Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Ravensdale Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 25th October 2023 Lords Chamber

I thank all in the House who supported the amendment in its original and revised forms, and my colleagues in the other place, including my honourable friend Peter Aldous, my right honourable friend Theresa Villiers, and others who spoke in support of this. That this humble, modest amendment is the thin end of the wedge, where all meetings would go from being totally physical to totally virtual, is a little of an exaggeration. While not wanting to test the patience of the House further by pressing this to a vote, I express a little disappointment and sadness that the Government have not seen fit to move on this occasion.

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Motion B. I declare my interests as set out in the register. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, the noble Lords, Lord Lansley, Lord Teverson and Lord Hunt, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, all of whom supported the amendment at earlier stages.

I particularly thank the Minister for coming back with the government amendment. Although it does not give us everything that we asked for, it constitutes great progress in this area. It ensures that climate mitigation and adaptation will be considered in the national development management policies, and, looking at the wider context of plans in the Bill, will ensure that it is included and will then be a compulsory part of decision-making. Therefore, it goes some way towards giving us what we were after, and I am grateful to the Minister for coming back with that substantive amendment.

I have one small point. In the absence of a definition of climate change mitigation and adaptation in the amendment, perhaps the Minister might consider including the targets, with reference to the Climate Change Act and the Environment Act, in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill.

I welcome the comments made by the Minister in the other place that the Government intend to do a fuller review of the NPPF, to ensure that it contributes to climate change mitigation and adaptation as fully as possible, following Royal Assent. I hope the Government seize the opportunity here to strengthen chapter 14 of the NPPF to specify that, in determining planning applications, decision-makers must take account of climate change mitigation and adaptation.

The government amendment embedding climate and the environment in planning decision-making will have a great effect on getting clean infrastructure and sustainable homes built right across the country. Importantly, it will also do much to empower local authorities and regions to play their part in the net-zero transition, which they all want to do. We still see a need for further legislative work in this area—particularly on a move towards a statutory duty, as we propose—but, again, I am grateful for the progress that has been made.

Lastly, I thank all noble Lords who voted for my amendment and helped to get it over the line in a very close vote on Monday.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I shall comment on each of the amendments. First, I commiserate with the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I do so as a past president of the National Association of Local Councils, the parent of parish and town councils in this country, which would dearly have loved to have had the facility to vary the way in which it deals with meetings. I am sorry that the Government have not seen fit to acquiesce to any of this. The Minister suggested that the measure went too far and that it would open the floodgates to local government holding virtual meetings as a matter of course. Were that his fear, the Government’s fear or that of the other place, it seems to me that it would have been perfectly possible to come back with a proviso that the Secretary of State would make regulation.

One matter that has never been explained to my satisfaction is the juxtaposition—the fact that, by definition, accountability is somehow measured by physical presence. I do not get that, and I do not think there will be many Members of this House present today who will get it. This issue will come back through sheer force of practicality and necessity. We have to move into the modern age, in that sense. I will leave my comments on that there.

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, on his success in getting what I can only describe as the obvious provision into this Bill, namely that we have to take climate change seriously and that it underpins everything that we do. To that extent, it was inevitable—if not in this Bill then in very short order—that something would have to be included somewhere in primary legislation, but I congratulate him on his persistence in getting this far. Even if it is not the whole bun, it is certainly more than a currant in the bun and he is to be congratulated.

In that context, there are other things in the Bill that have been left on the cutting- room floor. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, is not here at the moment. His amendment on healthy homes is about something that is inevitably going to come back. It is not going to disappear; this is going to have to be the benchmark whereby society expects homes to be created.

The series of amendments which I have been trying to get through unsuccessfully was to do with building safety remediation. The fact is that so many leasehold homes are unprotected yet are faced with remediation costs and liabilities, without which they will not get insurance at any sensible cost. These homes are not excluded from the necessity of remediation by virtue of their height, whether it be 11 metres and below or above 11 metres, because the Building Safety Act 2022 says that it will cover all these other buildings.

It is simply not correct that somehow these homes escape the inevitable consequences of that. That is going to come home to roost because there is an entire market sector—an entire financial sector—that is dependent upon that being resolved. If it is not resolved now in this Bill, as it clearly will not be, then it will come back in short order because this is a matter of an existential threat to leasehold tenure, or indeed whatever tenure there might be instead of leasehold. If you have a building in multiple occupation, where different parts are apartments, this problem is going to come home to roost so long as there are defects caused in the original construction and the constructor and developer are able to walk away from that liability.

In congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, on getting his motherhood and apple pie amendment passed, let me remind your Lordships that other bits that have been left behind are also going to come back and haunt us as things go forward.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Ravensdale Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 23rd October 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I have listened to what the noble Earl has said today and what he put in his recent letter to us, and also to what was said by the Minister in the other place last week. The Minister will forgive me if I am not placated by the meagre shift from no consultation at all if we can get away with it to Motion L, which is as little consultation as possible so that we can say we have listened. That is what it feels like, sadly. It is hugely disappointing to see that, while the Government’s amendment in lieu does indeed put public consultation for new NDMPs on a legal footing that cannot be negotiated away, there is still no agreed consultation and scrutiny process enshrined in the legislation. For us, that is the key point.

The scope, level and duration of the consultation that this and successive Governments can use is not defined in the Bill, nor in the accompanying regulation. Most importantly, the Government’s amendment in lieu makes no specific mention of parliamentary scrutiny, which both Houses and the relevant Select Committee had called for. As the noble Earl has said, we understand that individual parliamentarians or committees can indeed participate in consultations, like any other citizen. However, without specific provision, the Bill does not require any parliamentary oversight of approval before NDMPs can come into force.

It is worth reminding ourselves that NDMPs are a new and very radical departure from the current system. I am surprised because, if NDMPs are going to do the heavy lifting in order to streamline and simplify the system, as is often quoted and claimed by Ministers, surely they need to be heavily scrutinised and tested. If they are going to do the job that the Government want them to do and work effectively, I cannot understand why the Government would risk them going forward into law without being test-driven properly through Parliament.

We have all seen the impact of what has been happening recently, with ministerial announcements on the hoof and the very recent arrival of the “refreshed”—I believe that is the word—NPPF. It has thrown the planning system into chaos, with plans withdrawn or paused, and planners not knowing what to do or what to take account of. Similar things will happen again if we do not know what these NDMPs contain. They are currently a blank piece of paper.

In response, my modest amendment is necessary to ensure that the national planning policies for residential and other kinds of development—because, after all, they will take precedence over local policies and will be applied directly by the Secretary of State on called-in applications—are given a similar level of parliamentary attention as infrastructure policies, as surely they should be. My question to the Minister is: why not?

The reality of this offered consultation is undefined in the Bill and is not provided for by the regulations. It is completely at the Secretary of State’s discretion. We on these Benches, the RTPI, the CPRE, and some of the more than 30 professional bodies and groups that form the Better Planning Coalition believe that, given the new and radical nature of NDMPs, that is both unwise and unacceptable. I beg to move.

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as a director of Peers for the Planet and as a project director working for Atkins. I will speak to Motion M1. I thank the Minister for the time he set aside to explain the government position on this and attempt to reach a resolution.

Planning has dominated much of the national conversation in recent months. We heard in all three party conferences about the need for planning reform and for clarity and consistency in the planning system to help unblock critical infrastructure and homes, and to empower local authorities to play their part in the net-zero transition. Planning is absolutely central as an enabler to net zero, as was set out eloquently by many noble Lords on Report—so I will not repeat those arguments. I know that the Government get this; they are relying in the Bill on a plan-led system and on incorporation of climate considerations in local plans, and, perhaps in the future, on national development management policies.

There are three issues to highlight with this plan-led approach. First, the Committee on Climate Change has found that:

“Most local plans do not acknowledge … the challenge of delivering Net Zero and need significant revision”.


Most local plans are long out of date—some were made in the last millennium—and only around 40% have been adopted in the last decade. We know all about current pressures on local authorities and their ability to devote and manage resources in these areas. Secondly, we are yet to see the national development management policies and any climate provisions they may contain; they are still a blank sheet, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, set out. Thirdly, even if all local authorities had a robust local plan, backed up by NDMPs, there will still be an absence of a statutory duty for decision-makers. No matter how robust a local plan informed by national policy may be, it will still be for the individual decision-maker to weigh up all material considerations, with no duty to attribute any planning weight to climate change in the decision-making process. Therefore, rather than a golden thread running through the planning system, we have a somewhat worn and frayed thread that is severed as soon as we get to the decision-making process.

The way to address this and to achieve the ends the Government want is to introduce a new duty that raises the importance of climate change in the hierarchy of considerations but which would still retain flexibility for decision-makers. My amendment would not duplicate existing policy and statutory requirements but rather expand the existing climate duty, which has existed in relation to planning since 2008 and which has been rolled forward in this Bill to decision-making. The amendment would not remove local discretion, as the Government fear, but rather retain the ability of planning authorities to tailor planning decisions to individual circumstances. It would retain the flexibility of planning balance and judgment, which is now well established, and not mean that other planning matters could not be taken into account.

Rather than causing issues of litigation, as the Minister said, the amendment would provide clarity and set a clear direction of travel for planners and developers, leading to greater progress for new developments towards our climate goals. It is derisked by being based on an established duty, the meaning of which has been tried and tested in the courts. It does not raise any novel legal issues, because the principle of special regard is well understood in planning. Therefore, it really should be uncontroversial. It has broad, publicly stated backing across built environment businesses, local government, built environment professionals, including 22 past presidents of the Royal Town Planning Institute, and environmental NGOs.

To finish, I have a number of questions for the Minister. First, can he clarify and expand on what he said earlier about whether the draft NDMPs will include provisions setting out the way in which they will ensure that plan-making and planning decisions consider and contribute to climate change and environment targets? Secondly, can he provide assurances that changes will be proposed to the NPPF to make it clear that planning decisions should take into account the climate impacts of development proposals? The current NPPF does not include that level of clarity. I give notice that I may test the opinion of the House depending on the responses from the Minister.

[Lord Crisp (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Motion N1 in my name. In doing so, I express my gratitude to the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham, Lord Blunkett and Lord Stunell, who put their names to a similar amendment on Report. I also express my gratitude to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, with whom I think I have had three meetings over the last few months to discuss all this. They were extremely courteous but, in the end, we did not manage to reach any agreement.

The original amendment that noble Lords supported on Report was that there would be a duty on the Secretary of State—to put it in shorthand—to ensure that all new homes and neighbourhoods promoted health, safety and well-being, and set out some principles about what this meant. In response to what the House of Commons voted on and the advice I had from the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I have taken out the principles in putting this forward and left instead the duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that the planning and regulation of the built environment should promote health and well-being. It is a very simple, straightforward point in its way, and it leaves the Secretary of State complete discretion as to when they bring this into effect and as to precisely what principles they work for in doing that. However, my point is simply that this is nowhere in planning, and the idea that the built environment should not in some way promote health, safety and well-being seems extraordinary. It is equally extraordinary that in this entire levelling-up Bill there is no reference to the climate crisis, as we have just heard, or indeed to the public health crisis, which I think we are all familiar with. This is an attempt to put health and well-being at the centre of planning.

In response to that, the Government have said three things. First, in the formal minute, they said that this breached the financial privilege of the Commons. That is entirely up to the Commons to decide. I subsequently reduced and removed the principles that I saw as perhaps the area the Commons thought breached that privilege. I understand from the noble Earl that the clerks still consider that it breaches privilege, but that is for the Commons to decide; they can still debate it and, if they choose, put it to one side and record the fact in something called “the journal”, in taking it forward. However, as I will say in a moment, building poor housing is a false economy.

The second point the Minister made was that much of what was in the original amendments was covered by other policy. That is entirely true, and I entirely respect the fact that the noble Earl and the Government want to improve the quality of homes and housing. However, it is important that we have some legislation around that and not just policy; nor does that put health and well-being at the heart of the policy. Most of it is not mandatory, and none ensures that health and well-being are fundamental to creating healthy homes and neighbourhoods.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Ravensdale]

Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 45.”

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, I hoped for some further movement from the Government on this vital issue. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Ravensdale Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Ravensdale]

179: Before Clause 78, insert the following new Clause—
“Purpose of Planning(1) The purpose of planning is to ensure that the development of land balances long-term economic, social and environmental benefits, safeguards natural resources, and supports the needs of future generations in respect of land use.(2) When making relevant planning policy or development plans or granting planning permission for the development of land, all relevant planning authorities must have special regard to the need to—(a) contribute to the targets set out in—(i) Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008 (UK net zero emissions target and budgeting);(ii) sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021 (environmental targets); and(b) adapt to any current or predicted impacts of climate change identified in the most recent report under section 56 of the Climate Change Act 2008.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause inserts a “purpose of planning” provision into the Bill. Currently, planning authorities are under no statutory obligation to take climate change into account in the determination of planning applications. This introduces a duty in relation to national and local planning policy and decisions.

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 179 in my name, which inserts a purpose of planning provision into the Bill, as well as to Amendment 271, which inserts a duty relating to climate change in planning functions. I declare my interests as a director of Peers for the Planet and as a project director working for Atkins. I also thank my supporters, the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Boycott, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.

What is really important about these amendments is the need to better enable local authorities and give them the tools that they need to work towards our net-zero and environmental targets. For me, this is one of the key missing links in the whole governance system for net zero and the environment. We have lots of top-level policy from the Government but little guidance or direction for local authorities so that they can play their role. We have many local authorities that really want to play their part but do not have the tools or resources to do so, whether in energy planning or the wider planning system. What this leads to is an inconsistent approach and a patchwork quilt of responses across the many local authorities in their approach to the environment and net zero.

The Skidmore review looked into this area in detail, and it is worth quoting briefly what it stated. It said:

“One of the starkest messages from hundreds of organisations and individuals is that the planning system is undermining net zero and the economic opportunities that come with it. The Review recommends wide-ranging local planning reform—from the introduction of a net zero test to a rapid review of bottlenecks in the system—to ensure that it is fully aligned with our net zero future”.


The resulting action on implementing a net zero test was in its 25 key recommendations by 2025. That is the level of importance here in the wider net zero picture. I also note that the Climate Change Committee said, in its progress report to Parliament last year:

“Net Zero and climate resilience should be embedded within the planning reforms that are expected as part of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill”.


The lack of a net zero test is having an impact right now. For example, there is the case of a major solar farm on 75 hectares of land near where I live in Derbyshire. The project involved the production of around 50 megawatts of renewable energy, sufficient for around 13,000 homes or more than 22% of all Amber Valley borough’s households. In December 2022, a planning inspector refused permission on appeal, on the grounds that the project would harm the landscape, character and visual amenity. This case highlights that fact that, in the contribution that the project makes, the delivery of net zero may not always be given sufficient weight and priority, which would be resolved by a net-zero test running through the whole planning system.

My Amendment 179 would resolve this by introducing a “purpose of planning” provision into the Bill; namely, a duty for national and local policy decisions to reference the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Environment Act 2021. Amendment 271 is a scaled-back amendment that could also be considered by the Government. It would amend the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to ensure that climate change is given special regard in individual development proposals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I have certainly had no conversations with those people, and I do not know whether the Housing Minister has. I will make sure to ask and find out. That is the whole idea of planning: if the policy requires it, the developers need to act within planning policy in order to develop.

I reiterate that the Government will be reviewing the strategic objectives set out in planning policy to ensure that they support the Government’s environmental targets under the Environment Act, net zero, and the national adaptation programme. This comes back to what the noble Baroness opposite was saying: are we joining it up? Yes, we are checking it with the Environment Act to make sure that we will deliver through the planning system everything that we agreed to in it.

While I appreciate the essence of this amendment, it is not one that the Government feel able to support, given the clear purposes for planning already set out in national policy.

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for a very illuminating debate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said, this is all occurring against the backdrop of the recently issued UN climate report. That highlighted all the progress that has been made, but we need to do more to move further, faster. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, the planning system is one of the most powerful levers that we can pull in that respect, so we need to make sure that we make the most of it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, set out well the aspirations of local authorities and councils in wanting to help with declared climate emergencies. It is all about the tools to enable them to do that. Her Amendment 179A is very closely aligned with mine, so I look forward to working with her.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, set out many of the wider benefits to health and levelling up from looking at the planning system. The Minister set out all the various mentions of climate change scattered throughout the legislation and the various framework documents, but I think that noble Lords have strongly made the case for aligning all this and pulling it together in the legislation in the form of a net-zero test. I hope that she will consider that as we move towards Report. I look forward to further discussion with her but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 179 withdrawn.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Ravensdale Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 20th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I totally agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, said about his Amendment 474 and the complexity of the system. It is difficult for businesses to negotiate the terms which determine their viability; business rates cannot be negotiated; and the multiplier has risen substantially in the past few years, making the costs to businesses unaffordable in many cases.

Amendment 428 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Shipley addresses a principle of business rates rather than the nuts and bolts. The key to levelling up and realising one of the ambitions of the White Paper—vibrant and successful town centres and high streets—lies in business rates. Too many town centres across the country are blighted by empty, boarded-up shops, which then become less attractive to local people wanting to shop there, causing a downward spiral.

I accept that the purpose of town centres is changing, as in fact it always has done. The balance of provision in town centres is increasingly shifting from the sale of goods towards services such as hair salons, nail bars and the like. However, the growth of e-commerce has put enormous pressure on traditional retail. This is where Amendment 428 comes in, because it would require a fundamental review in principle of business rates.

These are the reasons. The Government call it “bricks versus clicks” and “the tax imbalance” on the government website, which then refers to business rate revaluation, which actually does very little to redress the imbalance. I will give an example of one of the great e-commerce providers, Amazon. Its provision is in out-of-town warehouses and their rateable values are very low. An Amazon warehouse near me in Doncaster is paying rates at £45 per square metre—on average, because things change according to what is provided in a warehouse—whereas a small town centre shop near me has rates of £250 per square metre. We should think about that differential. The massive warehouse is providing retail goods, as is the small shop, but there is this huge disparity between the rates they are being charged, putting the town centre retail shop at a huge disadvantage.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, mentioned in an earlier group that the Government are tackling this by reducing town centre business rates by 20% following the revaluation. I always get cross about the use of percentages, because they are ratios, so whether they are percentages of a large number or a small number makes a very big difference. A 20% reduction on this £250 per square metre still leaves them paying £200 per square metre. However, although the Government have raised the rates for e-commerce by 27%, they are still paying only £56 per square metre. The disparity is still enormous, leading to an unfair competitive advantage for the e-commerce sector.

The Government have rejected the idea of an online sales tax, and I can understand why. It will be complex. However, I urge the Minister to respond positively to my suggestion that the Government use the existing business rates system to provide for much fairer competition between e-commerce and retail in physical shops. E-commerce businesses have a huge advantage. Not only are their business rates low but some of them also manage not to contribute much taxation to the country. They lead to significant increases in the volume of traffic, moving the goods between warehouses or from warehouses to pick-up sites or people’s homes. Yet, if they use electric vehicles, which is a good thing, they are not contributing much to the upkeep of the roads. Whichever way you look at it, e-commerce retail is at a considerable advantage. That is not in line with the Government’s ambition, which I totally support, of having vibrant town centres. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, referred to incentives to help out-of-town warehouses. I think I have given the answer to that. The business rates for these e-commerce sectors must be in line so that there is fair competition between the two ways of providing retail goods.

Amendments 168B and 169, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, make a good case for the retention of rates income by district councils. I will listen carefully to the Minister’s response to that argument. On Amendment 169, it will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say, but I understood that there is already a grace period for uninhabitable buildings to be made habitable during which they are exempt from council tax. Maybe that is not the case, but I remember taking it through this House and I understood that to be the definition then.

It would also be helpful for us all to understand the definition of empty homes, empty properties, empty dwellings, because it is not always as it seems. Maybe the Minister will put me right, but my understanding is that empty properties are not empty if they are partially furnished. There is a whole debate around definitions of empty properties and uninhabitable dwellings that we probably need to understand more closely with regard to these amendments and the previous group in relation to council tax on holiday lets, short-term lets and second homes.

So that is my proposition to the Minister. We need a fundamental review of business rates because retail is changing fast. If substantial change to level the playing field is not made, the ambition for vibrant town centres will fail. I beg to move.

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, I was pleased to sign Amendment 474 tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. I also support the other related amendment in this group, Amendment 428, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock.

Regeneration of high streets and town centres is particularly important in the context of levelling up. I cannot stress enough how important a thriving town centre and high street are for the morale of a city, for its togetherness and for its onward development. Many high streets and town centres in the regions, including in some areas in Derby, where I live, are struggling with low occupancy and empty premises. This must be resolved urgently if we are truly to level up the regions and bring back the economic dynamism that is required for further developments.

I know that the Government get this, and their plans for enhanced compulsory purchase powers and high street rental options could form part of the solution here. However, in my role as co-chair of the Midlands Engine All-Party Parliamentary Group, I have canvassed many local stakeholders on what would really make a difference to high street regeneration, and the theme that comes at the top of the list time and time again is business rates.

The current structure of business rates makes it simply unviable for businesses to set up in certain locations. To expand on what the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said, a property was being marketed on East Street, Derby last year at a lease of £35,000 per annum. It had a rateable value of £112,000 and rates payable of £56,000, so the rates were significantly higher than the rent. Another example, from the British Property Federation, is a property in a Hull for which the business rates bill was around three times higher than the rent a property in that location could reasonably demand. There are further cases of businesses not being willing to renew leases on their properties, even at zero rent.