want to carry on being critical, so I will make some really happy noises. The fact that the changes to the new homes bonus flagged in the last few months will not be implemented will be well received by local government. Clearly, that would have been a counterproductive move and we are pleased that it is not happening. On a South Holland-specific basis, if the Government are looking for somewhere safe to trial the setting of planning fees, somebody whom I know will probably be writing a letter in support of that and offering their council as a pilot. They would not use it to stop development, which, I know, is one of the risks that the Government are concerned about. They are worried that some people might use it as a way of stopping planning permissions being granted in the first place by pushing up the fees to a prohibitive level.

All in all, I think that the Statement was a game of two halves. There was quite a lot to be glad about. The 1% council tax increase was a massive move forward—by 50%—although it is still not massive in terms of cash. In the case of South Holland, I think that it will increase my council tax by about 15p a year over and above what was already in the budget, so it will not make a fantastic difference. Given that 50% of my council tax goes to a drainage board and not to direct services offered by the council, a bit more flexibility around that would be appreciated. However, from the sector’s point of view, it is a welcome move. A move to relinquish the Treasury’s control of what we can charge locally is much appreciated but it would be a much better idea to remove the Treasury from the equation altogether. It is a local tax taken from local people for local services, and that should not require HMT to go anywhere near it.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords—

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Lord Porter of Spalding Excerpts

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 15th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I join the noble Lord in complimenting the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for his very thoughtful and constructive contributions to the Bill and on this amendment. However, I have one question to put to him about it. Proposed new subsection (8) defines a local authority as,

“a district council … a county council, or … a London borough council”.

Where do the new mayoral combined authorities sit within this framework? Perhaps the noble Lord could assist me with that, or perhaps the Minister could indicate what role is envisaged for a combined authority, which will presumably by its very nature include land for development which crosses what would previously have been boundaries but are now within the new framework. I suspect the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, would wish that combined authority to exercise a role, but perhaps the Minister could indicate what the Government’s attitude would be and whether any further step needs to be taken to ensure that that outcome is fulfilled.

[Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)]

My Lords, I speak in favour of the amendment as well, and declare my interest in the register as chairman of the Local Government Association. The noble Lord, Lord Best, is right that the association welcomes this. It is pleased to do so, even in a version that is slightly watered down from the original. The Secretary of State should be congratulated on being prepared to cede some power: it is not very often that a Secretary of State is happy to let somebody else get on with something unless it is going to be a bad news story. I honestly believe this will be a good news story, so I am pleased that he is prepared to do it.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, though, I also have an issue with proposed new subsection (8): its definition of councils does not appear to allow unitary councils where they are the council of choice for people to be the body that makes a decision. It is fine for the districts or the counties to do that, but unitary councils outside London appear to be excluded. I am sure Newcastle or Sheffield would also want some space in this conversation. I am not sure at the moment how that could be changed, but perhaps it could be changed to “local planning authorities and county councils”. That would capture all existing councils. I urge against including combined authorities at this stage until we are sure where the constituent members of those authorities see this power resting.

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Lord Porter of Spalding Excerpts

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 28th February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, pubs, as we realise, arouse strong emotions. We had a lengthy debate on this topic in Committee in the Moses Room. I do not want to rerun all the remarks that I laid out then. I remind the House that until three years ago I was a non-executive director of a company that operated brewers and about 2,000 pubs. I am outside the quarantine period, so that is no longer in my entry in the Register of Lords’ Interests.

I begin from what I hope is a shared position: we all want to keep pubs open wherever possible. The question posed by this amendment is at root this: will pubs be kept open by this additional legislation? I am afraid that for me the answer is negative. Pubs are closing because people use them less, and people are using them less because of changing leisure habits. Pubs are closing because people can buy the beer far more cheaply in the supermarket and then drink at home. Pubs are closing because of increasing beer duty and council tax and because of the introduction of the minimum wage, the living wage, the smoking ban, the drink-driving ban, new licensing requirements, and new health and safety legislation. Collectively, these have all combined to squeeze the general profitability of pubs to a point where many can no longer provide an adequate return to long-suffering and hard-working landlords.

Legislation cannot make a bad landlord into a good one. Legislation will not enlarge the curtilage, or land area, of a pub to enable new kitchen facilities or new parking areas to be constructed.

[Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)]

Will my noble friend give way? He said that no pubs are closing because of the changes to permitted development rights. I do not think anyone disputes that a number of pubs will close because they are not used by the communities that they are situated in, but can he prove that no viable pubs have been turned into supermarkets?

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

I certainly cannot. There are 37,000 pubs in the country and I am not able to stand here and say that the 37,000 pubs have been operated completely to the highest standards or that people have not tried to run them down. I shall return to the point about how there is already adequate protection for the community if it chooses to use it. One of the ways to improve a pub is to improve your kitchen facilities or enlarge your car park, but some of these pubs do not have the land area or curtilage to be able to do that.

It is not as though there is not already an opportunity for individual communities, using the asset of community value—the ACV facility—to apply for it to be listed. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, suggested that this was not an adequate remedy and that in some cases local authorities were reluctant to get involved for a series of reasons. I am sure there have seen cases like that, which is why I shall come in a minute to the question of one of the remedies for this. But equally, it is fair to say there are cases where local authorities have blanket-classified a whole series of pubs in their area—the lot—and that is also not what the ACV arrangements were designed to do.

Am I suggesting that every pub is being run scrupulously? Of course not: there are thousands of them and there will be outliers, on both sides of the case, in every community and every part of the country. But to introduce new legislation on the basis of a small number of cases—and it is a small number of cases, some of them anecdotal—is in my view a mistake. What the industry needs above all is more investment, not less, and nothing is more likely to put off potential investors than restrictions on how they can, in the end, realise their investment.

It has somehow gained credence that the groups at which these amendments are aimed are the allegedly rapacious pubcos and integrated brewers. If that is the aim, I have to tell the House that the target is being missed. The losers will be the independent operators, for example the many thousands of mum and dad operators. There are probably 20,000 couples who have worked long and hard, maybe after inheriting the pub from parents, and who now wish to sell up and retire. But because of restrictions like these, they find the sale price of the pub—also their home and their only asset—reduced in price drastically and maybe even unsaleable pending the ACV negotiations. If it is felt that the ACV process is not working well, I agree that it should be reviewed—but reviewed in the round so that the cases that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, refers to and the other cases where there have been block listings can be looked at and we can see how the balance of the ACV operation has been proved to work.

I urge those who support the amendment to be careful what they wish for. Legislation about the pub industry in the past has all too frequently led to some very unhappy unintended consequences. It is worth remembering that the emergence of the pubcos—companies that only own pubs, buy in all their beer and alcoholic drinks and are most disliked by CAMRA—came about only because of legislative action. The beer orders had the intent of opening up the market by reducing the power of the large brewers to dictate which beers were produced, and which owned and controlled the vast majority of the pubs.

Forced divestment of pubs did not lead to the anticipated happy outcome. It led instead to the emergence of what were essentially specialist property companies, all too often highly geared, with all that that implied for reinvestment in the pub industry. In my view, a similar unintended consequence may result if my noble friend were minded to accept this amendment, or the noble Lord was minded to put it to the vote and won the subsequent Division. My reason is this: because of the highly competitive nature of the market for the sale of alcoholic drinks and other changes in our socioeconomic life, pubs have increasingly turned to food, as a means of improving their profitability. Increasingly, they are becoming, in effect, restaurants. If I were an independent owner of a pub, faced with yet further changes, I would consider what the balance of my business was like; I would boost my food offering and apply for a change of use from my current A4—drinking establishment—to A3—restaurant/café. As a result the loss of pubs would accelerate, not slow down.

There is no evidence of widespread running down of pubs to accelerate closure. Where it happens the ACV procedure is available for the community to use. A handful of cases do not justify the imposition of additional restrictions on the whole industry. Hard cases make bad law—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tope]

My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord True, and, once again, I find myself supporting him strongly on this issue. We went through the Housing and Planning Bill together, usually extremely late at night—I recall being worried about whether I would get away in time to catch my last train. It worried me at the time that Conservative Richmond and Liberal Democrat Sutton, which are almost neighbouring boroughs, were so much in agreement. Now, when I hear that tonight we might be keeping the noble Lord, Lord True, from his budget-making council meeting, I feel that I almost owe it to my Liberal Democrat colleagues in Richmond to speak for at least another three hours on this extremely important amendment. Maybe we will do that.

I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord True, on this issue. I was, for 13 years, leader of a council in an almost neighbouring south London borough—Sutton. As I have said many times in this Chamber, I was a town-centre councillor in that borough for 40 years. I should perhaps add that it is still Liberal Democrat run after more than 30 years, so we are clearly doing something right there. This is a serious issue. It has affected Sutton and many London boroughs, and no doubt other parts of the country but particularly London, where residential property values are much higher and property owners and developers can make much more money from residential development than from office development.

Like the noble Lord, Lord True, in spite of the temptation he offered me, I will not go through all that I have said in previous debates, both on the Housing and Planning Bill and in Committee on this Bill. This matter was discussed in Grand Committee. I know that the noble Lord, Lord True, was unable to be there but I raised the issue there as well. I repeat that, in the time it took us to get an Article 4 direction into the town centre in Sutton—in a little over a year, but I will come back to that in a minute—the town centre lost 28% of its office space in about 18 months. The noble Lord, Lord True, talked about the figures for Richmond. Similarly, the percentage of office space in Sutton that was occupied or partly occupied was 62%. So we are not talking about empty and redundant offices which are past their sell-by date or are in areas where they are no longer needed; we are talking about active employment zones where people have jobs or go to shop or eat in their lunch hours, and which are a very important part of the local community.

I mentioned the Article 4 direction, which eventually we got for the town-centre area. Initially, my council proposed to get an Article 4 direction for the borough as a whole. I see the noble Lord, Lord True, nodding in agreement. Perhaps that was also the case in Richmond—I know that it was in a number of other London boroughs. It was made very clear to us by the Government at the time that that was a non-starter—it would not happen. So in Sutton we attempted to get an Article 4 direction in rather more targeted areas. Again, it was made clear to us that that would not succeed, so we targeted solely the town-centre area, to which I have referred on a number of occasions.

If you introduce Article 4 immediately, you are liable for considerable compensation payments to potential owners. It is simply not a viable option, particularly in a valuable town-centre area, so it needs 12 months’ notice. That was probably a significant contributor to why we lost 28% of our office space in the notice period for the Article 4 direction. As I said in Grand Committee, since Article 4 has applied in the town centre, that process has slowed down considerably for a number of reasons, but what has happened now is that the same developments are happening in a number of the district centres, where Article 4 does not apply and where, frankly, to go through the lengthy and expensive process of introducing Article 4, even if it were likely to be successful, would be time-consuming, expensive and possibly not so effective.

Minister after Minister, including the noble Lord on the Front Bench today, has quoted Article 4 as the answer to this problem. Clearly, attitudes have changed, and perhaps the understanding of the problem is greater than it was. Are the Government any more minded now than they were 12 or 24 months ago to accept Article 4 directions for the whole of a local authority area, as distinct from a very targeted approach? If that were the case, it would be very useful to know that from the Minister and would at least be of some help—and a very refreshing and welcome change.

I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord True, that the proper answer to this issue is to allow local authorities to decide for themselves, knowing and recognising the local situations. Like the noble Lord, Lord True, and as I have said on other occasions, I have no problem with the issue in principle. I understand and entirely accept that in other parts of the country it has proved very successful. However, in our part of south London, and in other parts of London, exactly the opposite has been the effect; it has been disastrous.

I turn now to the reason for which this measure was introduced. The current Minister, Gavin Barwell, a former Croydon councillor—another south London councillor—has said that housing need and the need to meet the Government’s housing targets override any concerns about permitted development rights. As I said before, it is not just about housing numbers. It is about housing need and about actually getting the right sorts of homes—not necessarily houses—in the right places. It is about the homes that are needed in areas where there are jobs for people to work in and where they support the local economy and do not detract from it.

Above all, this should contribute towards affordable homes. I leave aside for the moment what is the definition of an “affordable home” in south London, but south London needs affordable homes, and this process is providing very few, if any, affordable homes at all. Indeed, London Councils gives some figures, stating that:

“Between May 2013 and April 2015 at least 16,000 new dwellings have avoided the full planning process through office-to-residential PDRs. Had these developments been required to seek full planning permission for their conversion, many of them could have been required to contribute to affordable housing provisions”,


and, indeed, to contribute in many other ways to the local infrastructure—all of which is avoided by permitted development rights. It is questionable to what extent these really contribute to housing need in parts of London, as distinct from housing numbers. We should remember that there is an important distinction there sometimes.

A final point, which I raised very late at night during the Housing and Planning Bill, is that I would understand this a bit better if it was felt that the councils concerned were failing to meet their housing targets. Almost a year ago, I quoted the figures from my own council, and no doubt the noble Lord, Lord True, could do the same for his council. For each of the previous 10 years, my council—of which I am no longer a member—has more than met its housing target. Taken over the 10 years as a whole, housing completions in our borough were 130% above target. What is the justification for imposing the permitted development rights when it means losing all other planning gain that comes from such developments and, most importantly, losing the opportunity to get more much-needed affordable housing?

For all those reasons, I am more than happy to support, once again, the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord True. Like him, I do not know whether they are precisely right or necessarily the right answer. For me, the right answer is to trust the local authorities to do what is best for their area. But if we still do not have a Government willing to do that—I accept that the coalition Government were no better; indeed, they were arguably worse—then at least let them allow some leeway in those areas where it is an extremely important and pressing issue. What is happening in London today will happen in other parts of the country very soon, if it has not happened already.

[Lord Porter of Spalding]

My Lords, I support the amendment and declare my interests in the register as chairman of the Local Government Association and leader of a small rural district council, which, thankfully, is not affected by this issue and I do not think will, at any point soon, be directly affected by this issue.

I apologise to the House because, having tabled a similar amendment for Grand Committee, I was unable to attend to move it because I had an important diary clash and was speaking elsewhere at a conference. I thank my noble friend Lady Cumberlege for moving the amendment, which by all accounts she did much more eloquently than I would have done, so noble Lords had the bonus of having a better speaker delivering it.

I will not say too much because I need my noble friend to get back to make sure his budget is safe. This is a problem in very few areas around the country. It would not take much to shift from the Government’s point to be able to meet at least some of the concerns that are being raised. I do not think that anybody has a problem where redundant office accommodation has been lost that then becomes a benefit and an asset to the community by being turned into residential. But when this policy is driving viable businesses out of their homes, it has probably gone a step too far. Having listened to the debate on the previous amendment, I wonder whether it would help the Minister if we started to refer to these offices as white-collar cathedrals.

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Lord Porter of Spalding Excerpts

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

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise to the House for not having taken part in the Bill so far: every time I wanted to take part I have been in the committee upstairs, and when one has such a clash it is quite right that one should not come in, but today is a different story. First, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Cumberlege on what she has done. She has taken up a point and run with it against very formidable odds and I commend her hugely for doing so. She has a very strong point in principle. I also think that it was very important that my noble friend Lord Bourne got up at the beginning of this debate and said what he did.

Before I go any further I declare an interest as a member of RICS, although I have not practised for many years. I was delighted when my noble friend said that RICS is flexible about this and about amending the instructions it gives. I can only add to what the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said: neighbourhood plans are terribly important because they involve the neighbourhood. If people give their time freely and voluntarily to take part in putting these things together and they get kicked in the teeth, we will not get them to come forward a second time. It is hugely important for the Government’s policy, which I totally support, that the right support and instructions are given all the way down to the examiners and local authorities. This is not just about housing; in Hammersmith, there is a draft neighbourhood plan and a planning application which would drive a coach and horses straight through it.

These issues will affect the local community and if, having put all that work in, the community is seen to be ignored then the Government’s policy will fail. I hope that my noble friend Lady Cumberlege does not press this amendment because it is a very welcome sign that my noble friend the Minister said he is still considering it. I hope that the House will support the principle of the amendment but also support what my noble friend on the Front Bench is doing in giving this matter further thought.

[Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)]

My Lords, I speak in support of the spirit of what my noble friend Lady Cumberlege is trying to achieve. I have previously declared my interests in debate on the Bill, in being chairman of the Local Government Association and the leader of South Holland District Council. I said at Second Reading that I am not a fan of neighbourhood plans and nothing that I heard then or since would convince me that they are a good thing per se. But if we are to use a neighbourhood planning system, I certainly support the idea that when such a plan has been tested by the public whom it affects and by the local planning authority, and has been found to be in compliance with the NPPF, only in very extreme cases should it be overturned.

None of the proposals going forward, such as about training RICS inspectors to make sure they know what they are talking about, will suit what we need from this. We need an assurance from the Government that if the community goes through the pain of preparing a plan, that plan will be respected once it has been tested unless there is a major infrastructure need at a national level that would trump it. Revisiting how it is built will not give people any more confidence in a plan being respected once it has been done. The respect for the fact that it has been tested in public should be paramount. The Government really should decide whether or not they like neighbourhood planning and, if they do, they should find a form of words somewhere to insist that neighbourhood planning will be respected. I hope that my noble friend Lady Cumberlege does not press this to a Division because I would obviously go through the Lobby with the Government, on the basis that I do not think neighbourhood plans are the right thing to do anyway.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I start my remarks by making my usual declarations. I refer the House to my register of interests and declare that I am an elected councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I too pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, who has led on this issue with considerable skill right from the start of our deliberations. We are all grateful to her for that.

Everyone who has spoken, with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Porter, has voiced support for neighbourhood planning. It is right for the Government to set out the policy and parameters—the broad aims of what they want—but it must surely be the job of the local community, local councillors, the parish and local planners working together to set out in the context of that overall policy what should happen locally. The noble Baroness’s amendment would do just that, with a number of sensible safeguards that should give comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth. The amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State to uphold neighbourhood plans, with the proviso that they can be overridden only in exceptional circumstances. The proposed new clause sets out clearly the responsibilities and how matters of national concern would not be frustrated by the neighbourhood planning process, which is a very important part to have in it.

Subsection (2) of the proposed new clause makes it clear that where it has been deemed necessary by the Secretary of State to override the local plans in the requirement to build additional homes, it must be done with regard to the local plan. Again this is a very sensible proviso, as surely we want any changes made locally to be done as sensitively as possible, and not to have some sort of fire sale where everything is up for grabs and no account is taken of the views of local people and the work that has gone into producing the local plan. It should not just be ignored in that respect.

Finally, subsection (3) of the proposed new clause makes it clear that it is the responsibility of the local planning authority, with the local community, to decide where it is best to have any additional required development. That is, as always, making sure the Secretary of State is setting out the broad policy parameters, but it is the local community, local councillors and the planning authority deciding the detail in the context of that broad policy aim.

I agree with many of the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. The noble Baroness made her case very well. I welcome the points made by the Minister in his helpful comments at the start of the debate, but I am not sure he has gone far enough. The noble Baroness referred to coming back at Third Reading. The Minister talked about policy and guidance and what they are doing in the department, but—perhaps he will come to this in a moment—I did not hear him say what, if anything, he will bring back at Third Reading. I look forward to hearing that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Porter of Spalding]

Like my noble friend Lord Lansley, I will speak to Amendment 8, not to support it but as an opportunity to highlight the fact that county councils would probably be very unwilling to pick up the planning authority responsibility on the basis that they do not have sufficient funds at the moment to deliver adult social care. Why, therefore, would they try to take on planning, which is already subsidised by council tax payers by about 30%? That would leave county councils with less resources to provide the services they currently need to provide, which are already not given sufficient resources.

I cannot understand the Government’s obsession with getting a local plan in place. When we drafted the National Planning Policy Framework it was a stand-alone document that would give pro-development councils sufficient protection where development took place in their own area. A local plan is needed purely so that councils can reduce the amount of development they will take, not increase it. If the Government’s intention is to try to speed up planning and build more homes—something that everybody supports—that will not necessarily be assisted by having a local plan in place. I do not see the attraction, yet we keep going back to focus on local plans. They are not necessary in a pro-development area. Pro-development councils will get sufficient protection from the NPPF; that is how we drafted it.

[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 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.

[Lord Porter of Spalding]

Following on from that point, on the basis that district councils are not getting paid for carrying out the plan in the first place, it cannot possibly be them that reimburses a county council—it must be the Government. If the Government are now prepared to pay for planning, perhaps those districts that do not yet have a plan will consider asking their county council to take it on so that the Government actually pay for it.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I cannot help but stand up at this moment. It seems to me that the solution to this whole problem is unitary authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 40, tabled in my name, is included in this group and carries on the theme of many of the amendments before us, which is how to give communities confidence that the work and effort they put into a local plan will be taken seriously. In so doing we would encourage more widespread planning in local communities, which is something we want to see. The Minister has suggested that the Bill and the ministerial Statement produced before Christmas are sufficient. Although I acknowledge that they are a step in the right direction, I and others who spoke in Committee did not and still do not believe that on their own they are sufficient. Let me make it clear: a neighbourhood planning body has no right of appeal if the local authority approves an application contrary to the neighbourhood plan or if the development would comprise fewer than 10 homes, which in rural areas means the majority of applications. Their only recourse is to go to judicial review. However, these are neighbourhood planning bodies. They are not all parish councils and they do not have substantial budgets, while of course the judicial review process is costly and largely procedural anyway.

I echo others in saying how helpful the Minister has been in his communications on these matters and I accept the sincerity of his belief that the measures in the Bill are sufficient. I would give him the benefit of the doubt if I knew that the department will be monitoring local planning authorities which do not respect the wishes set out in neighbourhood plans. This is a new process, but when in the future we get new planning Bills, which we surely will as a result of the housing White Paper, noble Lords need to have evidence if the welcome intentions in this Bill are not being delivered. We could then seek to ensure that there is a proper system of review along the lines that I have proposed in the amendment if neighbourhood plans are not being given the weight that they deserve. Here I should say that I am most grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. The time and effort that is invested in neighbourhood plans means that communities have the right to expect them to be taken seriously and we should address the concerns of those who feel that they are simply being ignored and that there is nothing they can do.

I know that the Minister will not accept this amendment, but I would ask him to say in his response whether the Government will commit to asking local planning authorities to notify DCLG when they decide on an application which is contrary to the views of a post-examined neighbourhood plan.

[Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)]

My Lords, I should appear to be sympathetic to anything that seeks to push power back into the hands of local planning authorities as regards their ability to reject a planning application and the Secretary of State having to support the decision. But I am worried about anything that would compel that, on the basis that if developers were not able to appeal to the Government to revisit the decision, they would go through the courts, at which point a council would not only have to employ planning people to deal with a planning appeal, it would have to pay for a barrister as well. So while I am sympathetic to the fact that planning applications which have been refused for non-compliance should not be routinely overturned, I would rather see the Government take a firmer hand with the Planning Inspectorate to ensure that when it does intervene in a case, it does so in a way that has been properly tested by the Secretary of State. I said on the last occasion that people in the outside world are saying that some planning inspectors have gone feral, and that position still pertains today. So rather than compelling the Secretary of State to support a refusal by a council, we need to encourage him to take a firmer grip of the Planning Inspectorate to make sure that in all cases it operates in the way the Government have sanctioned and not in a way that it chooses to sanction for itself.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise to noble Lords for appearing late but I have been performing duties for what I declare as an interest, as leader of a local authority which is a London borough. On my way to the Chamber I was listening to the remarks of my noble friend Lady Cumberlege on the annunciator and I have considerable sympathy with the spirit and thrust of all she has been arguing for in this Bill and indeed in the amendment before us. I rather agree with what my noble friend Lord Porter has just said, and I will come back to that in the question of the real non-accountability of the system operated by the Secretary of State in terms of the inspectorate, where there are overturns. I am really addressing my remarks to Amendment 6.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Porter of Spalding]

I also support the amendment, although no one should panic—I might not vote in a Division, if it gets pushed, unless I am instructed to. But it just makes sense.

We know this will not fix the whole housing shortage, but it will be a useful tool to help that happen and we need to encourage councils to do this. While the control of these developments rests with the Secretary of State, it will be very difficult to persuade local councils and the communities that they represent that this is the right way to do it. By pushing power closer to the councils, and therefore to the people they represent, this amendment will make it more likely that more of these will come through. The noble Lord, Lord Best, tried to do this in a positive way, and the really positive point is that we can actually capture the value of the land. The land will give us the ability to make the communities truly sustainable: it will give us the money to make sure the roads, the water supply, the gas supply and the electricity supply are all right. In some areas, if probably not my own, the broadband might even be all right as well on the back of this.

I gave evidence to the Public Accounts Committee yesterday. One of the other witnesses was from Shelter, and he pointed out that one of the flaws in this argument is that we may need to revisit the compulsory purchase rules, because even when you compulsorily purchase land for a new town settlement, the land uplift still goes to the current landowner. If the Government are seriously interested in this, I would urge them to look also at reforming the compulsory purchase rules relating to new town settlements.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I also very much support this amendment from my noble friend. I declare that I have chaired two small commercial development companies in the south-west, but that makes me even more in favour of the amendment and of giving local authorities control.

Down in Cornwall, where I live, the eco-town around St Austell, where I was a local councillor for a short period of time, which we unfortunately failed to deliver, showed how full local authority involvement—although it was not as full maybe even then as I would have wanted it to be—meant that we could start to get local buy-in and make these things happen by involving local communities and ensuring they were connected in the right way. I am sure that empowering local authorities will make the process a lot better.

However, dissociating myself from some of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Best, I would say that some of the best developments in the far south-west have been in villages, particularly in areas of community land trusts. Small extensions make shops, pubs and schools more viable and make sure there are young family elements to those villages as well. I see no conflict between the two. What we want to produce through this amendment is public buy-in, so there are not these large objections from local people and so that we can move ahead, not just with small developments but with these new garden developments—effectively, properly, environmentally and quickly.

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Lord Porter of Spalding Excerpts

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

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a councillor in the borough of Kirklees. I added my name to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, because I thought that the iron fist might be more effective in this regard than my noble friend’s velvet glove. Those of us suffering as a result of appeals to the Planning Inspectorate and the Secretary of State have become as angry as the noble Baroness has with the situation that her village has faced.

The amendment highlights that the power of local people to determine the impact of planning on their area is constantly undermined, despite the Government’s commitment to localism and neighbourhood planning. Many of the parameters surrounding new development are set by government: planning legislation and the National Planning Policy Framework. All that is already in hand, and it is within that context that the local planning authority makes and determines through consultation decisions about its local plan.

It is interesting to remember how a local plan begins. It begins not with local people making decisions through their neighbourhood plan but with a call for sites, which means developers indicating which sites they would like to use and local landowners wanting to see the value of their land enhanced by putting it forward for development. I have no problem with either of those things; the problem I have is that they are the starting point. The whole purpose of the Bill seems to be to reverse that process and have neighbourhood plans as the foundation of a local plan. It puts local people in charge rather than developers and landowners.

When local councils come to determine the local plan, it includes not only land allocation but planning policies. In that is the formal consultation, which takes place several times, and then it is finally agreed. You would think that then, if the Government were sincere in their approach to localism, that would be the end of it: a huge document is produced which includes hundreds of detailed policies about what can be developed and where, and detailed maps of where land is allocated for business use, for housing, for flood prevention or whatever—and that would be it. After many years of consultation and consideration, one would think there would finally be an agreement, but no, that is not the end of it. Local people do not have a final say. There is then the examination by a planning inspector to test the development; for instance, on grounds of soundness. At that stage the developers have another go. Their site has been rejected so they bring it forward again. They obviously have a great advantage at that stage as they have expensive barristers at their side whereas local people just make their voices heard. Having gone through the earlier process, residents have a right to expect that their case should not be challenged any more.

Then we come to the question of appeals. Two points have already come up in our discussions today. The Minister said that a three-year housing supply is now the basis on which appeals can be made in regard to a lack of housing in a local plan. I seek clarification on whether that occurs only in relation to a neighbourhood plan or would cover the whole area of a local plan. That is very important, certainly in my district, where a number of appeals are going forward to enable developers to build on urban green space—the equivalent of greenbelt within an urban area—on the basis only of an alleged lack of a five-year supply, and despite the fact that a local plan has been agreed by the council and is awaiting examination. I hope that the Minister will clarify that critical issue because, as others have said, developers see a loophole enabling them to put forward plans on land that has in this case been set aside as urban green space for 40 years, and will continue to be so set aside in the next local plan, following its examination. However, a developer can put forward a planning application for that land and it is going to appeal—we await the result of that—on the basis only of this five-year supply issue. That is obviously due to the length of time that a local plan takes to go through the examination process.

As has been described, residents then feel thoroughly disenchanted with the whole process. Local residents who have been consulted through a local district plan, a neighbourhood forum or a neighbourhood plan have a right to expect that, having gone through all that and having made the compromises which inevitably and rightly take place so that development can occur, they should have their wishes upheld and not be undermined by what I regard as spurious claims by developers to override fundamental policies that have been agreed and contained in a local plan. That is why I support wholeheartedly the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify the situation as regards a three-year or five-year land supply.

[Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)]

My Lords, I hope your Lordships will forgive me but I have not spoken in this Room before. It is my first time and if what I say is right, it is right, but if it is wrong, it is wrong. I declare my interests as the chairman of the Local Government Association until June—I hope—and as leader of South Holland District Council. In terms of what we are dealing with today, I am one of the four people who drafted the National Planning Policy Framework, so I know a little bit about what is in it and I certainly know what the intention was. It was to deliver sustainable development in places in the country where it is needed in a way that the people living in the local area could accept, to ensure that we get the homes we badly need in the most timely fashion.

I have to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, that neighbourhood plans were not seen by all of us as the route for making that happen. I personally objected to putting neighbourhood plans in, but that was not because I did not want development, it was because I wanted to see more development and I thought that neighbourhood plans would be a route to slowing it down. But the Government pursued them, so it is incredibly bizarre that if a neighbourhood plan or a local plan has been drawn up in compliance with the NPPF, the Planning Inspectorate is allowed—and some would say sometimes encouraged—to overturn it. The inspectorate should not be able to do that.

There are people outside this Room who think that the Planning Inspectorate has gone feral. It is not working to direction from the Government because it has individual planning inspectors working to their own direction for their own aims. It is important that the Government should insist on the supremacy of the public’s ownership of the planning system. If someone has gone through the pain of making a neighbourhood plan, even though I disagree with such plans in principle, if that is what the Government are intent on using as a way of encouraging development at the local level, once those plans have been tested in public by an inspector and are found to be sound and in compliance with the local plan, if one is in place, or at the very least in compliance with the NPPF, the Planning Inspectorate should never be allowed to overturn one of those decisions except on pain of some form of proper cross-examination by the Government.

We all know that even though the Secretary of State has signed off a planning appeal, it is very rare for the Secretary of State to be personally blamed for that appeal, because generally it does not get anywhere near them. If a neighbourhood plan or a local plan is in place and the inspectorate feels that for good strategic reasons it has to overturn it, there should be some insistence that the Secretary of State should actually take personal ownership of it so that people can be sure that there is political oversight of the bureaucrats working in the planning department. On that basis, I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Cumberlege.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, is one that I am obviously happy to support. As we have heard, the purpose of the amendment is to place in the Bill a requirement, when the Secretary of State has determined an appeal against a decision, that due weight has to be given by the Secretary of State to any proposals set out in the neighbourhood development plan or a post-examination plan. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, said that his amendment is much softer and he hopes to get a more positive response from the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, when he comes to reply. The noble Lord also highlighted the issue where people have worked hard to put together a neighbourhood plan only to have it overridden by the Secretary of State, which is very much the point just made by the noble Lord, Lord Porter, as well.

Amendment 20 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, seeks to give further strength to local development plans. If an application for planning permission is made to the local authority but is refused on the grounds that it is not in accordance with the local development plan, the assumption is that the Secretary of State will uphold that decision. It seems perverse that the Secretary of State would seek to overturn a decision which, as we have heard, is in line with the NPPF, so it is important that that point is made clear by the Minister. I hope that he will also respond to the points made by the noble Baroness in respect of localism.

I will leave my remarks at that but I may have one or two questions for the Minister when he comes to respond to the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stunell]

I thank the Minister for his reply. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for her support. I particularly valued the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Porter, if I may say so, because he was very clear in explaining that he does not necessarily believe that neighbourhood plans are the way to promote development and growth, and he started off at least as a deep sceptic. Nevertheless, he has championed the need to make sure that neighbourhood plans, once made, are treated as serious documents which carry very considerable weight in subsequent decision-making. That is exactly the view that I put and it is exactly the way that I have expressed it in my amendment, which is not to fetter the discretion of the Secretary of State but simply to insist that he gives particular weight to a neighbourhood plan in reaching a decision. I think that links up with one of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Porter. He said that some planning inspectors have gone “feral”.

[Lord Porter of Spalding]

Can I clarify that? I did not actually say that; I said some people out on the street are saying it.

[Lord Stunell]

I will let the record stay as it is on that. At Second Reading, I referred to the fact that there are some rogue inspectors. Perhaps I can make clear that I am not accusing them of a breach of their duties under the seven principles of public service, but there is a continuation of the implementation of a policy which, at the latest, was discontinued by the Localism Act in 2010. That is resulting in insufficient weight being given to a statutory process—the establishment of neighbourhood plans—that should and could have the same weight as adopted local plans and any views that an inspector might seek to impose on the situation.

I referred to this at Second Reading and will do so again, but until 2010 the direction of travel was in one way, towards a professionalised planning service that did not give sufficient weight or an effective voice to local communities. In 2010, through the Localism Act, that was turned round completely in its intent by having plans established and developed by local communities and then allowing developers to implement them. Despite the scepticism at the time—the noble Lord, Lord Porter, might even concede this—neighbourhood plans delivered growth and more housing sites. I see the Minister nodding. This is not a question of the nimbys triumphing or an example of a wild political theory with malign consequences. It is working, delivering the results that everybody wants to see and it is in danger of being sabotaged by what I think is a continuation by some people—perhaps some senior civil servants in the department and certainly some inspectors—of a policy that was changed in 2010. They have not caught up with it. In that sense, it is quite right that they should be exposed. To use the phrase of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, perhaps some feet need to go on the fire where that is concerned.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for his support. I think the Minister can provide us with a little more information about those 75 cases. How many of them related to overthrowing neighbourhood plans? Of the 75, how many were upheld? In how many cases were the inspector’s recommendations endorsed and in how many were they overturned? Let us get some idea of what we are talking about here. Of course, I was not alleging that the Secretary of State is overturning hundreds of thousands of cases of either neighbourhood or local plans. I made the case that we have a very new animal in the neighbourhood plan, which takes a gestation period and a good deal of effort to be delivered. If at the end of that process it is simply to be—I must choose my words carefully—disposed of, people will not invest their time in doing them. The whole strategic idea lying behind neighbourhood planning will fall into disuse and discredit.

I believe my amendment addressed that, giving a strong prod to the system to ensure that there was an effective and powerful impetus to giving validity to neighbourhood plans at the expense of developments that were clearly out of order. I am sorry that the Minister does not agree with that. I noted his emollient words in relation to Amendment 1 and I hope they apply to Amendment 5 too. I look forward to constructive discussion to see what we can resolve. If it makes him feel any better, I will not personally hold his feet to the fire. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Lord Porter of Spalding Excerpts

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

[Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests, particularly that I am chairman of the Local Government Association and leader of South Holland District Council; I do some small-scale private development; and, as I am going to talk about pubs, I use those as well at some point in the evenings, so I have a personal prejudicial interest there.

I largely welcome the Bill for two reasons: first, there are some good parts in it—compulsory purchase needs to be speeded up and neighbourhood planning needs to be strengthened—although there are issues around the inspectorate, which I will get around to later; and, secondly, it is not as dangerous as it could have been. It has been suitably amended before it got to us so that it is in much better condition than it was, and I hope that by the time it leaves us it will be in even better condition.

However, Members of this House ought to be under no illusion that we will speed up development with this Bill. It will not add to the totality of the numbers of properties built, nor will it speed up the total numbers of properties built. If we as a country really are serious about tackling the housing crisis—it has been 40 years in the making so all the main political parties have their fingerprints on it and no particular Government can take responsibility for it—it needs to be a Treasury Bill that fixes it, because most of the roots of all evil in planning stem from the Treasury’s policies. We need to free up local councils to be able to deliver the units that we need. Post-war, we have exceeded the 300,000-plus numbers only twice, and that was done only by the state getting involved. I am not suggesting that we go back to building big monolithic council estates, because we have seen the problems that that creates in terms of social cohesion, but there needs to be a greater role for councils and RSLs to free up the money that we already have. It would not involve the Treasury dipping its hands into anyone’s pocket; it would merely allow us to borrow against the asset that we already have. There are over 3 million social units being run by councils or RSLs that are not sweated up to their full value. Any business model would sweat those up to their full value, so if we are serious about building more homes then we need to let local government get into the space where it should be.

There are issues around planning fees, which noble Lords have already mentioned. At the moment the taxpayer is subsidising the planning system to the tune of about £150 million a year. We need to get councils to be able to increase the staff that they have by fully recovering the costs of planning permissions. At the moment that is not done. That is a relatively simple thing for the Treasury to enable us to do and, again, it would not cost us any money, or at least would not cost the taxpayer money.

On permitted development rights, yes, fine, okay, they speed up some planning permissions, but in some areas they have gone too far. There needs to be a clause somewhere in the Bill that allows us to revisit those areas that have lost the most office space through permitted development rights to see if the balance has gone too far.

While I will probably not actually go through the Division Lobby with noble Lords on the Benches opposite to support the need to make pubs more sustainable in terms of where they sit in their local communities, we need to find a way of protecting those pubs that are most valued when they are not necessarily as financially sustainable for the breweries as they could be if they were turned into residential units. There needs to be a way to resist that in the case of the larger breweries. I am not suggesting that an individual owner of a pub that has no customers should be compelled to keep it as a pub; clearly, if it was that useful to the community, people would have gone in it. There needs to be some sort of recognition of the scale of the owner of the pub if you are going to restrict the ability of the owners to do what they want.

As I say, I think the Bill is going to be really good because it will be less bad than it would have been, but it does not and will not address the needs that we have. There are 477,000 extant planning permissions in this country, and 277,000 were permitted last year. I am more generous than the Opposition and give the Government credit for 190,000 completions in the last year, but that is still nowhere near the total that is needed to be built. If we are really serious, this should be fed into the White Paper that is due soon—are we at “imminently” now? That is where we will have the biggest chance to have input into that. I am pleased that on this occasion the Government have done it as a White Paper so that there will be a chance for everyone to feed into it and perhaps move this political football beyond party politics. We can all have a strong input into the paper to make it the vehicle to fix the problem, but we should not be under any illusion that this Bill is the vehicle to do so.

Homelessness

Lord Porter of Spalding Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)]

My Lords, I draw noble Lords’ attention to my register of interests again. I am the leader of South Holland District Council and the chairman of the Local Government Association. I am a partner in a very small business that rents out houses privately, and I am the chairman of a community interest housing company that we set up specifically to deal with homelessness.

I will expand a bit on the words of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in terms of not just dealing with this as a rough sleeping issue. We have 70,000 people in council accommodation for the homeless, nearly 1 million people sitting on council waiting lists and only about 1.6 million council houses that are still in council use. This is not just a problem for this Government. It is a historical problem that this Government inherited from their predecessor—of whom they were part—which they in turn inherited from their predecessor, whom they clearly were not part of. Homelessness seems to be a problem despite the best efforts of the best political brains in the country for the last 40 years to tackle it—we seem to have failed. It is probably time now for the Government to take a completely different tack and work closely with the local government family and the third sector to make sure that we give attention to detail that is not driven by people from the Treasury.

Now is probably the time for DCLG to be set free from the Treasury so that it is able to come up with the solution that we all know is the one we need to follow, which is for money to be put towards the supply problem. It is not about the supply of properties; as we know, councils have planning permission for more than 500,000 properties. The private sector, however, for varying reasons, not all of them simple, has failed to deliver those units. Councils have proposed a solution to the Government that would allow 500,000 new units to be delivered in the life of a Parliament, and I again extend the offer from the Local Government Association to work very closely with DCLG on making sure that we try, once and for all, to manage people’s expectations that they should be able to live in a decent, safe, secure, warm home.