Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development etc.) (England) (Amendment) Order 2021

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Tuesday 8th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

We have been unable to resolve the technical problem but we have worked out how to resolve the situation. I call the Government Chief Whip.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

My Lords, with the agreement of the usual channels, we are going to defer both votes until tomorrow, so they will be on tomorrow’s Order Paper. After this, to give everyone time to move over to the next business, we will have a short adjournment.

Fire Safety Bill

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Tuesday 20th April 2021 Lords Chamber

In conclusion, I hope that the Government will seriously take on board what we have said and try to present a way forward on this very real problem. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

My Lords, if Motions A1 and A3 were both agreed to, A3 would replace A1.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]]

My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and to speak to Motion A2 in my name. I refer to my vice-presidency of the LGA and my professional involvement with property and construction over many years. I thank the Minister for keeping his door open for discussion; that has been enormously helpful. This amendment is an attempt to find a way out of what I see as an impasse, which, if not dealt with, may cause unquantifiable financial loss, bankruptcy and hardship—as referred to by the right reverend Prelate.

I am indebted to my local fire and rescue service in West Sussex and to the National Fire Chiefs Council, for briefing me on the task ahead of them. I am sure we all agree that they do a fantastic job in keeping us all safe and dealing with risks in a fair and proportionate manner. I am also indebted to Members in another place who have convinced me that the issues I seek to address cannot simply be brushed aside. This is not a challenge to the essential principles of the Bill, which I entirely agree are critical in the light of the Grenfell Tower tragedy.

The problem arises because although the Bill is short and apparently inoffensive, and from a fire safety standpoint is the necessary reaction of any Government to a post-Grenfell inquiry, its means of implementation have much broader and effectively retroactive results. In amending the existing fire safety order’s scope, it extends to any building comprising two or more residential units. It relates not just to cladding but, ultimately, to a much wider range of fire safety issues and to buildings not previously subject to that safety regime.

Noble Lords should bear in mind that there are two lead organisations here: the local authority through its housing functions in respect of houses in multiple occupation and student blocks, and the fire and rescue services, particularly for higher-risk and taller buildings.

Every time there is a fire in a flatted building, it adds to the malaise. When, in the wake of the Grenfell fire, a four-storey block in Worcester Park was destroyed in September 2019, it became clear to me that no Government can risk specifying a cut-off point of safe versus unsafe buildings, and I acknowledge that. So as matters stand, many relatively low-rise buildings, where risks are considered fewer and without a clear threshold, will, for a time, be caught by this long enough to cause serious problems for a significant number of tenants and leaseholders. It is this unconstrained exposure to uncertainty and risk, and the reaction of the markets to it, that has created the problems that we now encounter.

Crucially, there is a significant gap between now and the time when the first 12,000 over-18-metre buildings in England will have been checked, a process which is estimated to be completed by December this year. Then there will be a further period, lasting until some 68,000 further buildings in the 11 to 18 metre height range have been dealt with. During this period, the issue of proportionality and risk will be left to the febrile mortgage and insurance market. I have no doubt that fire safety inspectors will take a fairly strict approach, and indeed would expect them to, at any rate until further guidance is available—which guidance itself might be an outcome of the analysis of the first tranche of inspections of the highest-risk buildings. That delay occurs before one gets to the design and specification of the remediation works by those who might have to satisfy their own professional indemnity conditions, followed then by tendering and ultimately remediation.

The right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, in her amendment, endeavour to protect the tenant and leaseholder from the effects of the Bill by saying that they shall not bear the financial burden. I am compelled to express the view that this needs to be taken further: if, as a result, the building owner as freeholder is made liable for something that they in turn cannot afford or cannot be made responsible for, beyond the assets of whatever corporate ownership vehicle holds the freehold or other superior interest, then the liquidation of the holding company and the vesting of the negative-value asset in the hands of insolvency practitioners will do little to get the building remediated. To that extent, the responsible person under the Bill might be a man of straw, and that I see as a weakness in what the Government propose.

To deal with this, one needs a scheme, and the Government have commendably said that they will introduce one to fund remediation, but this suffers from several limitations. First, it applies only to cladding. Secondly, it does not cover all buildings with claddings—even less the other fire safety issues that the Bill might also trigger. Thirdly, I very much doubt that the sum allocated is enough. That said, I am extremely grateful for the government commitment to making £5 billion in funding available, as the Minister has explained.

Apart from properties becoming unsalable, uninsurable and unsuitable for mortgage lending, in some cases they might well be so risky as to be declared unsafe for occupation, pending remediation works. Displaced occupiers will be wondering what it is in the principle of safety and proportionality in relation to their own home, given the nightmare imposition of unimaginable costs and liabilities, that justifies rendering them homeless in addition. Of course, it might well not come to that, and it is my purpose to encourage the Government to ensure that there is a scheme to make certain that it does not. The full extent of the problems may still be yet to come, but I strongly suspect that many of the responsible persons are holding on until this Bill receives Royal Assent before proceeding further.

No Government can simply look on and say that it is not an issue of a very serious kind when people have been seriously threatened in their own homes by negative equity, bankruptcy and worse. With an entire market section being blighted, action is essential. By the same token, no agency apart from government has the power to procure a change, which ultimately must be by some form of consensus, but which requires regulatory and other powers—or the threat of them—and a degree of arm-twisting involving some very powerful players. There are too many interests and moving parts here, and neither constructors, owners, leaseholders, tenants, insurers or mortgagees can procure effective solutions on their own. It is a systemic failure, in which it is right for the Government to intervene. Indeed, taking these hard decisions is why we have government intervention at all.

By the same token, if there is to be a government safety net of a type that is effective, no leaseholder can simply expect the taxpayer to foot the Bill for all and every fire-safety shortcoming. This is where, particularly in relation to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, I differ from that approach. I do not suggest that any of this gets construction warrantee providers, approved inspectors, designers, constructors, housebuilders or building managers off the hook. It will take time to establish liabilities; it is time that those finding themselves in financial fetters do not have at their disposal. That is the problem. Absolutism by government on the one hand and by leaseholders alike will not get the necessary work done or erase the terrible personal tragedies that I fear will result.

The deal is this: for a monthly sum which should be affordable, even if most unwelcome, the capital cost of remediation could be amortised via a loan, funds for early inspection and remediation raised, and works put in hand as soon as possible. This might also fund short-term interim safety measures. The long-term bond so created would, I believe, be saleable. The important thing for affected flat owners is that they could not be charged until a scheme was in place, but the scheme has to be driven initially by government, and that is what this amendment is about.

The current government scheme seems to be based on rolling things out in due course. I appreciate the Minister’s point that he does not wish the Government to be unduly pressurised or under the cosh on this, but the need to get this safety net into place right now is overwhelming. By the end of this coming summer, impossibly large bills are most certainly likely to have dropped onto doormats, prohibition notices and evacuation orders may be in place, and bankruptcies may have grown to a national scandal. I hope that we avoid this, but I for one cannot simply stand by and let that happen unchallenged or by default. I realise that it goes against what some have been asking for, but what is better: to know that you are innocent but that your home remains unsalable and you risk being put in an impossible financial position or rendered homeless, or to know that there is at least some means of funding the remediation so that, in any event, at least some benefit is salvaged out of this debacle?

I know that it also goes against the grain of government to interfere with private legal arrangements and liabilities, but the circumstances are truly exceptional, and the scope of the works is relatively specific. The alternative is a high level of sector-wide economic damage and individual financial destruction.

I know that the Minister is not minded to accept any of the arguments that I have put forward, or my solutions. I make it clear that I do not intend to press this Motion. It is my wish to get further explanations from the Minister. My questions are these. If not this amendment and scheme, then what? If not in this Bill, which triggers it, or even in the building safety Bill, then how? If not now, with the ill-effects so apparent and very likely worse to come, when? Further, if not by government, by whom and by which agency?

If, as I suggest, the objection to broadening things comes from HM Treasury, I ask whether the Government have considered the political and economic enormity of the outcomes if this problem is not addressed now. To that end, could the House be advised what impact assessment has been made of the wholesale value of write-offs and the risk of sectoral market collapse? Lastly, if the Minister feels my concerns are misplaced and things are not as bad as I have suggested they might be, surely then the risk of exposure for the taxpayer is of itself a stopgap, a confidence-building measure, rather than a serious run on the Exchequer.

Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Report stage & Lords Hansard
Wednesday 17th March 2021 Lords Chamber

Amendment 2 not moved.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 3. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.

Amendment 3

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I warmly commend the four noble Baronesses who have put their names to Amendments 3 and 6. In speaking to this group, I declare my professional involvement with non-domestic rating as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and as head of the National Association of Local Councils, and through my involvement with rural tourism and public access generally. So I hope noble Lords will forgive me for having a slightly dry, technical assessment of this approach.

It is right that, in the light of mass closures of public lavatories up and down the country, we should have a better idea of the provision and what is happening in terms of trends. I do not have the figures to hand, but my expectation as a chartered surveyor would be that in the context of the overall cost of the facility of heating, lighting, water supply, cleaning, building repairs, insurance and maintenance, the business rate element of a public lavatory would not be a tremendously significant factor. However, I stand to be corrected. Maybe a superior facility would indeed attract a willing payment per use at economically viable levels. Certainly, some municipalities are starting to buck the trend, and I am very pleased to note that Wales is leading the way—a point made so eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson.

The measure demanded here would obviously involve devoting some government resources to the review referred to. The distribution of Changing Places facilities is known, if I apprehend correctly from the British Toilet Association’s information. However, those run by other organisations—parishes, municipalities, venue and beauty spot managers, stately homes, royal parks, shopping centres and so on—is information not necessarily collected in one place. Though the dispersed knowledge must be held somewhere, it is not comprehensibly in the rating lists, for instance, which only record those separately in assessment. However, I do think that there is a collective will to close this information gap if the Government were so minded to tap into it.

As we have heard, public lavatories are clearly part of essential infrastructure. The old, the young, those with medical conditions, and the fit and healthy, all need access to decent lavatory accommodation. Manifestly, there are gaps in provision, because I am certain that we are all, like the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, aware of unsuitable areas being used for informal toilet purposes. This is a personal hygiene and general public health issue, potentially damaging to the general environment, and must be addressed.

Regarding Amendment 4, I applaud and support the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in advocating the role of parish and town councils. Many parish councils would willingly take on public lavatories, but as we have heard, are no more able to raise the money to run them than the principle authorities who may run them now. Even in transferring responsibility to parish councils, as happens, it is commonplace for the financial provisions not to form part of the transfer. This adds to the problem, and the essential funds for this essential infrastructure are therefore not ring-fenced. This is part of the process of attrition.

Beyond that, it is a matter of economic consequence for optimising the use of destinations to which the public may resort, and the public enjoyment of urban and rural space for shopping, recreation and so on. I find it tragic to hear, as we just have, of people who dare not venture far from home because of distance from suitable facilities or certainty of any provision whatsoever. I am mindful of the gross indignity that such an absence of facilities can create. These issues are very important. I am less certain that they are necessarily a matter for the Bill, given its long title, but having been accepted as amendments, I assume that they are in scope. Accordingly, I accept the general thrust of these, and look forward with interest to the Minister’s comments.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has withdrawn from this group, so I call Baroness Pinnock.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Randerson has a wealth of knowledge of the value and importance to our communities, large and small, of the provision of clean, well-maintained public toilets. Her argument is a powerful one. We learned from the meeting that we had with the representatives of the British Toilet Association and the Minister that, in fact, there is no longer accurate mapping of open public toilets around the country. During these 12 months of Covid closures, public toilets have been shut out of concern that their use might enable virus transmission. As the country seeks to return to a more normal way of life, what is vital is that public toilets are available in every community. All noble Lords who have spoken so far have made that point. That is why I totally agree with my noble friend that this Bill lacks ambition and what is needed is a strategy for public toilets from a public health perspective.

I have a suggestion for the Minister. The Government are allocating funding via a Towns Fund to help regeneration. Perhaps he can urge his department to attach a requirement to successful grant applications that towns ensure, as a minimum, that they have a well-maintained and accessible public toilet for the disabled.

My noble friend Lord Greaves pointed out how important parish and town councils are in maintaining existing public toilets. He also pointed out the difficulty that those councils have in accessing capital money in order to restore or build new facilities. That, too, is something to which I hope the Minister will respond.

The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, urges us, as a society, to recognise the essential need for decent public loos, and that their provision is in crisis. I agree wholeheartedly when she says, “If Wales can do it, so can England.” It was well said.

My noble friend Lady Thomas speaks with long experience of the barriers that are unwittingly created for disabled people by the rest of the community. There has been a failure to provide public toilets that are both available and accessible. If we all had to plan our days out shopping or visiting on the basis of the availability of an accessible toilet, my hunch is that many more would soon be provided.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for pursuing a similar amendment and for supporting the purpose the amendments in the names of my noble friends. Of course, we on this side totally support this Bill. It will have some limited impact that might well ensure that some public toilets remain open. Unfortunately, it fails to address the wider issues of comprehensive provision and the role of government in encouraging and supporting the funding of such facilities. Hence, I fully support all the amendments in this group. Perhaps the Minister can provide some hope that the Government will return to the lack of provision of public toilets in future legislation. Better still, they could use the current funding regime to make their provision a priority for grants. I hope that the Minister will be able to offer some evidence that the Government take the matter seriously, and I look forward to his response.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 3 withdrawn.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 5. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.

Amendment 5

Moved by

Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No. 2) Bill

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 18th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I fully support the comments of my noble friends Lady Thomas of Winchester and Lady Randerson on the NDR (Public Lavatories) Bill. It is essential, in terms of equality, that the number of disabled lavatories and access to them should be increased, not only in town centres but in visitor attractions and beauty spots around the country. Other Peers have spoken eloquently on that issue.

Turning to the NDR (Lists) (No. 2) Bill, I have a few points to make. While I support moving the date for compiling the lists to 1 April 2023, this is an opportunity to move from a five-yearly review to one every three years. Other noble Lords have spoken to this issue. I would not support moving to a yearly revaluation as this would be too great an administrative burden on local authorities, but a three-yearly revaluation would be a good compromise.

It is important that we fully understand what is happening to our high streets. During lockdowns, most of the retail and market outlets are not able to trade. Some retail outlets have been able to move their business to online trading and delivery, but most have not. We have reached a stage where enormous warehouses have been constructed to service online business, but they do not contribute in the same proportion as high-street businesses. Now is surely the time to readjust the rating system so that the rateable value and rates paid by high-street retail outlets is radically reduced permanently. At the same time, online warehouse operations should be taxed in proportion to their size, turnover and profitability.

While it has been enormously beneficial to people to be able to buy goods online during lockdown, especially in the run-up to Christmas, the effect on the high street has been catastrophic. Many retail outlets rely on the December trade to see them through the rest of the year. I am sure the Minister does not wish to see a return to the moribund state of our high streets during past recessions. I welcome the rate relief which the Minister has set out to alleviate hardship during Covid, but that is only short-term.

I will speak briefly on mixed hereditaments. Many, many years ago I sat on rating appeal tribunals. While a large proportion were about dates, there were a proportion of mixed hereditaments, with those living in premises above retail outlets which they ran having concerns about their rateable value. The Government have been keen to increase the housing supply by allowing developers to give notice to quit to business tenants in blocks of flats in town centres over retail outlets. These premises were then allowed to be converted into domestic dwellings. These conversions have not been subject to building controls, and in many cases have resulted in substandard accommodation with very limited space.

Can the Minister say whether these newly converted domestic dwellings were subject to reassessment of their rateable value? Were they changed from business rates to domestic rates? Did the local authorities in which the dwellings were situated receive less in rates payments than previously or more? As the Minister knows, local authorities are very dependent on the receipt of rates to help balance their budgets and to fund their vital services to the community.

While providing homes for those desperate to escape sofa-surfing with their long-suffering friends and relatives, it is important that the accommodation provided through office conversions is adequate, meets minimum standards and provides a dignified living space for their residents. I look forward to the Minister’s response on this and other matters in this debate.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, has withdrawn from this debate, so I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Stunell.

Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development and Miscellaneous Amendments) (England) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, sitting in an office in London dreaming up flexibility to the planning laws to encourage more housing sounds a good use of time. I know; I have done it myself as Planning Minister. I just want to give a cautionary tale. It comes from my former constituency and concerns the Westminster Road area of west Handsworth in Birmingham.

Some 20 years ago, when I left the Commons, the private rented sector in Birmingham accounted for some 10% of households. By 2018, it was 33% and growing. An area that was saved in the 1970s and 1980s by the urban renewal programme of half a dozen streets in Handsworth, half a mile from the Commonwealth Games village has gone backwards to the 1960s, according to residents. The successor to the specially formed housing association in the 1970s, which did much to enhance and improve the housing, is pulling out. Midland Heart housing association has no heart in Handsworth. The door has been opened up for a new breed of landlords to buy up the larger properties, either for HMO use or the more lucrative supported housing.

Recently, a for sale notice by agents Bairstow Eves stated, “For sale: potential 17 bedrooms”—a clear signal for exploitation. Across the area, landlords are converting garages, outhouses and even sheds into what are cynically called bungalows. For example, signs appear on the front walls of houses stating “Bungalow 6A and 6B at rear”. At 61 Westminster Road, a house converted into an HMO some years ago, providing 11 units, the landlord recently converted four garages in the back yard into living accommodation, with a secure fence to hide what had happened. There is evidence that residents of these dwellings are told to dump their rubbish in black bags on the opposite side of the road.

No. 229 Church Hill Road was a large family house. Used as business premises, it is now applying to be an HMO by claiming it was a “hostel”. No. 22 Livingstone Road, a former family home, has been converted in three social rented flats. Midland Heart cleared the tenants out and sold it at auction in Liverpool for £260,000 on the basis that it would generate an income of £18,000 a year. The new owner maintains that it is still flats, but locals see it run as an HMO, and just two of the tenants are generating over £27,000 per annum.

The HMO Action Group in Handsworth describes it as a “community under siege”. This is a cautionary tale. It ought to be taken note of.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

Since the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, was unable to join us at the beginning of this debate, I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge.

Business and Planning Bill

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 14th July 2020 Lords Chamber

Amendment 51 withdrawn.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 52. I remind the Committee that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate. The Minister wishes to speak before I call the mover of the amendment.

[Lord Greenhalgh]

For the convenience of the Committee, and perhaps to save some time, I intervene to notify the Committee that, with regard to Amendment 73, we will bring forward a government amendment on Report that seeks to include mayoral development corporations, Transport for London and parish meetings within the Coronavirus Act 2020.

Clause 16: Modification of conditions relating to construction working hours

Amendment 52

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I give my full support to Amendment 53, in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra. I will disappoint him when I speak to my Amendment 56, which he has kindly supported, because I do not indulge in long speeches of expertise.

These two amendments seek to give clarity to local authorities about what can be allowed. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will reassure me, as he has already done at Question Time and elsewhere, that the Government will not be relaxing any planning rules regarding environmental protections. What worries me is that, in practice, a lot of developers—and, to some extent, councils—are not sure exactly what this means. For example, I am sure that the newspaper headlines will say, in relation to my noble friend’s amendment, that building work can be done at any time. There may well be local conditions, but many people will be confused. It is exactly the same, except that residents can actually complain and get things sorted out. However, the natural world and the environment have no such voice. I know of many examples, both locally and elsewhere, where developers will ride roughshod over some of the conditions in the hope that nobody understands them.

What I want from these two amendments is what my noble friend described as a national backstop. I want clarity in the Bill, so that people know exactly where they stand.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

The noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, has not joined the list so, after the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, I will move on to the speaker after her.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 55 and 57, originally put down by my noble friend Lady Pinnock and to which I have added my name. The reason I do so is that, at Second Reading, I raised the question of the possible impact on amenity of those who might be affected by the extension of working hours. In response, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, met my argument by saying that it was always a question of balance. Self-evidently, of course, that is correct, but the question is whether the balance is tilted in these proposals against individuals and organisations that might be affected by an extension of hours. It is important to remember that conditions in relation to hours are put down in order to preserve amenity, and if a planning authority has reached a certain judgment in relation to that, such that an extension as proposed is granted, then self-evidently amenity will have been affected. We tend to think of these matters as being about individuals, but of course hostels, schools, care homes and churches might all be liable to be affected.

It is worth reminding ourselves—there has already been a passing reference to it—that the duration of works can extend to a whole day. As I understand it, any extension granted would have effect until 1 April 2021, so this is not a temporary matter, and it is possible to conduct these extended operations seven days a week. That is why Amendment 55 is a reasonable and sensible obligation to place upon an applicant. It requires an assessment of impact on the community and plans for mitigation of any such effect. Here, to some extent, it echoes the position of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, on the need for an assessment of the impact on the environment and conservation interests and plans to minimise disturbance. I venture to suggest that an obligation to produce an assessment is as much in the interests of the applicant as it is of the planning authority.

Amendment 57 seeks to extend the period of 14 days by agreement and therefore allows for proper consideration and, if necessary, co-operation between the planning authority and the applicant. It is clearly the case that if these matters could be resolved by co-operation, then that is much more likely to be an acceptable solution for the applicant, the authority and the citizens or institutions that might be affected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb [V]]

My Lords, having listened to the speeches of other noble Lords, I am beginning to wish that I had signed more amendments in this group. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, for example, on land banking, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall, both made excellent points, and I wish I had been involved in that.

I want to speak about construction permits, because the conditions that are placed on them at the moment are subject to a lengthy and intensive consultation and decision-making process. The conditions try to strike a balance between the competing interests of developing land and protecting the community and the wildlife around the development. I am deeply concerned that Clause 16 will throw much of that balance out of the window in favour of long construction days with little regard for the impact on the community—their rest, their sleep and their mental welfare—and on wildlife. Construction hours can already be long and noisy, routinely running from 8 am to 6 pm, especially at a time when large numbers of people are staying at home and, in the summer months, may have windows open or be outside. Therefore, extending construction hours will create an unacceptable noise burden for too many people.

I am also concerned about the impact that extended construction hours will have on the construction workers, many of whom are self-employed. What will the Government do to ensure that extended hours do not create unsafe working conditions or lead to other detriment for those workers? There might be limited situations in which extending construction hours is warranted, but generally Clause 16 is far too broad and will cause far too much disruption for local residents near noisy building sites.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

The noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, has withdrawn from the list of speakers, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock.

[Baroness Pinnock [V]]

I remind noble Lords of my interests as set out in the register as a councillor and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. We on these Benches understand and support the Government’s purpose in bringing forward the changes to hours of construction in the Bill. It will enable a phased start at the beginning and end of the day for construction workers to ensure social distancing and provide an opportunity for developments to catch up on the last three months. But rather than be prescriptive about hours of working—although I have sympathy with the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra—Amendment 55 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem would ensure that the extension of hours took into account the impact that these had on residents, the wider community and the environment.

Planning conditions set out as part of planning consent invariably include limits on hours of working. As a rule, these are 7 am to 6 or 7 pm. They are there to minimise any impact on neighbours. Extension of these hours must therefore include mitigations for those affected. That could be, for example, to restrict hours when deliveries can be made, as construction traffic is often one of the main local concerns. Extension into the evening or a much earlier start will mean lighting up the site, with the inevitable impact that brings with it. Amendment 55 would balance out these issues, and that is the purpose of the further Amendment 57, again in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Campbell. Considerations about hours of working inevitably include not just planning officers but highways and environmental officers, hence we propose that, by agreement, developers and the council can extend the time for consultation beyond the 14 days. Some construction companies understand that working with local communities rather than bulldozing their way through to get what they want, regardless, has many benefits.

Amendment 54 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Shipley would ensure that the planning authority was recompensed for the work done to extend hours. The minimum fee is £195 for planning applications and seems appropriate in this case. The Government must ensure recompense for work done. Planning consultants working for the developer will undoubtedly be paid handsomely for making the application to extend hours. It is only right that those making the decision be recompensed as well, and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to that proposal.

The cross-party Amendment 73 is clearly about an administrative oversight and I am pleased that the Minister has given notice that the Government will seek to put the matter right. The three-month review proposed in Amendment 58 by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, is one that the Government should consider carefully. A change of construction hours appears straightforward on paper but has many ramifications in reality, and time set aside to reflect is always a good idea. With those comments, I trust that the Minister will accept that our amendments are constructive in purpose and are in the interests of achieving a fair balance between construction, communities and the environment, and that the Government will be prepared to accept them.

Business and Planning Bill

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 13th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh]

First, I thank my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lord Hayward for asking us to get a move on—or, as my noble friend Lord Naseby put it, “Get on with it”—and my noble friend Lady Stowell for her vociferous eating out to help out over the weekend; it is much appreciated.

The noble Lord, Lord Harris, made several points concerning the importance of listening to residents; as a fellow former council leader, I know that that is of course absolutely critical and key to any consultation. I should point out that any additional costs and burdens which fall upon local authorities are covered by the new burdens doctrine as they arise. As someone who has more recently been a council leader, I know that these days, almost all applications are sent electronically, so the dates sent and received are identical in almost all cases. I also highlight that the Local Government Association is fully supportive of the measures proposed for the issuing of pavement licences.

Let me turn to the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris. This group of amendments addresses a range of issues relating to pavement licences. Amendment 19 seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State consults authorities if he chooses to publish a national condition. As I said to the House when discussing the previous group of amendments, we have already accepted the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that national conditions should be contained within regulations subject to the negative resolution procedure. I hope this addresses the issues raised by both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness.

I now turn Amendments 9 and 10, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Low, which deal with the consultation process. They would extend the public consultation period to 14 days rather than seven and provide that the period starts after the application has been published by the authority. The Government welcome the intent behind the amendments, which is that local communities have appropriate opportunity to comment on applications, and this is an important part of the process. Under the Bill, the seven-day consultation period starts the day after the application is made. The Bill requires the applicant, by posting a notice on the premises, and the authority, in such a manner as it deems appropriate, to publicise the fact that representations can be made during that period.

Authorities can choose to publish the application electronically, and this should make it easier to publish the application speedily. Extending the consultation period for more than seven days, however, would undermine a key benefit of this process, which is its speed. This temporary fast-track process strikes a balance between supporting businesses and responding to community interests by equipping authorities with local conditions and robust enforcement powers. For the reasons I have set out, I am not able to accept these amendments, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Low, will withdraw Amendment 9 and choose not to move Amendment 10 when it is called.

Continuing the theme of consultation, Amendment 16 —in the names of my noble friends Lord Holmes and Lady McIntosh, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson—would allow local authorities to include conditions which incorporate concerns expressed in the consultation. As I have previously said, the ability to respond to local issues is important, which is why the Bill allows pavement licences to be granted by a local authority, subject to such conditions as it considers reasonable. Local authorities can already do what the amendment is seeking, and for this reason I cannot accept it.

I turn to Amendment 13, tabled by my noble friend Lord Holmes, which seeks to implement a right of appeal. It is right that authorities have the ability to control the effects of licences, whether deemed or granted. That is why deemed licences are subject to conditions published by authorities. Authorities can require licence holders to immediately remedy breaches of conditions and have the power to revoke licences where needed. For these reasons, I cannot accept this amendment.

Amendment 14, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Low, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, seeks to reduce the duration of deemed licences to three months. I believe the intent is to allow greater flexibility to local authorities to manage public spaces and review the suitability of these licences. It is important to allow for local authority discretion, while providing certainty for businesses. This is why the Bill provides that a deemed licence has a duration of a year and robust enforcement powers where there are breaches. Licences can also be revoked if all or any part of the area of the relevant highway has become unsuitable for any purpose for which the licence was granted. We need to provide certainty to businesses, which is why three months is not long enough as a default position. For the reasons I have set out, I cannot accept the amendment.

The same is pertinent to Amendment 15—tabled by my noble friend Lord Holmes and the noble Lord, Lord Harris—to change the expiry date of these licences to the end of September 2020. For the same reason I gave for Amendment 14, I cannot accept this amendment.

I respond finally to Amendments 22 and 23, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Lord, Lord Harris. These would provide authorities with duties and powers to make pavement trading safer, and the authority to facilitate successful implementation of a pavement licence. The Government take public safety seriously, which is why there is a range of provisions in the Bill to ensure highways safety. By virtue of the conditions imposed on all licences, licence holders must not do anything that prevents pedestrians passing along the highway. If conditions are breached or public safety risks arise, authorities can revoke licences.

The Government have published guidance on reallocating road space in response to Covid-19, which points to measures that can be taken to reduce speed limits and create pedestrianised zones. The pavement licence guidance makes it clear that, when determining applications, authorities will want to consider whether any such temporary measures are in place. There is already a requirement for the local authority to consult the highways authority. In combination, the requirements I have outlined clearly tackle the issues of road safety. For these reasons, I cannot accept this amendment.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

My Lords, I have received requests to speak after the Minister from the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Balfe.

[Lord Lucas [V]]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply, but I did not gather how he expects the county authority to respond to a request from the district that a particular road should be closed to traffic to enable restaurants to spread on to the pavements and streets. We are looking to do things quickly. As others have remarked, timescales in such requests can stretch into years. We have been asking for permission to put a pedestrian crossing opposite the new conference centre we built. This opened a year and a half ago, but nothing has happened yet. We want these things to happen quickly. What in the Bill will make superior authorities react speedily?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

My Lords, we now come to the group consisting of Amendment 18. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in debate.

Amendment 18

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the Clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in this group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.

Clause 11: Modification of premises licences to authorise off-sales for limited period

Amendment 26

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her promise of an amendment but, regrettably, we have a series of amendments in this group: Amendments 26, 30, 32, 34 and 35. I will briefly put on the record what they are, although they are set out in the Marshalled List.

In addition to the amendment promised, the Government need to think about amendments that aim to prevent street drinking and disorder, particularly late at night, where late-night licences are in operation for on-licence premises in the vicinity of residential premises, as the Minister has suggested she will do. If revellers who have already consumed a lot of alcohol are allowed to purchase alcohol to take away just before premises close, sometimes just before 3 am, there is a danger that they will simply party in nearby streets, to the detriment of local residents. The Minister’s suggested, albeit completely last-minute, promise of an amendment is welcome to that extent, but, whatever the hour, if alcohol is sold in open containers such as pint beer glasses, there is every incentive to consume it in surrounding streets rather than take it home or to the office. If alcohol is sold without restriction as to the kind of container—such as pint beer glasses—in which it can be supplied, as allowed under the Bill, there is a danger of injury either by assault or by accident; for example, were someone to fall while carrying a beer glass. The potential for both assault and accident increases with consumption of alcohol.

At Second Reading, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, tried to allay these concerns by pointing to the provisions in the Bill to review and revoke off-sales if premises were causing problems, and the power under Section 76 of Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to close down premises. Those provisions are largely unworkable as they require the particular premises responsible for the problem of street drinking, violence and disorder to be identified. In central London, for example, there are hundreds of on-licence premises within short distances of one another, and it would be practically impossible to identify from which premises the revellers causing the problems had bought their alcohol. There are more than 100 premises with post-1 am licences in Soho alone.

Some of those most likely to be affected, represented by the West End Community Network, will support what the Minister has promised because they support an 11 pm end time for off-sales and have not asked for a restriction on when off-sales can begin. Can the Minister explain why the Government have left it until tonight to give even the slightest indication that they are prepared to bring forward their own amendment? Will she agree to meet me and other interested Peers between now and Report to discuss both the Government’s proposed amendments and the other amendments in my name in this group? In the meantime, despite what the Minister has said, I move Amendment 26 in order for her to respond at the end of the debate.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

Several speakers have withdrawn from this part of the proceedings: the noble Lords, Lord Harris of Haringey, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, Lord Naseby and Lord Hayward.

[Lord Cormack [V]]

I am glad to take part in this, I am sure, brief debate. I am delighted with the statement made by my noble friend at the beginning but I want to hear more about it.

I was persuaded to table my Amendment 28— incidentally, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has signed it; I am grateful to him—for three reasons. One was a speech made by Meg Hillier, the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee in another place, in which she talked about the terrible squalor created by binge drinkers in her constituency. The second was the speech made at Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, which was equally graphic and very persuasive. Thirdly, when I was in London last week, I talked to two taxi drivers who had been first-hand witnesses to some appalling scenes.

Selling in open containers is really rather silly. The timing should be restricted. Personally, I would not sell before noon or after 10 pm—the times that I have put in my amendment—but I accept completely that any times are arbitrary, to a degree. It is important that we protect people living in areas where binge drinking at night is a real social evil and menace. I therefore look forward to hearing what my noble friend the Minister says when she winds up. I thank her in anticipation but hope that she will fill in a few details.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

Lord Whitty? The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is muted so I call the noble Lord, Lord Robathan.

[Lord Robathan [V]]

My Lords, I am sure that the Committee will be pleased to know that I will be extremely brief, not least because—I should declare this—the Chief Whip has asked me to be. I should also declare that I have not a financial but a family interest, in that my wife is the leader of Westminster City Council, which has been exercised on behalf of its residents about the idea that people might be able to buy off-sales until six o’clock in the morning.

The other people who are exercised are the traders, as well as the residents, of Soho and elsewhere. They and I welcome the commitment from the Minister, for which I thank her. I will not move my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendments 40 and 41 not moved.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 42. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment, or any other amendment in this group, to a Division should make that clear in debate.

Amendment 42

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Clancarty [V]]

My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and I also support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, would enable us to take a wider and longer-term view, beyond the narrow confines of the Bill. It is important that a careful eye is kept on the hospitality sector, particularly its workforce. Worryingly, we are now hearing of job losses, which will surely increase if the furlough and self-employed schemes end before tourism can properly get going again. It is worth noting that the self-employed are becoming an ever more significant component of the workforce in the hospitality sector.

The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, talked about Cornwall. My wife and daughter are intending to go to Cornwall for a week, next weekend. It will be the first time anyone has made a serious move outside our house for a long time. I am staying home to be near the Lords Chamber, aka our repurposed front room. I do not think my family want the Lords down in Cornwall for the week but, as for anyone taking a holiday anywhere this summer, these decisions could be changed at a moment’s notice, because of the fear of a local lockdown or even a second wave that affects much of the country. Areas such as Cornwall, which have not been hit badly, will nevertheless be on tenterhooks. They do not want the virus of course, but they need the tourism.

The noble Baroness also mentioned events. My family was also looking at whether it would be possible to visit the Minack Theatre, which is one of the venues around the country that is starting to open. They will be back home before Tate St Ives opens on 27 July. Opening dates and whether events happen will, for some, affect whether a trip to Cornwall or anywhere else is viable. Arts and cultural events, alongside the hospitality sector, are hugely important to tourism and, with hospitality, form a whole commercial ecosystem significant apart from its cultural value. The Plan for Jobs, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, does not recognise this ecosystem.

As the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, pointed out at Second Reading, tourists from abroad come here primarily for our arts and heritage, but of course they book into hotels and go out for dinner as well. We will be discussing the arts later with regard to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, but do the Government intend to introduce analogous regulations for the arts along with perhaps some creative temporary measures as that sector opens up? In terms of these amendments, every part of the wider ecology will contribute to successful tourism when it gets going properly again, so in this respect it needs to be understood that the whole is greater than the parts.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has withdrawn from the list so I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey.

[Baroness Doocey (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to support Amendment 42, which articulates an excellent idea and one that I hope the Government will take up. A similar amendment was moved in the Commons by my colleague, Tim Farron MP, whose constituency in Cumbria is very much at the heart of the tourist industry. His constituency has seen the biggest increase in unemployment in the country—up by 314% since March. Meanwhile, 37% of the entire workforce in that area has been on furlough. His constituency is just one of those in which the income from tourism has been decimated.

I believe that there is a special case for additional sectoral support for the industry, which would instil much-needed confidence in the many seasonal businesses and in the seasonal workers who depend on them. Most of these businesses operate on a profit margin of just about 10%, so many of them will not even be viable because, as a result of social distancing, they can operate at only 50% or less of their capacity. By signalling now that the industry’s safety net will not be cut away just when thousands of businesses and jobs may need to rely on it, the Government can avoid many damaging job losses.

--- Later in debate ---

Clauses 14 and 15 agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 50. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in this group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.

Amendment 50

Moved by