Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 Report

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

The Leader of the House will recognise that the Building Safety Act does not cover all buildings at risk or all leaseholders, and it does not cover all safety defects. She recognised that they may need to look again at the buildings under 18 metres, which get no help at all. I shall press her on something that the Prime Minister said last Wednesday:

“We cannot suggest for a minute that the existing legislation, guidance and policy is sufficient. We need more powers”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/9/24; col. 326.]


He was right. Will we get that new legislation in this Session?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The first stage is to look at what can be done with existing legislation or under the legislation that has been brought forward already, and then examine whether new legislation is required. If it is, the Government will do their best to bring it forward as quickly as possible. This is not something that we want to leave and see a further tragedy. We have seen too many tragedies; this is not the first case. I am not going to give a commitment as to when it will be brought forward, but I shall say that it will be as quickly as it can be.

Parliamentary Democracy and Standards in Public Life

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I endorse everything that the right reverend Prelate and others have said about the need for integrity and high standards in public life, but what I found so dispiriting over the festive season was to read constant reports that the next general election will be the dirtiest ever. I quote from Oliver Shah, writing in the Times:

“It raises the prospect of the most expensive and dirtiest election battle in British history. The two main parties have already traded highly personal blows, with Labour running attack ads claiming that Sunak did not believe paedophiles should go to prison and Sunak accusing Labour of being in cahoots with criminal gangs in the perpetuation of illegal immigration”.


Then on Tuesday in the Times, Katy Balls wrote:

“Such tactics, though, are here to stay. While Labour and the Tories do not agree on much, strategists on both sides believe that this will be the dirtiest election to date”.


I believe that the leaders of our three main parties are decent people who have no appetite for this sort of campaign and realise the damage that it can do. It devalues the political currency, debases people in public life and discourages good people from standing. I do not believe that this is what the public want or deserve. I urge my noble friend the Leader to make the case for moderation in language. Theresa May’s book is called The Abuse of Power, but too many advisers seem to believe in the power of abuse.

Secondly, people do not trust government. Noble Lords have mentioned the Post Office scandal. What people want is competence, and failure to deliver generates disillusion. One reason for underperformance, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, is the high turnover of Ministers and senior civil servants. Who has been the most competent Minister in recent years? Ben Wallace. He was there for four years. Where is my party most exposed? On housing. We have had 16 Ministers there since 2010. When I was first elected, there were two Housing Ministers in nine years. Denis Healey was Defence Secretary for five years and Chancellor of the Exchequer for six. We then had two Chancellors in the next nine years. We have had six since 2016. This turnover has consequences. The same criticism was made in my noble friend Lord Maude’s excellent report on the Civil Service, which criticised

“the frequent and unplanned movement of officials from post to post, without regard to business need, at the expense of continuity and of developing and maintaining specialist knowledge and expertise”.

So I have two resolutions for promoting democracy in 2024: decency in political discourse; and stability and competence in government.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 23rd October 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I have one remark to make in support of Motion M1, put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. The noble Earl, with whom it is always so difficult to disagree, stated that the reason the Government are unhappy with the idea of climate change becoming more central is that it opens up a wide range of challenge. But climate change is going to be the central, existential issue of planning beyond our lifetimes. It is not an add-on; it is not planting a few trees in order to get planning permission. It is absolutely core, and dealing with that will make life very difficult for planning applications. I support this amendment so that climate change becomes central to the decision-making process, not an adjunct.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I will intervene briefly to speak to three Motions in this group—first, Motion ZH, to which the noble Lord, Lord Best, has just spoken. It is the substitute for an amendment on housing need that he promoted on Report. There is a crucial difference between the original amendment, which required local authorities not just to assess need but to make provision for it. The Government’s amendment deletes that last half—making provision for need. None the less, we have heard some encouraging words about social rent. It is a brave man who seeks to outbid the noble Lord, Lord Best, when it comes to speaking or voting on amendments on housing, so I am happy to follow his lead and not press that. I pay tribute to the work that he has been doing on this.

Secondly, it was disappointing to hear my noble friend Lord Howe say that Motion N1 on healthy homes, from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, still had to be resisted. Ever since the Private Member’s Bill was introduced, we have had numerous debates in Committee and on Report, and each time, in response, the noble Lord has moved further and further towards the Government. There never was a wide disagreement, because the Government always said that they agreed with the thrust of what he was trying to do.

It is worth reading out what may be the only sentence of the original amendment that remains:

“The Secretary of State must promote a comprehensive regulatory framework for planning and the built environment designed to secure the physical, mental and social health and well-being of the people of England by ensuring the creation of healthy homes and neighbourhoods”.


That is apparently too much. It continues:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for a system of standards”.


In other words, how that objective is reached is left entirely to the Secretary of State. Far from cutting across, as my noble friend Lord Howe said, the amendment seeks to bring it all together under a comprehensive framework to promote healthy homes.

The last point I want to make is on Motion R1 of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. It repeats an amendment that I originally proposed in Committee that gives local authorities powers to fix their own planning fees. In the other place, the amendment was resisted on these grounds:

“It will lead to inconsistency of fees between local planning authorities and does not provide any incentive to tackle inefficiencies”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/10/23; col 186.]


Central government should be quite careful before it preaches to local government about inefficiencies. This is the month in which we abandoned most of HS2. Pick up any NAO report and you will find criticism of the MoD on procurement. There has been criticism of the new hospitals programme and of HMRC in its response to taxpayer inquiries. If I were running a planning department in a local authority, I would be slightly miffed if I were told that, if I had the resources I needed, it might lead to inefficiencies.

There are problems in planning departments, but they are because a quarter of planners left the public sector between 2013 and 2020, so of course they cannot turn around planning applications as speedily as they might. The argument about promoting inefficiency does not really hold water. If one were to take that argument, why stop at planning fees? What about taking books out of a public library, swimming or parking? Are these not areas where local authorities might conceivably be inefficient?

Almost the first sentence of the White Paper introducing the Bill said that it would promote a “revolution in local democracy”, but allowing planning departments to set fees, so that they can recoup the costs of planning, is apparently a step too far. Yes, you will have inconsistency of fees, but that will happen if you have local democracy. We already have inconsistency of fees in every other charge a local authority makes, including building control fees. The argument that it will somehow confuse individuals or developers does not hold water. How many individuals make planning applications to a range of different local authorities and then express surprise that the fees are different? Yes, developers will be confronted with different fees, but they want an efficient planning department that processes their applications quickly.

I cannot understand why the Government are digging in their heels on this amendment, which empowers local government and gives them resources. It does not get resources at the moment because, in a unitary authority, the planning department, which does not get enough money from planning fees, has to bid for resources from the council tax in competition against adult social care and other services. It is no wonder that it misses out. At this very late stage on the Bill, I ask my noble friend whether the Government could show a little ankle on this, move a little towards empowering local government and trust it to get this right.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise for intervening before the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has a chance to speak to Motion R1, but I have to disagree with my noble friend on this occasion. Last week, we had a debate on planning fees, in which I participated. The risk in what the noble Baroness proposes is that it would lead to local authorities significantly increasing the fees that would be charged for householder applications.

I remind the House that I chair the Cambridgeshire development forum. As far as larger developers are concerned, the point I made last week is that we should promote planning performance agreements to enable local authorities and developers to come to proper agreements, with potential sanctions and performance obligations on the part of the local planning authority. They would give them access to greater resources in dealing with major developments. I fear that what the Liberal Democrat Front Bench proposes would just lead to increases in fees for householder applications.

I also want to say a word about Motion M1 on climate change. The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, knows that I thoroughly agree with what he proposes but, at this stage, sending back the same amendments is inherently undesirable if it can be avoided. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will tell us more about how the Government will use the new national development management policies, which will have statutory backing. If the Government set down NDMPs in terms that are clear about the importance of decisions that take account of mitigation of and adaptation to climate change, they will have the effect that my noble friend and other Members of the House look for from this Motion.

The distinctive point of the original Amendment 45 was that it would extend specific consideration of mitigation of and adaptation to climate change to individual planning decisions—there is plenty in the statute about the application of this to plan-making—so that is where the gap lies. That gap can be filled if national development management policies are absolutely clear about how decisions are to be made on the impact of climate change. I hope that my noble friend says something that allows me to feel that we do not need to send the same Amendment 45 back to the other place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for his kind words and for the time that he devoted to this particular aspect of a very long and complex Bill. Nevertheless, it is regrettable that he has not yet seen his way to accept the sensible and reasonable amendment that noble Lords sent back to the Commons on Report. Its purpose was to safeguard the rigorous safeguards built into the Building Safety Act 2022, which this House was united in supporting and which was designed to establish a robust regulatory regime that would ensure there was never another Grenfell Tower disaster. Less than 12 months later, and before the new regulatory regime even comes fully into force, the Government are giving themselves and their successors sweeping powers to rip it up—save only for a very flimsy affirmative Motion on a statutory instrument as a defence.

The modest amendment your Lordships sent to the Commons simply required the Government to accept that, if they wanted to change the fundamental structure and mechanics of delivery of the building safety regime, that must be justified to and approved by Parliament. The Government’s response, which the noble Earl has just repeated, is that they do not want to change the fundamental structure and delivery of the building safety regime. All they want to do is take it away from the Health and Safety Executive, lock, stock and barrel, with no changes at all, except in the nameplate and the branding. If that is true, the amendment before your Lordships today is exactly in line with their intentions.

Motion X1 picks up the point the noble Earl made about the original amendment to the Commons—that it was flawed because the wording would obstruct the transfer of the statutory committees from the HSE to the new, completely unspecified and unknown safety regulator. The revised wording in Motion X1 therefore makes it clear on the face of the Bill that it will be lawful to make that transfer. This amendment is designed simply to avoid changes in how the new regulator is structured and organised and to prevent changes to the tasks that are entrusted to it and the statutory committees that underpin its work. The amendment, if agreed, would ensure that the Government’s replacement regulator retains those duties and timescales: for instance, to review the regulations relating to electrical fire safety, the safety of staircases and ramps, safe escape routes for people with mobility issues and fire suppression systems such as sprinklers.

There is other detail, but in the interests of time I will simply say that the original arrangement in the Building Safety Act was that those committees and tasks could be changed only by the Secretary of State if he or she received a proposal from the regulator to put into place. That was because it was seen as very important that the regulatory regime should never again be captured, as it had been in the past, by departments and Ministers taking short-term political decisions, and that the regulator would always be able to independently assess needs to improve safety and then make recommendations in public to Ministers for them to decide on action.

The noble Earl has offered us a sincere undertaking that, at least for the time being, nothing will change; that Ministers will not be tempted to steer away from making essential safety improvements that they deem politically difficult or a bit too costly; and that they will faithfully press ahead without delay when those fire safety reports come in, however revealing and unwelcome they prove to be. Of course the noble Earl is absolutely sincere, but I say to him that Ministers and Secretaries of State come and go, and the sincerest of undertakings can be withdrawn when the facts are said to have changed. The accountability given by an affirmative resolution is tenuous.

I urge the Minister to retain the progress made during the enactment of the Building Safety Act by safeguarding those statutory committees, reinforcing the obligation for those long-awaited safety studies and making sure that the three-year timescale is retained. The way to do that is for him to say that, on mature consideration, he will accept Motion X1. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Motion ZC1 in my name. I pay a heartfelt tribute to my noble friend for the real progress that has been made since we last discussed this matter in helping qualifying leaseholders who extended their lease after the Building Safety Act came into effect. In a nutshell, the Act extended protection to qualifying leaseholders against the costs of remediation. However, inadvertently, it said that, if you renewed your lease after it came into effect, you lost that protection.

The Government recognised that there had indeed been a mistake and, on Report, I moved what is now Amendment 243, which would retrospectively have put the leaseholders who extended their lease back within the protection of the BSA. At the time, before the Bill went back to the other place, my noble friend resisted my amendments and said that the issues require

“very careful legal dissection and working through, and that is what we are doing”.

When I summed up, I said:

“In a nutshell, the Government made a mistake when they drafted the Building Safety Act. Unwittingly, they have removed the protection that some leaseholders were entitled to. They have known for months that there has been this defect, and I do not accept that the defect is so complex that it cannot now be put right. That is what my amendment does. I seek leave to test the opinion of the House”.—[Official Report, 18/9/23; cols. 1248-95.]


I do not know what my noble friend said to the department when he got back, but what had previously been impossible to do within the context of the Bill suddenly became possible. I am grateful to my noble friend for tabling Amendments 288A, 288B, 288C and 288D, which, in effect, do what I asked the Government to do last time. As I said, I am grateful to my noble friend for the pressure that he put on the parliamentary draftsmen to correct an injustice that had unwittingly been perpetrated.

Against that background, it might seem churlish of me to have tabled Motion ZC1, but there remains a problem: leaseholders who extended their leases, and therefore lost the protection of the BSA, will have received invoices and bills for payment, and some may have made payments. As drafted, the government amendments do not entitle those qualifying leaseholders to a refund. I am grateful for the Public Bill Office’s help in drafting my Motion ZC1—I hope that will inject a note of caution into any remarks that the amendments are imperfectly drafted. The Motion seeks to say that, in those circumstances where a qualifying leaseholder has already paid the remediation costs, but need not have, they are entitled to a refund.

Under the Government’s amendment, there is a provision whereby the Government have powers, under regulations, to make certain provisions. I want my noble friend to answer a question that was put twice in the other place. The Opposition spokesman on housing, Mr Pennycook, said:

“we welcome the concession that has been made, albeit with one proviso: Ministers must take steps to ensure that leaseholders who paid service charges over the past 15 months in the belief that they were not eligible for the leaseholder protections under the Act, because of the Government’s mistake, are reimbursed. Those individuals should not suffer financially as a result of a drafting error that should not have been allowed to occur in the first place. If the Minister—I hope she is listening to this point—can provide us with some reassurance on that point, we will happily accept the Government’s amendment in lieu”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/10/23; col. 199.]

My honourable friend the Father of the House, Sir Peter Bottomley, made the same point.

In winding up, Rachel Maclean was under tremendous time pressure because of the timetable Motion in the other place, and she was not able to answer either of those two questions. So if my noble friend is unable to accept my amendment, as he implied, I ask him for an assurance on the provisions of his amendment, which enable certain regulations to be made in proposed new subsection (11):

“The provision that may be made in regulations under this section includes … provision which amends this section; … provision which has retrospective effect”.


Can he assure me that, if a leaseholder has paid a bill and need not have, my noble friend will use the powers under his own amendment retrospectively to entitle that leaseholder to a refund? That is the import of my amendment, which I do not wish to press to a Division—but I hope that, in return, my noble friend will be able to give me that reassurance.

My noble friend’s Motion ZC knocks out a whole range of amendments that were passed without a Division in this House and that extended protection to non-qualifying leaseholders. These are basically leaseholders living in buildings under 11 metres; enfranchised leaseholders, who are counted as freeholders for the Act; and those who own more than three properties in buy-to-let investments. There are real problems: people in buildings under 11 metres get no protection at all, cannot get a mortgage and cannot sell. They have to pay the cost of remediation, because that is the only way that the building can get insured. They face exactly the same problems as people in buildings over 11 metres, but they get no protection at all. There are also leaseholders who, following government advice, enfranchised and became freeholders. Despite assurances I was given by the then Minister that they would be treated as leaseholders, the Bill treats them as freeholders and denies them the protection extended to leaseholders.

There is also the problem of those who have buy-to-let properties. A person who owns a £1 million property and other properties overseas is protected, but someone who owns three properties worth £100,000 each gets no protection at all. People who jointly own a property with their husband are counted as wholly owning. There is a whole range of outstanding issues from the Building Safety Act that I understand cannot be addressed in the Bill, but, again, I hope that my noble friend is able to say that, in the proposed leasehold reform Act, it will be open to the Government to reopen these unresolved problems in the BSA and that legislation will be proposed to address at least some of the issues arising from the BSA that I have outlined and that I believe remain unsolved.

In conclusion, I thank my noble friend again for his efforts in response to my original Amendment 243, but I hope he can give me the assurances I seek for leaseholders who have paid bills that they need not have.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

I am grateful to noble Lords for their comments on this group. I thank my noble friend Lord Young for his kind words on government Amendments 288A, 288B, 288C and 288D. He asked about his Motion in relation to leaseholders who have paid remediation costs since losing the protections. Like my noble friend, the Government are concerned about leaseholders who have paid a significant service charge where they have lost the protections upon extending their leases. Those who have paid out remediation costs while outside the protections may be able to bring a claim for unjust enrichment.

I should point out to your Lordships that we are not aware of this issue being raised with us by any affected leaseholders, so it may well be theoretical in nature—my noble friend may contradict me on that. That said, if we do come across any cases where remediation charges have been paid and are not returned, the Building Safety Act contains a power to make secondary legislation that we believe enables us to provide a bespoke remedy to this issue. If cases do come to light, we will consider carefully whether that is the right thing to do.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

I am very grateful for what my noble friend has just said. However, will leaseholders first have to go through the process of claiming unlawful enrichment before the Government introduce the provisions he has outlined—which I welcome—or will the Government use the provisions under subsection (11) of new Section 119A to give them the protection without first obliging them to go through a complex process of claiming unlawful enrichment?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

As I said, we will carefully consider what is the right thing to do. I have no briefing on whether it will be necessary for leaseholders to make a claim either directly or through the courts. We will make a decision as to what is right in all the prevailing circumstances. I am afraid I cannot go further than that.

I can assure my noble friend that we completely appreciate the point that he has raised, and the Government are looking into what we can do for leaseholders who have had to pay excessive service charges where they have lost the protections. For the reasons I have set out, including the potential for unintended consequences which I described in relation to Amendment 242, I ask my noble friend not to press his Motion on Amendment 288E.

On the other issues he raised, I cannot, as my noble friend will understand, pre-empt the forthcoming gracious Speech or what may be contained in it; it would be quite improper for me to do so. However, I can tell him that the issues he has drawn our attention to will be carefully considered in the department I am representing.

On Motion X1, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, I recognise his continued concern and repeat my earlier assurances that the Government do not intend to interfere with these important committees. Section 12 of the Building Safety Act contains appropriate provision to change the statutory committees of the building safety regulator as needed in the future. This gives the Government and regulator the flexibility needed to adapt the role of the regulator and its statutory committees.

We do not agree that it is appropriate or necessary to impose restrictions on the use of that section. We are concerned that, as drafted, this restriction would cause confusion while potentially preventing the use of the powers in Section 12 of the Building Safety Act to make changes to the statutory committees of the regulator in the future.

The Government do not intend to use the power in any way imminently. We consider it necessary to create the ability to move the building safety regulator to an existing or a new body in the future, but we would look at any options very carefully and consider the recommendations from the Grenfell Tower inquiry before confirming the best way forward.

This does not affect the timeline for the building safety regulator’s important work. We expect the regime to be fully operational by April 2024, and we are determined to support delivery of the programme to that timetable. The changes will make sure that we are ready and have the flexibility in place to respond quickly to the Grenfell Tower inquiry report when it is published and that we can be radical and long-term in our thinking.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

3rd reading
Thursday 21st September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, in begging to move that the Bill do now pass, I extend my thanks to all noble Lords who have contributed to a very detailed and proper scrutiny of this Bill. It is not possible for me to thank everyone individually, for which I hope I will be forgiven, but there are a few people I would like to mention specifically.

First, I am sure that the whole House will recognise and wish to thank my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook for the extraordinary amount of time and effort she has dedicated to the passage of this Bill, both inside and outside the Chamber. Her hard work and dedication have been an example to us all. It is equally appropriate for me to express gratitude to Opposition Peers, most notably the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman of Ullock and Lady Taylor of Stevenage, on the Labour Front Bench and, for the Liberal Democrats, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, in their turn. My noble friend Lady Scott and I are grateful to them all for the fairness and good nature of our engagement and debate throughout the Bill’s passage. That far-off halcyon time when the levelling-up Bill did not figure in their weekly workload must seem an aeon ago.

I also thank those on the Back Benches for their many constructive contributions, in particular my noble friends Lord Moylan, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, Lord Lansley, Lord Young of Cookham, Lord Lucas, Lord Caithness and Lord Trenchard, as well as the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, Lady Randerson, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Hayman, and the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Lord Shipley, Lord Crisp, Lord Best, Lord Lytton and Lord Carrington—and there have been many others.

The House of Lords Public Bill Office, the House clerks and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel also have my admiration and gratitude for their extraordinary hard work. Last, but certainly not least, I pay tribute to all the members of the Bill team. If ever there was a Bill team deserving of our fulsome thanks, it is this one. The team officials in DLUHC are those I principally have in mind, but many others from departments across government have made an invaluable contribution to the delivery of this Bill. Again, on my noble friend’s behalf and my own, I thank them all for their immense hard work, patience and professionalism over these many months.

This Bill creates the foundations and tools necessary to address entrenched geographic disparities across the UK. It is designed to ensure that this Government and future Governments set clear, long-term objectives for levelling up and can be held to account for its progress. The Bill devolves powers to all areas in England where there is demand for it, empowering local leaders to regenerate their towns and cities and restore pride in places. It also strengthens protections for the environment, making sure that the delivery of better environmental outcomes is at the heart of planning decision-making. I hope that we can all wish it a fair wind. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, may I say on behalf of the whole House that my noble friend Lord Howe has also borne some of the burden of getting the Bill through? No one can say “No” more politely than my noble friend, as he has had to do to a large number of my amendments.

The only point I really want to make is this: I have done 49 years in Parliament and I have never known a Bill quite like this one. I wonder whether my noble friend can tell the House whether any lessons have been learned from the passage of this Bill—which I think has now taken 24 days in your Lordships’ House —against the background of yesterday when we were told that there will be yet another planning Bill to deal with infrastructure. I express the hope that the next Bill on planning is a little shorter than the one that is about to pass.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My noble friend Lord Young can be assured that there will be an exercise to derive those lessons that we think are appropriate from the passage of this Bill. In many ways, I am sure noble Lords would agree that the House has done its work extremely well by its thorough examination of this lengthy measure. However, there may be issues that we can all agree should become the focus of future legislation of a similar kind. I am grateful to my noble friend for raising that question.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 18th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, it is pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. I pay tribute to him, not just for the professional expertise that he brings to the subject—something that none of us can match—but for his persistence in campaigning to rectify the injustice done to leaseholders.

I shall speak to the amendments in my name but, before doing so, I want to say this: not all our debates in this House on the Bill have had a wide following in the outside world, but this one will. Hundreds of thousands of leaseholders are living in unsafe buildings, and they are looking to your Lordships’ House to deliver on the promises that the Government have made to them but which remain currently unfulfilled and which the amendments in this group seek to rectify. The End Our Cladding Scandal team have done a first-class job in briefing noble Lords.

I compliment the Government on the measures they have taken to help people living in unsafe flats. They introduced the Building Safety Act, protecting many leaseholders from ruinous bills, they took aggressive action against 50 of the country’s biggest developers and secured binding legal commitments worth more than £2 billion to rectify their failings, and they set up the building safety fund to help to pay for remediation for orphan buildings. I welcome this and the patience with which my noble friend Lady Scott listened to my representations on this subject.

But my noble friend the Minister will not expect a speech from me to be an unqualified paean of praise. What promises did the Government make at the outset, and have they been met? In his Statement in the other place on 10 January 2022, the Secretary of State said:

“We will take action to end the scandal and protect leaseholders”.


He went on to say:

“We will make industry pay to fix all of the remaining problems and help to cover the range of costs facing leaseholders”.


He then said there would be “statutory protection”, and he clarified what he meant by this:

“First, we will make sure that we provide leaseholders with statutory protection—that is what we aim to do and we will work with colleagues across the House to ensure that that statutory protection extends to all the work required to make buildings safe”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/1/22; cols. 285-291.]


Note that that commitment extends to all building work, not just cladding, and there was no qualification of the word “leaseholders”.

These broad commitments were confirmed in a letter written to all noble Lords by my noble friend’s predecessor, my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh, on 20 January last year, entitled:

“Introduction of the Building Safety Bill”.


Under a section headed

“Protecting Leaseholders from Unnecessary Costs”,


it said:

“The Secretary of State recently announced that leaseholders living in their homes should be protected from the costs of remediating historic building safety defects”—


not just cladding but “building safety defects”. But the position now is that there are significant exclusions from those commitments: not all buildings are covered, not all building safety defects are covered and, crucially, not all leaseholders are protected. These amendments help to fulfil the Government’s earlier promises.

One specific commitment given to me by the then Minister, no doubt in good faith, has been explicitly and inexcusably broken. During the passage of the Bill, I raised the question of leaseholders who had enfranchised and bought the freehold. I was assured that they would be treated as leaseholders and not as freeholders, and that they would get leaseholder protection under the Bill. My noble friend Lord Greenhalgh said:

“They are effectively leaseholders that have enfranchised as opposed to freeholders. I hope that helps”.—[Official Report, 28/2/22; col. GC 262.]


To avoid doubt, I was asked to read the Minister’s lips. But the Government resisted amendments that would have done just that, and leaseholders who have enfranchised are in a worse position than those who have not. Amendment 282ND addresses that unjustified distinction.

It remains perverse that a Government who are about to introduce legislation to encourage enfranchisement, with the proposal that eventually all blocks should be enfranchised, should at the same time deliberately choose to disadvantage exactly those leaseholders in the Bill. The two principal exclusions from the commitment I referred to a moment ago are leaseholders who live in buildings fewer than 11 metres tall and non-qualifying leaseholders, a category of people that does not exist in Wales, where all leaseholders are qualifying leaseholders and protected.

On buildings under 11 metres, the Government’s position is that residents should be able to leave the building in the case of fire without expensive remediation. This position is at odds with the position of the London Fire Brigade, whose statement said:

“While we understand the approach of starting with tall buildings, LFB have always been clear that using building height as the only measure of risk is too restrictive and believe that there are other high risk buildings with vulnerable occupants that also need to be considered”.


It concluded:

“With regards to the remediation of buildings, we strongly assert that all buildings with serious fire safety defects should be remediated regardless of height”.


That is an unequivocal professional rejection of a distinction made by the Government.

There are countless examples of the problems that have resulted from this exclusion. I give just one. Leaseholders took over the freehold of their five-storey block in London because the developer, who had originally retained the freehold, went into liquidation. They thought that they were doing the right thing but, in their words, “It seems like we are being punished for this now”. The building has combustible insulation, combustible spandrel panels that extend the full height of the building, and vertically aligned timber balconies. Unless every leaseholder in the block can pay, at an estimated cost of over £30,000 per flat, the work cannot take place and leaseholders simply remain trapped in unsafe, unsellable flats. The 2011 fire at the retirement home Gibson Court in Surrey, where 87 year-old Irene Cockerton lost her life, makes very clear why fire safety issues in low-rise blocks can be life-critical, yet many retirement homes remain unremediated.

Defective buildings of any height may require remediation if they have life-critical safety risks and, as Michael Gove himself acknowledged in the House of Commons on 14 March, of fire safety defects in buildings under 11 metres, “some will be life-critical”. Yet there is no requirement for responsible developers to remediate such life-critical safety defects, no access to government funding, no matter how high-risk the building is, and in a recent consultation on the issue DLUHC has even excluded freeholders of such buildings from the duty to try to pursue alternative cost recovery routes before charging leaseholders. These flats are unsaleable. The owners cannot afford to pay for remediation. In the view of the fire brigade, they are unsafe; in the views of insurers, they are uninsurable; and in the view of lenders, they are unmortgageable. This cannot be what the Government intended.

The second exclusion is non-qualifying leaseholders. I have already mentioned enfranchised and resident-run buildings, which are excluded from the Building Safety Act 2022 cost protections. Any costs of remedial works required to those buildings will fall on the leaseholders, although they may be entitled to some help with the costs of cladding removal. The principal exclusions are the approximately 400,000 flats in mid or high-rise buildings owned by a non-qualifying leaseholder who owns or has an interest in three or more properties.

The problem has a ripple effect—in any building that has but one non-qualifying leaseholder who cannot pay, remediation work to make all the homes safe may be delayed or unable to go ahead. The perverse consequence of this is that if you own a manor in the Cotswolds, plus a villa in Italy on Lake Garda and a luxury penthouse in central London worth £1.5 million, you qualify for protections under the Act. Yet if you and your partner own a small, terraced house and three small £100,000 buy-to-let apartments as part of your pension planning, only one of which has non-cladding fire safety issues, you may face bankruptcy. Amendments to change the exclusion of buy-to-let leaseholders were resisted by the Government as the Bill went through. Again, Amendment 282ND puts that right.

The LUHC Committee, with its government majority, rightly noted last year:

“Leaseholders are no more to blame for non-cladding defects than they are for faulty cladding on homes they bought in good faith. Buy-to-let landlords are no more to blame than other leaseholders for historic building safety defects, and landing them with potentially unaffordable bills will only slow down or prevent works to make buildings safe”.


The unintended consequence of the Building Safety Act 2022 has created a two-tier system where leaseholders deemed qualifying will benefit from the protections, whereas those arbitrarily deemed non-qualifying have been left to fend for themselves. Shared-ownership leaseholders face even greater difficulties because of the nature of their leases. Without a truly comprehensive solution to all buildings, of all heights and tenures, uncertainty and a lack of confidence in the residential flat sales market are set to perpetuate. My amendments seek such a solution.

I note in passing that a property’s non-qualifying status remains on the title in perpetuity. That means that any future purchaser—whether a first-time buyer, second-stepper or landlord investor—will be required to take on the risk of unlimited costs to fix safety defects that may not even yet have been identified. This renders non-qualifying leases effectively unsellable, regardless of the existence of known safety defects.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

282C: After Clause 226, insert the following new Clause—
“Qualifying leases under the Building Safety Act 2022After section 119 of the Building Safety Act 2022 (meaning of “qualifying lease” and “the qualifying time”), insert—“119A Variation, surrender or regrant of qualifying leases(1) A qualifying lease varied, or subject to any surrender and regrant, remains a qualifying lease.(2) This section has effect in relation to any qualifying lease varied, or subject to any surrender and regrant, before the coming into force of this section.(3) Any agreement contrary to this section is void, whether made before or after the coming into force of this section.”” Member's explanatory statement
This section fixes a gap in the Building Safety Act 2022 to ensure qualifying leases retain their protection if the leaseholder enters into a deed of variation, or exercises statutory lease extension or enfranchisement rights.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all those who took part in the debate some hours ago about protecting leaseholders. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Howe for what he said—that proposals will be brought forward shortly to help those blocks that have enfranchised. My noble friend said that I would greet with a sigh his rejection of my amendment, and he was quite right. I say in return that his heart must have sunk when he read his brief and saw the less than convincing reply he had been equipped with to rebut my amendment.

In a nutshell, the Government made a mistake when they drafted the Building Safety Act. Unwittingly, they have removed the protection that some leaseholders were entitled to. They have known for months that there has been this defect, and I do not accept that the defect is so complex that it cannot now be put right. That is what my amendment does. I seek leave to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

282ND: After Clause 226, insert the following new Clause—
“Non-Qualifying Leases under the Building Safety Act 2022(1) Section 119 of the Building Safety Act 2022 (meaning of “qualifying lease” and “the qualifying time”) is amended as follows.(2) After section 119(1) insert—“(1A) This section only applies to a dwelling if it is a dwelling in a relevant building and the relevant building has one or more relevant defects.”(3) After section 119(4)(b) insert—“(ba) where a person (“T”) was a tenant under a lease of, or had a freehold interest in, a dwelling and at the qualifying time T was a tenant in common of that dwelling, T is not deemed to own that dwelling unless T’s share under the tenancy in common was more than 50%.”(4) After section 119(4) insert—“(5) Notwithstanding anything in this section:(a) a tenant is always deemed to own a qualifying lease for each of the first three dwellings that tenant owns; and(b) a landlord must cease to make any distinction between qualifying leases and non-qualifying leases once all work to remedy relevant defects in a relevant building is completed.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment secures parity between non-qualifying and qualifying leaseholders under the Building Safety Act 2022. It extends protection to 3 properties for all types of leaseholder. It also amends the Building Safety Act to exclude shares in a property of 50% or less from being counted as wholly owned. Lastly, it removes the distinction between leaseholders once relevant defects are remedied.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

286: Clause 231, page 272, line 30, at end insert—
“(ca) under section (Secretary of State’s duty to promote healthy homes and neighbourhoods);”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

315A: Clause 234, page 276, line 15, at end insert—
“(c) section (Qualifying leases under the Building Safety Act 2022) comes into force on 1 August 2023.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides a commencement provision for one of Lord Young’s new clause amendments.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 13th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the House of my relevant interests as a councillor and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

Throughout the debates on the Bill, we have all agreed on the importance of having a plan-led approach to development. Therefore, an effective local authority planning service is key to implementing timely decisions on planning applications. The House of Commons Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Select Committee issued a report on planning reforms earlier this year. The report stated that the National Audit Office found that local authority planning services had been cut by £1.3 billion over a 10-year period to 2020, which equates to a 55% reduction in service spending. That is from the National Audit Office, so we cannot argue with those figures.

A Local Government Association survey in 2022 found that 58% of councils had trouble in recruiting planners—and, in county councils, that rose to 83%. The Royal Town Planning Institute estimates that one in 10 planning officer posts are not currently filled. From my own experience in my council, I know that senior planners are enticed into the private sector, leaving councils less well equipped to deal with complex applications. The enormous stress on planning services has the consequence of putting an additional delay on development, which adds programming problems for housebuilders and developers of commercial units. Amendment 235 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham—who I thank for adding his name to an amendment on issues that we both raised separately in Committee—would insert a new clause to address those practical issues. It would enable a local planning authority to set a level of fee that covers the costs of a planning application.

I appreciate that the Government have agreed to increase planning fees by 35% for major applications and by 25% for all other applications. Of course, that is a step in the right direction. However, nationally set fees fail to take into account regional differences in costs; they also fail to reflect the actual costs of dealing with very complex developments, either very large housing sites or commercial developments.

This national approach to fee setting results in council tax payers subsidising complex planning applications. That cannot be right. The stark fact is that 305 out of 343 local authority planning departments had a deficit totalling £245.4 million in 2020 and 2021. That is a huge sum, where council tax payers are subsidising housebuilding developers, for example, who are well able to meet the costs of a planning application in full.

In addition, of course, there are the Government amendments that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has spoken about this morning, which are a good step forward in conceding the argument made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, about statutory consultees being paid for the work that they do—that is right and proper. But this adds to the bill that local authority planning services have to pay and it adds to the cost. All in all, there will be additional costs for the work being done. I think that the Government have made some concessions to the principle that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has asked about and I support that. I wish that they had gone further, as she argues, but it is one step in the right direction.

I will of course listen carefully to the response from the Minister to Amendment 235, but I feel strongly about this issue. It is not a matter of principle; it is a practical amendment to enable local authority planning services to provide the service that they are required to do and that they want to do, but for which they need the funds to do. If the Minister is unable to concede that principle, I will be minded at the appropriate stage to test the opinion of the House on this matter.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 235, which I proposed in Committee and to which the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has just spoken. Since Committee, the need for it has become more urgent, as reflected in the report of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Select Committee in July, which concluded:

“The Government’s reforms to national planning policy will fail if local authorities lack sufficient resources to implement them. The package of support which the Government has outlined does not go far enough to address the significant resourcing challenges which local authorities currently face”.


I support the amendment for two reasons. First, I do not believe that the Government should be controlling the fees charged by planning departments, as a matter of principle. They do not control other local authority fees—building regulations, parking fees, library charges, school meals, swimming pool charges—so why planning? A national cap does not reflect the different circumstances of local authorities.

The case for relinquishing control is made stronger by the aspirations in the levelling up White Paper, with its commitment to

“usher in a revolution in local democracy”.

The revolution is stopped in its tracks by the notion that local authorities should not be free to recover the costs of their planning departments.

In reply to my amendment in Committee, my noble friend the Minister said that

“having different fees creates inconsistency, more complexity and unfairness for applicants, who could be required to pay different fee levels for the same type of development. Planning fees provide clarity and consistency for local authorities, developers and home owners”.—[Official Report, 24/4/23; col. 1003.]

Let me briefly dissect that. As far as local authorities are concerned, they are the ones who sponsored my original amendment. They have since confirmed their continuing support with this statement:

“We support this amendment. Planning fees do not cover the true cost of processing planning applications. In 2020/21, 305 out of 343 local authority planning departments operated in a deficit, which totalled £245.4 million”.


As far as developers are concerned, they already have to cope with myriad different local plans and can well manage different fees. What the developers want are well-resourced planning departments that can effectively process their applications quickly. One of the reasons for the disappointing housebuilding performance is planning delays. The amendment addresses that. As for home owners, I do not think that they know that planning fees are set centrally and they are used to local authorities having different charges for libraries, parking, allotments and the rest. I do not think that they would mind if fees were set locally, as long as they got a good service.

Secondly, I do not think it right that council tax payers should have to subsidise the planning system—the hidden subsidy referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. There are more important calls on those resources, underlined by the financial problems facing Birmingham City Council. The Minister told us that the Government were consulting on increasing the fees, but in the words of the Local Government Association:

“We welcome the Government’s commitment to increase planning application fees. However, our modelling has shown that even if all application fees were uplifted by 35 per cent, the overall national shortfall for 2020/21 would have remained above £80 million”.


In his opening speech, my noble friend referred on several occasions to full-cost recovery for provision of services. That is exactly what this amendment does.

I conclude by quoting the Times, which recently, on 7 July, summed up the position:

“Britain’s planning system is grinding to a halt, with four out of five big applications now being delayed by up to two years.


Official figures show that more than half a million new developments have been delayed during the past five years as threadbare planning departments struggle to cope with even routine cases.


Industry experts said the delays were exacerbating the housing crisis, with developments now taking up to three years to get started. Councils are supposed to give developers a decision on big projects within 13 weeks, but the latest official data shows that only 19% of applications were processed in this time over the past year, down from 57% 10 years ago … Developers say that performance is damaging efforts to tackle the housing crisis and other government priorities such as installing wind and solar farms. They warn that unless the government insists on proper funding for planning departments, the housing crisis will worsen as councils will always choose refuse collections over planning when allocating scarce resources.”


The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has made a powerful case and I hope that the Government will reflect in their reply on the further measures that are now needed.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, before I talk about the amendments, I take this opportunity, on Back British Farming Day, to pay tribute to and celebrate our wonderful farmers across the country—a big thank you to them.

I draw noble Lords’ attention to my interests in the register: I am now vice-president of the LGA, vice-president of the District Councils’ Network and a serving councillor in both Stevenage and Hertfordshire.

As the Minister mentioned, the government amendments in this group are technical and consequential and I do not intend to comment on them other than to link some of his comments to the other amendments.

My noble friend Lady Young’s Amendment 227A is a sensible proposal that those organisations charged with providing supporting advice to planning applications should be able to recover fees for that advice directly from applicants. For too long, the weight of providing specialist advice has fallen on the public purse or on the budgets of hard-pressed third sector organisations, as my noble friend outlined so clearly. Anyone looking at this from the outside would consider that to be unreasonable. I hope that the Government will consider my noble friend’s amendment and take it seriously. Indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said that there should be full cost recovery for NSIPs. We need to think about that amendment and the one that I will talk about in a moment and how we create a level playing field in this respect.

Amendment 235 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Young, seems to me the no-brainer of the Bill. For many years, the LGA has been campaigning for local authorities to be able to charge full cost recovery in relation to the actual cost of processing applications. A government report proposed this in 2010, following a consultation by Arup that demonstrated the extent to which councils are undercharging for planning under the current fixed-fee system. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, quoted the figure, which was from 2021; I expect that it is a lot more now and probably way over £250 million a year.

Of all the problems in the planning system, this seems the simplest to resolve. Over time, it would enable authorities to recruit the number of planners that they need and it would shift the cost burden of planning from the local taxpayer to the developer, who, after all, will receive the benefit of the application. I can only quote from my experience of a major town centre regeneration scheme. There were two years of planning discussions on the scheme and then literally a vanload of papers for the application when it came in, and we have just three planners in my local authority. That shows the kind of pressure on the system. Local authority budgets are more hard-pressed than they ever were, so it is hard to imagine why the Government would not accept that full cost recovery should be a basic principle of planning and that it is up to local authorities to charge their own costs.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 3rd May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, forgive me: I do not have an amendment in this group and I do not want to delay the point when we arrive at my further amendments, but I want to say something about green-belt policy. I am glad to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, because I come from outside Cambridge and she lived in Cambridge, at one time, and now lives now in Oxford, if I am correct. Looking at the green belt by reference to Oxford and Cambridge is an interesting way to approach these things, and I want to do it by reference to the Cambridge green belt in particular.

After the noble Baroness left Cambridge, we lived with precisely the consequences that she described. For 25 years, until about 2000-01, all the development that was required for Cambridge was happening in villages outside Cambridge and generally beyond the green belt. There are many people who will say that it is all very well to talk about reviewing the green belt, looking at green-belt land and whether it should be in or out the green belt, but they are not politicians and they do not have to live with the consequences of reviewing the green belt. Well, I was a politician when we agreed to review the green belt in the run-up to the strategic plan review in 2006, if I remember correctly. Not only did we review the green belt and sustain that through an examination in public, but we successfully reshaped the green belt around Cambridge such that, in the years since, a much larger proportion of the development that is required for Cambridge has happened in the green belt. Some of it has actually delivered access to the countryside that was never available before.

That firmly focused our minds on the purposes of the green belt. For example, we retained green corridors running into Cambridge. Those familiar with Cambridge will realise that, if they come into the centre through Trumpington, they will continue to see countryside reaching right to the centre of Cambridge itself. That was not lost. However, the review acknowledged the requirement for the release of land not primarily for residential purposes but for the purpose of building the Cambridge Biomedical Campus. If we had not reviewed the green belt, the biomedical campus south of Cambridge, around Addenbrooke’s Hospital and what is now Royal Papworth Hospital, and their related research institutes, would not have been able to be built. That would have been an immense loss to the UK economy and life sciences sector.

The point I am making is that understanding when to retain the boundaries of the green belt, when to review them and under what circumstances that review should conclude that the boundaries should be changed is a vital part of planning policy. We should not leave it out. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, and other noble Lords remember from other debates that I am firmly of the opinion that this legislation should be used to give a stronger statutory basis to the environmental purposes of planning, including—one of my earlier amendments did this—in respect to nature recovery and biodiversity gain.

However, I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, that I think it is inappropriate to extend green-belt purposes to the features that she has in Amendment 295, because that would create a different statutory basis for planning policy on green-belt land, as opposed to greenfield or any other available land for development. It would entrench the idea that there is something different about green-belt land from other land.

Of course it is permanent, but I remember back in the early 2000s when I asked what permanent meant in relation to the green belt. The answer, I was told, was 25 years. If it is permanent now, we are talking about land that should stay in the green belt until 2050, more or less. That is when we are supposed to achieve net zero—in fact, before then, as our Green colleagues regularly tell us and would tell us now if they were with us. We have to think about the consequences we expect for our land use strategies if we are to achieve net zero between now and 2050.

For example, I have mentioned Cambridge City Council’s environmental assessment before it commenced the review of its local plan. It showed that it requires a significant increase in the density of development in urban areas and development to be focused on public transport corridors. Let us look at where the public transport corridors are, for example around London. I come from Essex: if you go out into the countryside on the Central line, you go through the green belt, but you do so on a public transport corridor on which there is effectively no development. We have to look very carefully and ask whether that is sustainable. The principle of sustainable development is at the heart of planning, and the boundaries of the green belt should be subject to the principle of sustainable development and assessed against the purposes set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.

As I mention the NPPF for the 98th time in these debates, it would be jolly helpful for the Government to tell us what precisely they plan to say in the NPPF and in the national development management policies in future. I come back to chapter 13 of the draft NPPF, which has two parts to it: one is effectively about setting policy for the green belt, which is about setting its boundaries, and the second is about the policies that should apply to the determination of an application for development within the green belt. The latter should be a national development management policy and the former should not: it should continue to be part of what is effectively the overall guidance from the Secretary of State for plan making. My noble friend sent me a letter following a previous debate but did not clarify precisely that division. I think we need to know, as a very clear example of what is or is not an NDMP. It is an important basis for our future debates on Report.

I am sorry that Ministers thought it appropriate to propose a change to the NPPF to include the sentence:

“Green Belt boundaries are not required to be reviewed and altered if this would be the only means of meeting the objectively assessed need for housing over the plan period”.


I do not know why they have inserted it and I do not see the benefit of it. In those local authorities that consist very largely of green belt—and there are some—it will effectively remove from them the obligation to play their part at all in the provision of housing to meet assessed need. I suspect that the same will be true of the requirements for employment and commercial-related development. As I see it, this has no place. Sustainable development should be the principle, and this sentence effectively absolves those local planning authorities of the responsibility to pursue sustainable development in their areas. I hope that, even at this stage, when they look at the responses to the NPPF consultation, Ministers will recognise that this is inappropriate language to use in relation to green-belt boundary setting.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, this short debate has revealed that tension at the heart of planning policy and, indeed, political debate: what is the relative priority for environmental imperatives on the one hand and for housing on the other? What the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, described as covering land with concrete is, for some people, providing families with decent homes. That is the balance we have to make.

The noble Baroness, Lady Young, opened this debate by asking what the green belt is for. Her amendment outlines nine criteria and purposes for the green belt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, came up with some more criteria. I turn that question the other way around: if a piece of land meets none of the nine criteria in the amendment or those mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, but happens to be designated as green belt, should it remain designated? I am all in favour of expanding the green belt if it meets these criteria and others, but there are bits of the green belt that fulfil none of them.

My noble friend Lord Lansley referred to the document put out on 22 December on reforms to national planning policy. One of the questions was:

“Do you agree that national policy should make clear that Green Belt does not need to be reviewed or altered when making plans?”.


The answer is that I do not agree. As my noble friend said, that gives a let-out, but it also prevents the optimum use of land that is needed for housing.

I hope that, if we do come up with positive policies and descriptions of the objectives to be fulfilled by the green belt, we will look very critically at bits of the green belt that do not meet those criteria. There have been award-winning housing schemes built on what were green belts. We may need more of them if we are to hit our target of 300,000 homes a year. Along with my noble friend Lord Lansley, I think that there are other considerations to take into account when striking the appropriate balance between the environment on one hand and the need for decent homes on the other.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this important debate. At least, I think I thank them all. There are one or two I probably do not agree with. The noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Young of Cookham, amply showed how the polarisation argument about green belt is quite corrosive. It cannot be either/or; it has to be both. We have very little land in this country and we are asking more and more of it, so we have to find ways to meet all the needs for land effectively. That is the subject of another amendment that I have tabled to the Bill. In particular, I hope I misunderstood the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, who seemed to imply that if green belt did not meet the broader criteria, other than just urban sprawl reduction, that was a good reason for building on it. In my view, we should be asking: how do we get this land, which is primarily for the purpose of restraining urban sprawl, also to do other things while it is at it?

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

I hope I did not give that impression. I made it clear that as long as land met one of the nine objectives, of which protecting against urban sprawl is only one, in my view it should be green belt. My point was that if it met none of them, what was it doing being classified as green belt?

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that clarification. I hope that there are not huge numbers of pieces of green belt that do not meet at least the urban sprawl criterion. I very much look forward to the work that the noble Lord, Earl Howe, outlined. We do go back a long way. On one notable occasion, on the eve of the 1997 election, he saved my bacon comprehensively and I shall say no more about that right now. He knows what I am talking about.

I disagree with him that we should not see the required provisions in statute rather than just in planning guidance, but I hope that the NPPF consultation inclines in the direction of boundary review, just not only for the purpose of meeting housing targets. The boundary review should be an exception rather than an opportunity.

I very much appreciate that Defra and DLUHC are working together on how we link green belt provision with access, biodiversity and woodland creation. It is a pity that we cannot get further information about that now and I hope we might see more before Report. I commend the two departments for working these issues out together because there has been inadequate linkage between them on some of these issues in the past. I suppose that what I am taking from the Minister is that there is some hope for jam tomorrow. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 20th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to start this day in Committee by moving Amendment 240. I shall also speak to the other amendments in this grouping.

I am very grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who apologises for not being here today. This amendment has the support of the Bicycle Association, Bikeability Trust, British Cycling, Cycling UK, Living Streets, Ramblers and Sustrans. I think you can say that that support basically includes the Better Planning Coalition. Its purpose is to ensure that the various walking and cycling network plans and rights of way drawn up by county councils or combined authorities are incorporated into local planning authorities’ development plans and are reflected in their planning decisions. This would help to safeguard land for new walking and cycling routes or rights of way, including disused railway lines, improve existing routes, and ensure that developments connected with existing or new walking, wheeling or cycling networks with secure development contributions are introduced. This came to a head within the last six months, when National Highways was caught filling in disused railway bridges with concrete to prevent them from being used in the future as footpaths or cycleways, for example. I am grateful that there has been a pause put on that. I hope that it stays a pause, because it was a very stupid decision with no benefit whatever.

This amendment addresses the problems of local planning authorities that sometimes, wittingly or unwittingly, frustrate a higher tier authority’s aspirations for walking, cycling and rights of way by not recording these network aspirations in their development plans. That means that they are not safeguarding the land for these networks or to connect new developments with existing networks for secure developer contributions to implement or upgrade specific routes. There is much discussion going on about all these issues, but it is very important that this covers what is happening now and what might happen in future. The biggest problem is when we have two-tier authorities—county councils or combined authorities, and district councils. In one case, one part of a unitary authority commissioned Sustrans to assesses the feasibility of reopening a disused railway line as a walking and cycling route, while another part of the same authority gave permission for a housing development which blocked the route. There is no point in doing this; it wastes a lot of time and seriously affects the people who want to develop cycling or walking routes.

Local transport authorities have a duty to prepare a statutory local transport plan. They are also responsible for drawing up one or more non-statutory local cycling and walking infrastructure plans. That is all a bit of a mouthful, but really important. Usually it is the same body, but for each one it is required to draw up a statutory rights-of-way improvement plan for its area. We probably all have examples in our own areas of rights of way not being taken very seriously—and we will talk about that later—but all these things need co-ordination.

The Government have argued that our concerns about this lack of co-ordination would best be addressed through the NPPFs, rather than through legislation. My worry is that the current NPPFs, which are still in proposed revisions, mention these local cycling, walking and infrastructure plans only in passing, leaving out the right-of-way plans altogether. This results in developments being granted permission without taking into account the need for walking and cycling or improving these links. I call it active travel—it is a bit shorter. I am sure that the Minister will take this amendment seriously, and I hope that she gives me a nice positive response to it and says that perhaps we can have further discussions and see what happens.

My Amendment 470, on electric vehicle charging, is quite a short amendment. It requires a change to the Electricity Act, for the Government to facilitate or accelerate the rollout of electric vehicle charging points for domestic and commercial customers. We have discussed this in your Lordship’s House quite a few times. A few statistics really worry me, frankly. First, the Government have a target of 300,000 public charging points by 2030, and there is a long way to go before we get there. Interestingly, a Written Answer from the Minister on 29 March to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Warwick, stated that the number of installations were 8,600 public charging, 71,000 electric vehicle home charge schemes, and very few electric charge point sockets and grants, while workplace had 15,000.

Another telling Written Answer, to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, on 21 March, stated that

“the majority (around 75%) of electric car charging happens at home, as it is often cheaper and more convenient for drivers.”

I am sure that the Minister is right, but the problem is: how many people have home charging? I expect many noble Lords here have home charging, if they want it, but there are an awful lot of people in this country who park on the road and, if they want to charge their cars, they will have to get it off a lamppost.

Another Written Answer from the Minister said that there was no national data on how many lamppost chargers were available. If we do not know how many are available, we do not know who wants them, and we do not know where the public ones are, where do you charge your heavy goods vehicle or coach? Who will fund them? Most important of all, what about the regulation of chargers? There is a lot for the Government to do to meet their target of 300,000 charging points by 2030.

Finally, I support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, on the same subject. I am sure that she will tell us a great deal more of it. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, in this debate on transport, it is a pleasure to follow in the slipstream of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and add some footnotes to his speech on Amendment 240.

Before I turn to the amendment, I will say a word about the target of 300,000 EV chargers. Some chargers are fast chargers and some are slow chargers. At some point, we need to define more accurately the division of those 300,000. If they are all slow chargers, that will not do the trick. If they are fast chargers, we may not need quite so many. So a bit of granularity on that target at some point would be welcome.

Researching for this debate, I came across a government document stating that

“continuing growth in road transport and consequential environmental impacts present a major challenge to the objective of sustainable development. Traffic growth on the scale projected could threaten our ability to meet objectives for greenhouse gas emissions … and for the protection of landscapes and habitats”.

I should have recognised it instantly, as it was in a document that I published nearly 30 years ago when I was Planning Minister. It was PPG13, which offered advice to local authorities on integrating land-use planning and transport. Its object was to reduce reliance on the car by promoting alternative means of travel and improving the quality of life.

I note in passing that I referred to the then Government’s policy of increasing the real level of fuel duty by an average of at least 5% a year—a policy now very much in the rear-view mirror—and also my commitment to introducing electronic tolling on motorways. Back in 1993, I was clearly a little bit ahead of the game.

Amendment 240 could almost have been lifted from PPG13. It promoted development within urban areas at locations highly accessible by means other than the car, and it supported policies to improve choice for people to walk, cycle or catch public transport, rather than drive between homes and facilities that they need to visit regularly.

I also came across an article in the Independent from 10 July 1995, when I became Transport Secretary and continued my campaign. In an open letter to me, Christian Wolmar wrote:

“When your appointment as Transport Secretary was announced, the whoops of joy from cycling campaigners could be heard across the nation. The notion of having a Transport Secretary who is not only an active member of Friends of the Earth but also an active cyclist and tandem rider was beyond their wildest dreams”.


So, the Minister will not be surprised that, as middle age taps me on the shoulder, my commitment to environmental means of transport is undimmed.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, set out the case for the amendment, which I believe is even stronger than it was in the 1990s. I will not repeat it. I understand from the Government’s response to a similar amendment in another place that, instead of an amendment to primary legislation, the objectives to the amendment should be incorporated in a revised NPPF, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has just said. My response is that I tried that and it did not work. We need to be more assertive.

Paragraph 1.10 of PPG13 said:

“If land-use policies permit continued dispersal of development and a high reliance on the car, other policies to reduce the environmental impact of transport may be less effective or come at a higher cost”.


That is exactly what has been happening, as the Government’s own publication, Gear Change: A Bold Vision for Cycling and Walking, published in 2020, recognised. Despite the exhortation in that PPG and, I suspect, many other PPGs since, we have not seen the transformation in planning for transport that is required. We continue to build housing with little or no public transport provision, or where it is impractical to get to school, the shops or work without jumping into a car. We must up our game and cease relying on guidance.

The amendment also addresses the problem touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that has arisen in two-tier authorities, where, typically, the county council is the transport authority but the district council is the planning authority: if you do not have the commitment to walking or cycling networks recorded in the district plan, this can then frustrate the county’s ambition to promote cycling and walking networks—clearly an undesirable outcome.

The challenge to my noble friend, who I am delighted to see is replying to this debate, is to convince me that we should continue to rely on guidance, as I suspect my officials advised me to do in 1993, despite the evidence that it has not brought about the transformation that I aspire to. I wish her every success.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I am pleased to speak to a number of amendments in this group, to which my name is attached. This is, of course, a group of transport-related amendments. Like the noble Lord, Lord Young, I am very pleased to see that we have the Transport Minister here to respond in detail to us, because all the warm words on levelling up are meaningless without decisive action to improve transport infrastructure and services. Poor transport facilities almost exactly mirror the overall picture of the social divide in our country: poorer areas have poor public transport and poor transport infrastructure generally.

There is a reason why London and the south-east are the richest parts of the UK: they have the transport links to service the areas well, and one reinforces the other. I say that while recognising of course at the same time that there is poverty and disadvantage amongst the most privileged.

I start with Amendment 240, to which I have added my name. The noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Young, have spoken in some detail, and with greater information than is necessary for me to repeat here today. But I want to endorse the fact that this has to be about broadening access to the activities of cycling and walking and safeguarding our rights of way: for many decades, we have been accustomed to the gradual erosion of the practicality of safe walking and cycling, and the erosion of our rights of way on footpaths. The car has been king for a very long time. If we are going to truly improve the quality of our lives and the lives of the generations to come, we need a much broader and more informed approach. In my own local area, I notice the cycleways that disappear into nothing at key junctions and so on. It is a skilled business to provide really good cycling and walking facilities.

Turning to Amendment 468, the intention here is to prioritise the requirements for disability access at rail stations. Progress on this has been painfully slow—way too slow. I use this opportunity to praise the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and my noble friend Lady Brinton, who raise these issues time and again in the media and in this House. We live in an ageing society, and we should be much more encouraging to those people who are less mobile but who want to travel by rail or bus. So this amendment goes way beyond the simple issues of wheelchair access, access for those with sight impairment and so on. It is about access for people who are less agile.

However, treatment is far from being on an equal basis for those people in wheelchairs. As a regular rail traveller myself, I watch this week after week. Despite huge efforts by the staff, there is still so much further to go. We have to ensure that people do not have to book way ahead in order to be able to make a simple journey.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak particularly to my Amendment 438, but I will preface my remarks by saying how much I have appreciated this debate and the contributions from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds. We have explored this issue in a comprehensive and useful way, and I greatly appreciate that.

I draw noble Lords’ attention to the Affordable Housing Commission report, which came out in the middle of Covid and was therefore buried and forgotten by everybody. The AHC report, which noble Lords can find via Google or their favourite search engine, was a pretty big effort, thankfully funded fully by the Nationwide Foundation—the Nationwide Building Society’s foundation—with a secretariat from the Smith Institute; I had the honour of chairing this. The report is a pretty meaty document and worth those who are interested in this subject following through, but that was a great debate on those amendments, and I support the essence of all of them.

My amendment 438, to which the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has kindly added his name, seeks to remove from the statute book an obnoxious, offensive legislative measure which has hung over local authorities since the passing of the Housing and Planning Act 2016. I reiterate my declaration of interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Back in 2016, I was the LGA president and along with allies from all parts of the House, including the noble Lord, Lord Porter, with his local government expertise, and the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, we fought—unsuccessfully—to remove these awful sections from the 2016 Act.

What does this part of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 say, and why is it so troublesome? The key section imposes obligations on local authorities to sell their most valuable council housing when tenants move out, rather than reletting the property. It does so by requiring local authorities to pay a levy to the Secretary of State equivalent to the market value of the best council housing when it becomes vacant, multiplied by the estimated number of vacancies for the next year. To raise the money to pay this levy, local authorities would obviously have no option but to sell their most valuable homes. Most of the proceeds from these compulsory sales go straight to the Secretary of State, who, in a convoluted twist, would use the money to compensate housing associations for selling properties at large discounts to their tenants under an extension of the right to buy.

The effect of this extraordinary measure, had it ever been implemented, would have been highly damaging both for local authorities trying to meet the acute need for social housing in their areas and for the families desperately waiting for a home. Council housing would be further stigmatised and labelled as only for those with no hope of anything better, and with fewer re-lets, pressure on the remaining council stock would be even more intense than it already is.

Buyers of the housing which councils would be forced to sell would very often be private landlords who would let to similar occupiers but would charge market rents, thereby imposing twice the burden on the Exchequer for tenants in receipt of benefits. I was glad to catch up with the latest statistic from the noble Lord, Lord Stunell: that 50% of properties sold under the right to buy have been moved into the hands of private landlords and, obviously, let at rents that are twice as much, if not more.

To add insult to injury, the 2016 Act also empowered the Secretary of State to top up this raid on council resources by requiring local authorities to raise the rents to market levels for any tenant foolish enough to increase their income above a fixed level. The extra rent would not go towards management and maintenance of council housing but instead would be remitted to the Secretary of State as a windfall for the Government.

I moved an amendment opposing the measure and it was carried by a huge majority in this House. I even featured on the BBC documentary on the work of the House of Lords. Although it remains in law, it is another ingredient in the 2016 Act that thankfully has not seen the light of day.

Returning to the compulsory sales of higher-value council housing, as is addressed by the amendment, we can now see what a disaster this would have been—but the offending measure remains on the statute book. In reality, this sword of Damocles hanging over councils is no longer a major threat since Government Ministers have made it clear that they have no intention of using these draconian asset-stripping powers. Indeed, I am confident that Ministers understand the imperative for more, not less, social housing provision.

It was, no doubt, the work of an enthusiastic but naive special adviser coming up with a cunning wheeze to extract the cost from local authorities of securing new right-to-buy sales by housing associations. Today there would be little appetite for such shenanigans which would reduce the stock of available social housing, following the right to buy’s removal of 2.8 million council homes and the subsequent higher costs of using the private rented sector instead. Indeed, the right to buy has now been abolished in Scotland, and Wales is following suit.

Councils have welcomed the Government’s recent move enabling them to retain 100% of right-to-buy receipts for 2022-23 and 2023-24. With long waiting lists for social housing and the private sector becoming more and more unfeasible for many households, that announcement should support councils trying to replace the homes sold through right to buy. It would be helpful if the Government completed this change and made it permanent rather than just for two years. On this theme, I hope that the Government will finally agree to councils having the ability to set right-to-buy discounts locally as part of the Bill’s emphasis on devolution.

The time has surely come to be rid of this 2016 misguided measure to strip local authorities of their best housing assets. The LGA and others have been waiting for a legislative opportunity for the Government to enact their clear intention to have nothing to do with this defunct legislative device. The Bill provides that opportunity, and I think everyone in local government and in the world of social housing will breathe a sigh of relief to see this expunged from the statute book. I commend this amendment.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to intervene briefly to put this debate in an important context. Before I do so, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Best, on eventually achieving the victory which he sought when the 2016 Act was going through; it was not the best piece of legislation on housing that Parliament has seen. I agree with what the right reverend Prelate said—that we should unfreeze the local housing allowance or, if we cannot, increase the discretionary housing grant, to enable those who find that they cannot meet the rent to have more support.

I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, that “affordable” is a misnomer, but there is a fundamental choice that we have to make, which is: the higher the rents, the more social houses you can build; and the lower the rents, the fewer social houses you can build. That is simply because of the way that social landlords are funded. A Government decide to have a capital fund available for new builds. A Government of a different persuasion may have a higher figure than the current one but, whatever that figure, the number of houses that can be built is dependent on the rent levels which the social landlords can charge.

A Housing Minister has a choice: you can have lower rents, social rents or genuinely affordable rents, but you will get less output. When I had responsibility and was faced with this spectrum, I went for slightly more output but slightly higher rents, to meet the demand for new houses and to build more houses that would last 60 years. I recognise that others may choose to go the other way on the spectrum, but you cannot get away from the fact that this is the choice. If you want to have affordable rents reduced to social rents, the consequence is that you will have fewer houses. I make this intervention at the end of this debate just to put it in a slightly broader context.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I have two amendments in my name that I wish to speak to briefly. However, prior to that, I say that my noble friend Lord Stunell made an important point about how all the amendments here are trying to resolve the issue of what is affordable. So-called affordable homes are those built by the commercial sector as part of a development—a planning obligation—yet the challenge for us all is to provide homes at a social rent, which is roughly estimated as 50% of the market rent.

It is a tragedy for this country that successive Governments seem to have abandoned provision of homes for social rent in any large numbers. Local authorities have been severely constrained in building their own social housing, and the provision of homes for social rent has largely been left to housing associations. We then come to the conundrum which the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, just rightly pointed to—that the capital that housing associations receive from government depends on their flow of rental income. Therefore, do you have more or less? Either way, everybody agrees that there are insufficient homes for social rent.

About 30 years ago, my authority had 42,000 council houses at social rent—it now has 21,000. That is the scale of what has happened. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Stunell is absolutely right that about half of them are now back in the market as private rented properties at a higher rent for folk but without any of the support packages provided for homes for social housing rent within either a local authority or a housing association. That is a huge challenge that this country needs to tackle. One of the key factors in levelling up is a decent home—it is in the levelling-up missions. Millions of people in our country do not live in an adequate, safe home appropriate for their family, and we need to address that scandal.

On affordability, my noble friend Lord Stunell expertly laid out the issues, and I do not wish to say anything, except that obviously I totally support him. I wish to raise one issue about affordability that is a bit of a side issue. It seems that any property built as part of a commercial development which is deemed affordable should be affordable in perpetuity. My own council adopted that policy—I have to say as a result of pressure from my own party there—so that, when the house is bought, the 80% factor remains. The least the Government could do is to include that as part of a definition of affordability.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

248: Clause 99, page 108, line 34, at end insert—
“(3) If there is conflict between street voting on development and the development plan, a determination must be made in favour of the development plan.”Member’s explanatory statement
The outcome of a street vote may conflict with the development plan. The amendment provides guidance on how to resolve this conflict.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, we come now to the clause in the Bill dealing with street votes, which has generated a substantial number of amendments, of which mine is the lead amendment. It seeks to ensure that a street vote cannot conflict with a local plan. This clause was not in the Bill when it was introduced in another place: it was introduced on the second day of Report. The Government have said that Clause 99

“is intended to encourage residents to consider the potential for additional development on their streets, and support a gentle increase in densities, in particular, in areas where additional new homes are needed”.

I expect the Minister will describe the provisions of the clause in more detail, so I will not spell them out.

We have heard the expression “gentle densification” several times from the Secretary of State; it is something he clearly approves of. I will need some clarification before I lend it my approval, for this reason. Michael Gove was in another place, as I was, when the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, then John Prescott, the Secretary of State, came up with a similar policy of promoting suburban development and the development of back gardens. Those with long memories will remember that all hell broke loose. On 7 March 2007, the Daily Mail thundered:

“Thirty thousand gardens every year ‘torn up’ due to Prescott's policies”.


My party was whipped to vote on a Friday for a Private Member’s Bill to block the policy. Greg Clark, the then shadow Minister, wanted gardens to be reclassified as greenfield sites, and he took up the cause because local authorities were powerless to stop gardens being built on. When my party won the 2010 general election, Greg Clark, then the Minister, ordered changes to planning rules that meant gardens will no longer be seen as brownfield land, ripe for development. Crucially, it meant that stronger powers were available to local authorities to block “gentle densification”.

I just mention that to put this proposal in a broad historic and political perspective and to suggest some caution before we endorse it. Normally, and indeed given the controversial background to this proposal, innovation such as this, in the planning world, would be preceded if not by a Green Paper then at least by some form of consultation to gauge its practicality and effectiveness. This would involve the LGA, the Royal Town Planning Institute and, of course, the public. Nothing of the sort ever took place. This policy emerged from a think tank and was fast-tracked into primary legislation, overtaking on the way some well thought-out and badly needed policies on housing reform, in sharp contrast to the normal process of policy formation. I believe that the Government are adopting a high-risk strategy and, rather than going straight into primary legislation, they should test the proposal in the usual way and then consider how best to proceed. There is nothing particularly urgent about this, and we need to get it right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

I am so sorry I omitted to reply to the noble Baroness; I will write to her. It is a question I ask officials myself. It is an issue which will be decided in the consultation because, as she rightly said, there will be instances where a street, as such, does not exist. For example, you might have a small community of houses where the owners or residents may wish to apply under this procedure. In short, this is an issue to be determined under the consultation.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the hour is late, and we are less than half way through the targeted groups for the day, so I will be as brief as I can in winding up this fairly lengthy debate. I note that all those who spoke to their amendments had at some point held elective office, either as councillors or in other place—and, in some cases, both. That may explain the lukewarm—I think that is the best adjective I can use—reception for this proposal. The conclusion I draw from this is that the role of a think tank is to think and to come up with radical policies; the role of government is not to fast-track those into primary legislation but to subject them to critical scrutiny and consultation, and then progress to the next stage. The more I listened to the debate, and the more I heard my noble friend the Minister use the word “consultation”, the more I have come to the conclusion that, while I said in my opening speech that this was a policy in the process of gestation, it is in fact the size of a pinhead, as far as I can see, when it comes to movement towards delivery.

I will now pick up some of the points raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, struck a note of caution about the policy and agreed with me that it was okay to have street votes as a process of feeding into the formulation of a district plan, but she wanted more clarity and asked for assurances about conservation areas for which an assurance was not given. She asked relevant questions about the role of tenants, voting thresholds and declaration of interests. As I understand it, a short-term tenant will have a vote, but the owner, who is not in the property at the moment, will not. There are a lot of issues behind entitlement to vote, which I will come to a moment.

I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, was a Minister in the DCLG in 2010, when the Prescott policy of not-so-gentle densification was overturned—his head is stationary, so I do not know whether he was or not; now it has moved vertically, indicating that he was indeed in the department then. He made the point—I will come to it in a moment—about the priority of the neighbourhood plan. One of the worrying things that my noble friend the Minister said in his reply was that, where a neighbourhood has gone through the whole process of consultation, and has developed and had approved a neighbourhood plan, and then within that neighbourhood a street comes up with a proposal which is in conflict with it, the street vote has priority because my noble friend was unable to accept the amendment.

The same applies to my amendment. When one has gone through the whole process of formulating a district plan, residents throughout the district feel confident in the outcome. They then find that it can be overturned by a street vote. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, again highlighted the potential for neighbourhood conflict, which is one of the things that really worries me about this. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister, whose patience and tolerance have been extended to the extreme over the past hour and a half. I note that he did not reply to the points that I made about the DPRR report, which made some scathing criticisms and suggested that whole sections of this Bill should be removed. Nor did he indicate when the Government might reply to that report.

My noble friend said that the street vote could go ahead with the support of residents, but we do not know what is meant by “support” or “residents”. As I read it, there will have to be an assessor; it will have to go through a process. My understanding is that an inspector—probably from the Planning Inspectorate—would be appointed to assess it. We did not get an answer to the question of who pays for the PINS inspector who is going to assess the proposal. The ratepayers will have a vote, but it is not quite clear who will exercise that vote on behalf of the business. If there is one very small business and one huge business, do they both have one vote? Who exercises it?

The conclusion that I draw from this is that the best thing for the Government to do is to drop this clause. Frankly, the Bill is far too long; this is not urgent; there is no great demand for it. That was quite clear from what my noble friend said whenever he was asked a question: “This is subject to consultation”. We should have had the consultation before we had the legislation. Although I will withdraw my amendment, I suspect that if I did not, I would win the vote quite comfortably on the basis of the exchanges that we have had so far. In the meantime, however, I thank all noble Lords, and particularly my noble friend. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 248 withdrawn.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich]

I shall speak very briefly in support of the group of amendments, on none of which would I dare wish to claim to be an agnostic. I particularly support Amendment 207 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Best, to which my colleague the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford has added her name. The amendment addresses the important role of local authorities to consider older groups’ housing needs when developing local plans. Together with Amendment 221 from the noble Lord, Lord Best, these changes to the Bill would deliver a more effective response to the shortfall in appropriate housing for older people at all levels of government.

The Mayhew review for future-proofing retirement needs recommended

“closer working between planning and social care departments to ensure the need for retirement housing with access to care is factored into local authority plans”.

This amendment would be a step towards making that kind of joined-up thinking and development a reality.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I was going to make the shortest speech in this debate, but the right reverend Prelate has set such a high bar that I do not think that I can clear it.

I have added my name to Amendment 207 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and Amendments 215 and 218 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley. The reason why I can be brief is not because the amendments are not important—I think that Amendments 215 and 218 are the most important amendments to the whole Bill—but because we touched on both subjects in earlier debates, in what the noble Lord, Lord Best, referred to as a dress rehearsal. In those earlier debates, I set out as best I could the cases for doing more for older people and building more homes.

In the debate on my Amendment 221 on older people, I was very critical of the delay from the Government in setting up the taskforce for older people, which was actually trailed two years ago, but nothing happened until last month. A week after I raised this with the noble Lord, Lord Best, a chairman was appointed, and I hope that there will be a similar positive response to all the other speeches that I am going to make on the Bill.

In a nutshell, the problem that the noble Lord, Lord Best, outlined is quite simple. The pace of demographic change in this country and the growth of more smaller older households has resulted in a huge imbalance in the housing stock that we have, which has been built up over many decades. To get a better balance, which is the thrust of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Best, we need to do more than we have done so far—and we have heard a wide variety of suggestions. He suggested that a percentage of new homes should be focused on the needs of older people, or specific sites should be earmarked for older people, or there should be a separate use class for specialist housing for older people. My noble friend Lord Jackson suggested a stamp duty exemption; others have suggested an infrastructure levy exemption for older people’s housing. Without repeating the speech that I made last time, I hope that the Government will accept that we need to do a bit more than we are doing at the moment if we are to get a better balance between the needs of the population and the housing stock that we have. We need to promote mobility so people can move into the new homes built for older people.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Lords Chamber

The planning clauses of the Bill as currently written will override the stated intention of the Government, which is towards devolution. Centralising planning and preventing it taking account of the voices of local people and their democratically elected representatives, let alone giving ultimate power to the Secretary of State to determine planning policy with no parliamentary scrutiny, is taking it in entirely the wrong direction, back to the dark ages rather than forward to the kind of democracy where people can participate and engage in decision-making, where they feel they have had a say in place-making for the area in which they live and work, and develop the kind of trust in institutions entrusted with planning that will enable wider confidence in the system to level up and regenerate every part of the UK. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 184A and 187A in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Lansley, which ensure that planning decisions are taken in line with an up-to-date plan. An up-to-date plan is defined as one that is less than five years old. I am a strong believer in a plan-led system. With apologies for referring again to my chequered career in government, the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, which I took through the other place, introduced for the first time the primacy of the local plan. Up until then, it had equal weight with other material considerations. That position was confirmed in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

However, you cannot have a plan-led system unless you have a plan. Only 39% of local planning authorities have an up-to-date local plan. The number of plans adopted in 2021 and 2022 are 16 and 13 respectively, which are the lowest annual numbers since the inception of the NPPF back in 2012. The average between 2014 and 2021 was 35. More worryingly, since Christmas last year, 47 local plans have been delayed following the publication of the consultation document over Christmas, as local authorities hope to reduce their housing numbers. This is something I will develop when we get to the group beginning Amendment 207.

There is much in the Bill that I welcome. There are measures to streamline and simplify the plan-making process. I welcome the introduction of commencement orders, the uplift in planning fees and the simplification of the procedure for CPOs. But we need to do more to incentivise local planning authorities to produce up-to-date plans, as well as considering more effective sanctions for those that do not.

These two amendments, in effect, put into law the current guidance from the NPPF, which the Government are not proposing to change. Paragraph 15 of the 2021 NPPF says:

“The planning system should be genuinely plan-led. Succinct and up-to-date plans should provide a positive vision for the future of each area”.


The PPG chapter on plan-making says

“local planning authorities must review local plans … at least once every 5 years from their adoption date”.

That is exactly what Amendment 184A does, so I look forward to my noble friend saying that it has found favour with the Government.

On this subject, I ask the Government whether they have a target for a date by when 100% of England will be covered by local plans. The real problem at the moment is the uncertainty of the planning system. It is a real issue for local planning authorities, developers and local communities. Having up-to-date plans in place provides the certainty that everyone requires if the planning system is to be transparent, if it is to minimise risk and if local communities are to know what the future holds. By providing greater certainty through the requirement for development plans to be up to date, the Government can assist everyone to engage with the system and understand the outcomes. All the amendments seek is to ensure that the Bill reflects the guidance set out in the current NPPF in a paragraph which is not to be changed. The amendments seek to reinforce the fundamental underlying premise at the heart of the English planning system that it should be plan-led and give certainty to stakeholders, particularly local communities.

In passing, I ask whether the Government will now close a loophole in the present regime for five-year plans. Under the current system, local planning authorities can review their local plan under paragraph 33 of the NPPF and Regulation 10A of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, whereby they assess whether the plan needs updating. That process is not subject to any public scrutiny. A local planning authority can simply document the process and resolve through the committee process that the plan does not require a formal update. No one can then challenge that decision and it resets the clock on the up-to-date status of the plan. This means that a local planning authority could underdeliver on housing requirements in the first five years of a plan, simply choose to review the plan using the process I have just outlined and determine that the plan did not need updating. As a result, it would not need to demonstrate a five-year housing supply for the next five years. That simply cannot be right, and I hope that the Government will close that loophole.

While I am on my feet, I will speak briefly to Amendment 221 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, which would enable the Secretary of State to include older people’s housing needs in the local plan. I pay tribute to the work the noble Lord, Lord Best, has done in this area for many years. One-third of local plans have no provision at all for older people, although some 3 million older people would like to move but cannot because of the lack of suitable accommodation. I will amplify the case in a moment, but I begin by asking about progress on the task force announced over a year ago.

On page 226 of the levelling up White Paper from 2 February last year, it says:

“A new Task Force will be launched shortly to look at ways better choice, quality and security of housing for older people can be provided”.


Over 10 months later, nothing had happened. On 22 December the consultation paper said:

“Alongside this, we are also launching a taskforce … This taskforce will explore how we can improve the choice of and access to housing options for older people”.


On 17 February 2023, the shadow Minister for Health and Social care in the other place, Liz Kendall, tabled a Written Question asking the Government when the task force will be launched. The Government’s response did not provide a date and said:

“Announcements will be made in the usual way.”


She then tabled a similar Parliamentary Question on 14 March, which I understand is awaiting a response.

This is not a happy story. I hope my noble friend can explain why there has been this extraordinary delay in the establishment of this important task force. It could address a wider range of issues than just planning; for example, the possible abolition of stamp duty for older people trading down and the role of Homes England in providing affordable homes for rent or shared ownership for older people. It could look at consumer protection issues for older people subject to high service charges. We need an urgent progress report on the task force.

I turn to the amendment. The December consultation paper had a specific question:

“Do you agree that we should amend existing paragraph 62 of the Framework to support the supply of specialist older people’s housing?”


The answer to this is yes. Research has shown that there is demand for some 30,000 units of retirement housing a year, but the current supply is only 8,000. The noble Lord, Lord Best, chaired an inquiry by the APPG on Housing and Care for Older People, Making Retirement Living Affordable. That underlined the need for more investment in the market, focusing on the potential for shared ownership.

The debate on housing often focuses on numbers, such as the 300,000 target. Equally important is whether the make-up of those numbers matches the needs of the population. As England’s demography changes, with the increase in smaller, older households, we are grappling with the legacy of a housing stock configured for a different age. The shortage of accommodation for last-time buyers or renters is impeding the optimum utilisation of a commodity in short supply. To rectify this, we need to focus new build on addressing this imbalance. Because new build is such a small percentage of the overall stock, it needs disproportionate emphasis in five-year plans. One option would be the development of a use class for specialist housing for older people with a specific target; say, 10% of all new units for older people. If one wanted to give this use class a boost, it could be exempt from CIL or Section 106 contributions.

In developing this policy, it is important that older people are not treated as a homogenous group with identical needs, no more than we would treat people with a disability as having identical needs. Planning for the elderly needs to be more granular and assess the various options—for example, retirement or sheltered homes; housing with care, sometimes called integrated retirement communities or supported housing; care homes; and nursing homes—looking at the configurations in each planning area. People do not want to have to move to find a suitable home to retire to.

Then there is the wider benefit if a greater supply of retirement housing can be achieved: significant health and well-being benefits for older people, reduced public spending on health and social care, and an increase in the vibrancy of the second-hand market, freeing up more opportunities for first-time buyers to enter the market. The Bill provides a real opportunity to rectify this imbalance in the nature of our housing stock, and we should take it.

House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 8.31 pm.