Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Jenkin of Roding

Tuesday 12th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, the amendment would help to solve three problems: the urgent need for more social housing; the lack of growth in the economy; and the need to boost the construction industry. It is supported by a number of organisations: the Local Government Association, of which I declare my vice-presidency, Shelter, the Home Builders Federation, the Federation of Master Builders, the Chartered Institute of Housing, the National Housing Federation, London Councils and, crucially, the National Federation of Arms-Length Management Organisations, ALMOs. All urge a relaxation on borrowing by local authorities to enable them to build up to 60,000 more homes over five years.

Last year saw the lowest house completion rate since 1923. The Government urgently need to get more social homes built and there should be absolutely no reluctance to build them. The shortage is now being exacerbated by the underoccupancy or bedroom tax. Many people on low incomes want to move to a council home with fewer bedrooms but too many are unable to do so because the homes do not exist. The numbers on housing waiting lists, the rising demand for temporary accommodation and high rents in the private sector all point to the social and economic benefit of building more homes at below-market levels. This amendment would help to build the homes that people want to move into.

The question is whether it is affordable for local government. Councils have the capacity to build more homes, given that council housing is now self-financing. They could raise £7 billion. This could be done if the Government removed the borrowing cap on housing revenue accounts, relying instead on a prudential borrowing code to guarantee that only sustainable investment gets the go ahead. Many councils have successfully used prudential borrowing and have shown that they can manage such borrowing without risk. The Local Government Act 2003 already empowers the Secretary of State to cap any local authority which undertakes risky borrowing.

I understand the need for the Government to be careful about public borrowing levels. However, relaxing the housing borrowing cap need not be counted as public sector borrowing any longer. The UK uses a much wider measure of public debt than other countries. Council housing is a trading activity and international regulations already permit this to be discounted from government borrowing levels, although unfortunately the UK does not currently adopt such an approach and I remain puzzled as to why it does not. Council housing has been self-financing since April last year, and that is welcomed. The average debt on a home is just over £17,000. There is clearly scope for additional borrowing against the asset represented by the existing housing stock.

This is an opportune time for the Government, with the support and input of partners such as CIPFA and the Local Government Association, to produce a new, additional, prudential borrowing code, focused on borrowing undertaken specifically through the housing revenue account. The prudential code framework is a successful model that has worked well and supported councils to manage their borrowing sensibly. A similar model alongside strong backstop provisions already in legislation—the 2003 Act—would be an effective safeguard on borrowing through the housing revenue account.

I spoke on this matter in Committee and this new clause differs slightly from that tabled in Committee to emphasise that local authorities must have regard to government guidance such as a new prudential borrowing code. Ministers raised concerns in Committee that removing the housing borrowing cap could jeopardise the Government’s deficit reduction programme. This amended new clause, alongside a new, tailored prudential borrowing code, discussed by providers and authorised by HM Treasury, would offer a compromise approach to the Government that could address the concerns of Ministers.

Advice has been received that there would be no adverse reaction from the capital markets. This is because the increase in borrowing would be comparatively low and, in any case, the sums involved fall well below the size of the OBR’s forecasting errors on local government debt. This amendment offers a major opportunity to build more homes, to cut waiting lists, to get builders building and to drive growth. I beg to move.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, to which I have added my name. I imagine that my noble friend on the Front Bench will have seen the letter published in the Financial Times this morning under the heading, “Give councils freedom to build homes”. In addition to the list of organisations which the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, quoted at the beginning of his speech, this letter is signed by 13 separate organisations, which one might say cover the whole field of housing all the way from the Home Builders Federation to Shelter, and including, as just mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, the National Federation of ALMOs—arm’s-length management organisations. They make this important point in the letter:

“Investing in housing not only helps tackle the housing crisis, which requires us to double the number of national homes and build 249,000 homes in London alone by 2020, but also stimulates economic growth and creates jobs. Building 60,000 homes would add 0.6 per cent to gross domestic product and create 19,200 jobs. For every £1 invested by the public sector in construction, 56p returns to the exchequer”.

I find the arguments in favour of modifying and lifting the housing cap really quite overwhelming. I recognise that my noble friend on the Front Bench has very little option but to defend the existing policy and I do not blame her for that—she is a loyal member of the coalition and that is exactly what one would expect. I therefore address my remarks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It will rest with him, in his Budget in a few days’ time, to convince the country that he really has a strategy for growth as well as a strategy for cutting the deficit and, eventually, reducing the debt. I cannot think of any better way for him to convince the country, and large numbers of people who are currently looking for housing of various sorts—not just affordable housing but housing they wish they could find if only it was available—that this strategy actually does mean benefits for the country. It would be something that would considerably lift the spirits of all those who are deeply concerned, as I am, about the level pattern of GDP under the present circumstances. It is a very uncomfortable position for a developed country to be in. One can understand why we have got here but, as well as reducing the deficit, we must attain a proper strategy for growth. I am convinced that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer accepts that.

Many policies—I will not weary the House with reciting them all—have been introduced with the objective of trying to restore growth to the economy, but here is one which evidence shows, really conclusively, could have a really quite dramatic effect on what is a hugely important area of our national life, namely the provision of houses. The building of houses has declined substantially over recent years. Although, as my noble friend has pointed out, council housing is now self-financing, the fact of the matter is that councils have huge resources but are not entitled to borrow against them, even though they would of course be subject to the general restrictions on borrowing that apply to all of the public sector—this is a special restriction that applies to local authorities and housing. I cannot see that it is justified and issue a plea to my right honourable friend at the other end of the Palace to please look at this extremely carefully. It would be a valuable addition to his armoury and would go quite a long way to convincing the country that he is genuine about searching for growth.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Jenkin of Roding

Wednesday 27th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I declare my vice-presidency of the Local Government Association.

This amendment is designed to assess why only the affordable housing element of a stalled development should be considered. To make a stalled development economically viable, it is important to look at the full range of planning obligations, not just affordable housing. Sometimes it might be sensible to vary affordable housing obligations, but at other times other matters, such as the scale of highway contributions or a developer’s community infrastructure levy liability, might have a greater impact on a development’s viability. This approach would reflect the Government’s desire to ensure that planning applications are not acting as a barrier to new development and would give much greater flexibility to planning authorities in their negotiations with developers.

I have read carefully the draft viability guidance on Section 106 affordable housing requirements. It says that the application and appeal process will assess the viability of affordable housing requirements only. It will not reopen any other planning policy considerations or review the merits of the permitted scheme. I believe it is very clear that only affordable housing requirements could be subject to negotiation.

However, it also says at a later point in the draft that the timing and level of off-site contributions may also be considered. Will the Minister define an off-site contribution? I take it to be something broader than simply the affordable housing requirement and might actually include the community infrastructure levy. I would like clarification of that because later in the draft viability guidance it says that the relevant sections, Sections 106BA and 106BB, do not provide an opportunity to reopen policy considerations or requirements for planning obligations other than for affordable housing. Again, the matter is clear. Therefore I am left wondering what an off-site contribution actually is, as presumably the affordable housing is on site.

It seems to me to be common sense that local planning authorities should be given the capability to consider other planning obligations as part of a Section 106 agreement beyond simply the affordable housing component. It could be that if there were a successful negotiation on those other matters, it would enable more affordable housing to be built as a consequence. For the reassurance of the Minister, I had not planned to move this to a vote, but I believe that the issue ought to be explored so that we have clarification of what is actually intended and why the Government feel that they cannot permit other planning obligations to be part of the consideration of the renegotiation of a Section 106 agreement. I beg to move.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My noble friend Lord Shipley has raised an interesting issue, which has been raised at earlier stages, as to why only affordable housing is able to be renegotiated. He has also added to his amendment the question of the community infrastructure levy. Bearing in the mind the main purpose of the CIL, I would question whether that would be an appropriate reduction to seek. The CIL is after all intended to provide local authorities with the resources to pay for some of the infrastructure that would be necessary to support the housing requirements. It is true that affordable housing does not attract the CIL, but the rest of the housing development would. If one is going to have a community infrastructure levy, I would be very reluctant to see that negotiated down on the grounds of the developer saying that their scheme is not viable.

We have not had a full explanation of why only affordable housing is able to be renegotiated, because there may well be other obligations. I, too, read the sentence in the guidance about the other “off-site” obligations and I was not quite sure what that meant. When I first read it, I thought that it meant off-site affordable housing, but affordable housing is often not immediately on the same site as the rest of the development; it can be on a different site, so I do not think that that is what it means. I would welcome an explanation from my noble friend on the Front Bench as to what is involved. Hitherto, I have wholly supported the idea of renegotiation. Indeed, it has been the main burden of complaint of developers that they have agreed in different circumstances to affordable housing obligations and that it is that which makes their development unviable. That is why there has been, as was referred to earlier, a lot of negotiation going on with local authorities anyway. However, I am not aware of any local authorities which have negotiated reductions in other planning requirements that may have been necessary.

The draft affordable housing requirements guidance states:

“Timing and level of off-site contributions may also be considered”.

What does that refer to? I think that I took the guidance off my computer this morning, so it has come just in time. I would be very much against seeking to renegotiate downwards the community infrastructure levy.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Jenkin of Roding

Monday 17th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for the care with which he has set out these quite significant changes to the whole process of charging and applying the community infrastructure levy—or CIL, as he called it. We have moved a long way from the original intention of the CIL. In the Planning Act 2008, Section 205 states:

“In making the regulations the Secretary of State shall aim to ensure that the overall purpose of CIL is to ensure that costs incurred in providing infrastructure to support the development of an area can be funded … by owners or developers of land”.

It was perfectly clear to those of us who debated those provisions during the passage of the Planning Act 2008 what the previous Government were looking at. For instance, if you build a large housing estate, that is going to involve the building of roads. It may well involve the provision of a new school, and a number of other capital infrastructure measures that are necessary to support the community that will be enlarged by the main application when it is allowed and when it takes place.

It is quite clear from what my noble friend has said that we are moving a long way from that. It has caused a good deal of concern among those who are anxious to champion the promotion of more infrastructure. The British Property Federation, referring to what he called a “raft of new amendments”, has said:

“The upgrading of the country’s infrastructure is vital for our future economic success and the contribution from CIL will be a critical part of that at a time when public funding is heavily constrained”.

The letter that I had from my noble friend Lady Hanham, dated 7 October—just a few days ago—makes it perfectly clear that, under the new arrangements proposed, the CIL is not limited to providing infrastructure. Having set out the proposals, she writes:

“We have concluded that spending at the local authority level must continue to be directed to the provision of infrastructure”.

I will press a little further on that in a moment. She continues:

“However, at the neighbourhood and community level the demands and concerns amongst local people that new development creates are more diverse, direct and localised”.

She then refers to the amendments which my noble friend has just spoken to. She goes on:

“We believe this change is vital if we are to genuinely change attitudes to new development and secure sustainable growth”.

Changing attitudes is quite a long way from building capital infrastructure. It has changed the nature of what the CIL was originally introduced to achieve.

It may be that, in the new planning regime, it will be desirable to provide means whereby local communities can feel that they are getting some benefit. This may not take the form of schools or roads but may be some other form of benefit that will compensate them for the impact of the development to which they might otherwise have been opposed. I have always quoted the example of the French electricity system; if you want to build a new power station, in order to reconcile the local population to having to put up with that—after all it involves substantial interference in their normal lives, not only during the building but during the operation—they get electricity at a cheaper rate. That seems to me to be a very sensible thing to do. I am therefore not opposed to the idea that we need to provide something that will secure the consent, as my noble friend was saying, of the local community to the development that is being imposed upon them and to which they might have been quite vigorously opposed.

However, one point that I want to emphasise is still unclear, and I would welcome it if my noble friend could clarify this when he winds up. If councils in spending the CIL are confined to providing infrastructure, which is what I understood him to say and what my noble friend Lady Hanham said in her letter, spending at the local authority level must continue to be directed to the provision of infrastructure. That is fine, but then we are faced with the proposition that a “meaningful proportion” of the proceeds of the CIL, which is charged on the developer, can be devolved to the local parish or community, which, as I understand it, is free to spend it on anything it thinks would improve the condition of the community. What is a “meaningful proportion”? As I understand it, a local authority will be perfectly free to say, “We don’t think any more roads are necessary or that we need to build a new school, or anything like that, and therefore 100 per cent of the CIL for this particular development is going to be devolved to the local parish or community to spend as it wishes”.

I made the point previously in Committee that the CIL must not simply be used as a way of filling the gaps in local authority spending. It is not intended for that. It is intended to balance the provision of a planning application for a new structure of some sort with the infrastructure that is necessary for it. I have of course accepted that that must include the operation, maintenance and upkeep of the infrastructure, a matter that we discussed at length in Committee, but is there no limit to what the devolved body, parish, community or whatever it is can spend of the “meaningful proportion” that is delegated to it?

There is a good deal of concern about this among various bodies. The County Surveyors’ Society, which I understand is now called ADEPT, the British Chambers of Commerce, the British Property Federation, the Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation and the local government tactical advisers group have all expressed the concern that this seems to be slipping away to the point at which it is simply providing inducements—I will not use the word “bribes”—to persuade a local community that it would be to its advantage to cease to oppose a planning application. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give me some reassurance that it is not intended to go as far as that, but there will have to be some specific measures.

I come to my two amendments, on which my noble friend has given his views. Amendment 204H would make a minor change to replace “may” with “must”, and would compel planning authorities to outline the infrastructure that they actually intend to support through CIL. If local authorities are going to have to confine their spending of CIL to infrastructure, I see no reason why they should not be instructed by the Act to outline the infrastructure they intend to support. Amendment 204J is also intended to link the evidence base used to justify an area’s CIL charging schedule to the levy’s actual expenditure. As I think my noble friend recognised, these are both intended to add to the transparency of the application of what CIL is: a tax on development. So far as local authorities are concerned, I see no reason why both these amendments should not be applied to them.

That leaves the “meaningful proportion” that is to be spent by other people. At the moment I feel that it is wide open for them to decide more or less what they would like to spend it on. I cannot believe that that is a wise way to spend the proceeds of what is in fact a tax. I hope that my noble friend can reassure me on this, but I have to tell him that there is a good deal of apprehension out there. He has told me that he has come under a lot of pressure from local authority and other community interests, which are saying that this sort of thing is necessary in order to reconcile people to new development in their area. But there must be some sort of limit on it, and I am not sure that the government amendments moved by my noble friend and the explanation set out in my noble friend’s letter of 7 October give that reassurance. I hope that my noble friend will be able to allay my anxieties.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Jenkin on the need to be clearer on the gain to neighbourhoods and parishes from the community infrastructure levy. Whether that is done in the Bill, through guidance or by other means, it will be extremely important that local people in neighbourhood areas where development is taking place understand what the community gain might be as a consequence of that development.

My point is a parallel issue which relates to the duty to co-operate. It is implicit in the Bill that there is a duty to co-operate between councils on the community infrastructure levy. However, I am not certain that it is sufficiently explicit and in urban areas where there are boundaries between different local authorities, a development that could take place wholly in one council area might well impact upon the infrastructure and the well-being of one or more neighbouring council areas. To what extent should we make it explicit that there should be a duty to co-operate between local authorities on the community infrastructure levy where a development is taking place very close to a boundary? That will need to be clear, certainly by Third Reading, otherwise there could be a great deal of strain between local authorities over what a duty to co-operate over sustainable development actually means and how it is delivered on the ground.