Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 20th April 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

243: Clause 95, page 102, line 35, at end insert—
“(5) The Secretary of State must, within one year of the day on which this section comes into force, publish a report of a review of the efficacy of Local Heritage Lists and the resources local authorities have to produce them.(6) The Secretary of State must, on the day on which this section comes into force, publish the results of the 2018 review of the non-statutory guidance on Assets of Community Value.”Member's explanatory statement
This means that the Secretary of State must publish a report of a review of Local Heritage Lists and the results of the 2018 review of the non-statutory guidance on Assets of Community Value.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 243 is in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage. Amendments 244 and 246 in this group are both also in her name. I shall briefly speak to them and make some comments on some of the other amendments in this group.

My noble friend’s Amendment 243 asks the Secretary of State to

“publish a report of a review of Local Heritage Lists and the results of the 2018 review of the non-statutory guidance on Assets of Community Value”.

Amendment 246 also refers to assets of community value—ACVs—asking for draft legislation to be published to reform the processes.

Amendment 244, which is on a slightly separate issue, is about decision-making on temporary stop notices. The amendment says that, when making a decision on the correct recipient of a temporary stop notice, the authority should have regard to the tenancy status of the occupier and their level of responsibility for any works on the property. It is pretty straightforward as to why we have laid this amendment, so I shall be brief. We believe it is really important to guard against a situation where the wrong person may be held accountable for works on a property for which they actually have no responsibility whatever. The Local Government Association was very clear that we should make this point during the debate on the Bill. We believe that other factors should be taken into account before any notice is issued, because we really need to make sure that the correct person—the person liable—is the person that has been identified. It would be very helpful if the Minister could provide some information on how the Government can ensure, in future, that this is what happens, so that we do not end up with people with no responsibility suddenly having a lot of problems with sorting out works on the property in which they are living but for which they do not have responsibility.

We have laid the amendments on the assets of community value because they are very important. We believe that communities should play a key role in both the preservation and the delivery of local assets that sit outside of local authority control. We know that the Localism Act 2011 contains important powers for local communities to be able to do just this, but the problem is that there are issues around how it works. Under current rules, buildings or pieces of land which are, or have been, used to

“further the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community and could do so in the future”

can be nominated to be classified as an ACV by community groups or councils. But if an ACV goes up for sale, a local group that can make a decision as to whether it wants to bid for this is given only six months to gauge whether it is able to bid for it—and it is only during that six-month period that the owner is unable to sell it. After that six-month grace period elapses, they can sell assets of community value to anybody they want to. A report compiled by the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee in Parliament suggested that the six-month grace period was too short and that it would sideline groups in more disadvantaged communities from being able to make bids. We believe that this needs to be changed.

The Labour Party has proposed extending the time frame to 12 months. We believe that local people from every community—not just those who are wealthy and have the resources to put their bids together very quickly—should have the opportunity to take control of, possibly, pubs, historic buildings or, perhaps, football clubs that come up for sale and would otherwise just fall into disrepair. We also believe that they should have first refusal on valuable assets when they come up for sale, including the right to buy them without competition. They should also have the right to force a sale of land or buildings that have been left to fall into a state of significant disrepair. If these processes were reformed to allow and encourage every community to take advantage of it, it would do so much more for the large number of communities that are currently threatened with losing community assets but do not have the ability to put together bids to take them under community control. I urge the Minister to look carefully at how this could be improved for the benefit of all communities.

I would like to make a few comments on Amendment 245, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, about the results of the Historic England pilot on compensation rights. This comes under Clause 98 of the Bill, which seeks to remove compensation when a local authority has wrongly served a building preservation notice which, when it was served, prevented any additional work from progressing. We have been talking to the CLA about this, and it disagrees that this is the right way forward, as not only are there significant property rights implications but it also removes an important check on local authorities that wrongly serve building preservation notices. This can cause huge disruption and costs for the owners. We believe that compensation is key to the protection of individuals’ rights. Moreover, the many compensation provisions across the planning system are a vital part of its fairness. If mistakes happen and people suffer loss then, surely, they should be compensated. I shall not talk any further on this because I am sure that the noble Earl will go into great detail, but we appreciate his amendment. It is an important area that needs to be looked at.

My noble friend Lady Andrews has also put down some important amendments on the demolition of buildings, development rights, reduction of carbon emissions and the importance of local communities’ abilities to shape local places. Currently, most buildings can be demolished without planning permission if they are not listed and not in a conservation area. These permitted development rights for demolition have already been removed for buildings such as pubs and theatres, but there is no requirement for the buildings to be run down or beyond repair for this right to apply. We have had some very helpful briefings from the Victorian Society about its concerns on these issues, and we consider that my noble friend’s amendments are very important. I hope that the Minister can support them. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 245—a probing amendment—in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Devon. Unfortunately, my noble friend cannot be here today due to other pressing matters. I must first declare my ownership of two listed buildings and the occupation of a third. I have also acted professionally as a chartered surveyor who has surveyed many listed and unlisted buildings and structures where works were proposed. I am very grateful for the support and input of the CLA, of which I am a member, and of Historic Houses and the Listed Property Owners Club. I am particularly grateful for, as it were, an introduction by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. It was rather unexpected, because I did not think that it would necessarily be a matter that her party would relate to in those terms.

I acknowledge the importance to the nation of protecting its heritage. When the listing of buildings first came about in, I think, the 1950s, it carried with it an obligation to seek consent for works that affected the character of a listed building. It was not originally the case that effects on character meant that every alteration required consent. However, over the years, because the citations for listing and the descriptions of the matters of importance were, to put it bluntly, minimalist, that is how it has come to be operated. It has now almost become the norm for common periodic maintenance and repair to be caught by a demand for formal consent—things which, for any other unlisted building or structure, can be done without any formality.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and I thank the Minister for his thorough response to these amendments. On my noble friend’s Amendment 243, I was pleased that the Minister said that the Government will continue to provide funds for assets of community value, but just providing funds does not address the problem that many communities do not have the capacity to put the bids together in the first place. That is our main concern here. It looks like we are again waiting to hear the detail—this time about what will be in the NDMPs. I guess we will be updated on this later on in the Bill, but I am sure we will return to it when we get to those particular clauses.

On Amendment 246, it is good that the Minister talked about the Government’s improvements in this area but, again, this comes back to the fact that more needs to be done to support all communities’ abilities to put together suitable bids and plans. Some communities are not able to; they do not have that ability. So it is not about the amount available—it is making sure that all communities have proper access and are able to put together suitable bids.

On the local heritage lists in Amendment 243, one of our concerns is that they do not have any standing in planning law, so there is a big gap between what has listed status and what is available to go on to local heritage lists. We think that local authorities should be able to determine that degree of protection, which they currently cannot, for buildings on their heritage lists. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said that many local authorities do not even know about them, so there is an issue there that the Government could perhaps take a look at.

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, made some good points—he is always extremely clear about his concerns—and I am sure he will want to come back to discuss them further. My noble friend Lady Andrews made some really important points, as did the noble Lord, Lord Carrington of Fulham, when he supported her. She said that there had been a long-standing failure to protect our historic environment. Our amendments work with hers quite well to try to look at the bigger picture and strengthen protections. The noble Baroness made the important point that planning departments are really strapped, so they need more help to protect buildings from demolition. Developers have a lot of money and often a lot of resources available to them, but local authorities do not have those resources or the people. If the Minister is able to look at my noble friend’s second amendment again, that would be extremely helpful—there could potentially be some way forward. He seemed to agree with much of what she said, so perhaps he could suggest a similar amendment on Report, which would be helpful.

The noble Lord, Lord Carrington of Fulham, made a good point about certain iconic buildings that have disappeared. I am sure that all of us can think of similar buildings in our own communities that have gone, and it has really shocked people when they have been demolished unexpectedly, even when there was already an agreement that they would not be demolished.

So this is a good group of amendments, and I hope that the Minister will consider some of the arguments further. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 243 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I have a lot of sympathy with the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, about conservation areas and permitted development rights. For residents who are fortunate enough to live in a conservation area, it is both a privilege and a responsibility. When the noble Lord was trying balance homeowners wanting to make appropriate changes—and sometimes inappropriate changes—and local planning conservation officers seeming to rule the roost over what is and is not appropriate, I asked myself, “Where were the local councillors in this mix?”. Where I am a councillor, I have conservation areas in my ward, and where there is a disagreement about what is appropriate, I ask for it to go to the planning committee. Then, it has a public airing, which is precisely what should happen. The planning conservation officer states one view and residents another, and a decision is made. One of the great purposes of planning committees is to air views, balance them out and come to a conclusion.

I also have concerns about always expecting to maintain the standards of a building that was created 100 or 200 years ago in wood and glass, when the rest of us are trying very hard to increase insulation, particularly of windows and doors. A couple of years ago, I visited a window manufacturer not too far from here which makes heritage windows from plastic. I could not tell the difference, even though I have an interest in conservation and heritage. In our regulations, we need to enable that to happen so that buildings remain appropriate for the time, while conserving the best features and personality of a townscape, which I know the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, wants to retain for people to love and enjoy in the future.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, for introducing the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook.

I just make a very brief comment about the issue of replacement windows. My concern comes from a property that I know; it is in a conservation area and the windows are basically falling to pieces. It is owned by a young couple who applied for planning permission to replace the windows with something very similar, but not like for like—they could not afford like for like. Of course, they were turned down because it did not fit under the planning regulations as they are currently set up. A couple of years on, the outcome is that the windows are falling to pieces and nothing is happening. The couple are stuck, and the windows look dreadful. That is not their fault; they cannot afford to do what the planning inspectors tell them that they have to do.

I am very pleased that these amendments have been brought forward, because they enable us to talk about these anomalies in the way that the planning legislation is currently set up. It tries to protect the look of a place, but if that means that something does not happen because the owners of the property do not have the resources or finances to be able to do it, the property starts to decline. We have the example of windows, but it can be so much more. These are quite specific planning issues, but this is something that needs to be looked at.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, I would like to thank my noble friend Lord Northbrook for tabling these amendments and my noble friend Lord Lexden for so ably introducing them.

Amendment 247 would require amendments to permitted development rights. Permitted development rights are a national grant of planning permission which allow certain building works and changes of use to take place. Rights in relation to England are set out in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (2015/596). As we heard in the debate immediately preceding this group, heritage assets, including conservation areas, are an irreplaceable resource and it is important that we ensure that they are protected. Local authorities are required by law, in carrying out their functions, to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas.

We are committed to quality and design regardless of whether homes are delivered through a permitted development right or a planning application. We intend to consult on introducing secondary legislation so that existing permitted development rights with design or external appearance prior approvals will take into account design codes where they are in place locally. Local authorities can remove specific permitted development rights to protect local amenity or the well-being of the area by making an Article 4 direction.

As committed to in the Government’s British Energy Security Strategy, we are currently undertaking a review of the practical planning barriers that households can face when installing energy-efficiency measures. This will include replacement windows with improved glazing, including in conservation areas. While this review is under way, it would be premature to accept this amendment, as it would curtail the scope of any legislative recommendations that the review might set out in due course.

To go further on that, because I know that this area was of concern to both noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Pinnock, the Government are fully committed to encouraging home owners to incorporate energy-efficiency measures in their properties. As part of this, we recognise the need to ensure that more historic buildings have the right energy-efficiency measures to support our zero-carbon objectives. The review of heritage and energy efficiency committed to in the British Energy Security Strategy and currently under way will enable the Government to respond to the issue in an informed and joined-up way. In addition, powers to amend permitted development rights already exist in primary legislation. For these reasons, the Government are unable to support this amendment; however, we will continue to keep permitted development rights under review.

I turn to Amendment 247A, which proposes a new clause amending Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to require, in exercise of planning functions, special attention to be paid to the views of residents in conservation areas. I understand my noble friend’s concerns. However, the purpose of Section 72 is to ensure that local planning authorities are required, when making planning decisions, to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. It is an important, long-standing duty that protects conservation areas.

Engagement with the sector during policy development for the Bill acknowledged that the framework for protecting the historic environment works well, although there are opportunities, we acknowledge, for targeted improvements. The package of heritage reforms focuses on maintaining the strong protections for the historic environment within the new planning system and, where possible, building on the existing framework. The proposed reforms will build on the existing protections without introducing any additional restrictions on development. It would be inappropriate to extend it so that local planning authorities have to pay special attention to the views of those living in conservation areas too. It would mean the views of conservation area residents would have greater weight than those living outside the area, which we think would be unfair.

In addition, in determining planning applications, decision-makers are already required to consult with local residents, and their views are taken into account. This will not change in our reformed system, and we are also taking powers in the Bill to improve the consultation process, making it more accessible by complementing more traditional forms of engagement with digital tools. It is not considered necessary, therefore, to duplicate these arrangements by extending the Section 72 special attention duty.

Turning to Amendment 285, we agree that it is important that the most up-to-date consolidated version of the general permitted development order, which sets out all the national permitted development rights, is publicly available online. Amendments to the order are often made, as we introduce new permitted development rights or make changes to the existing rights, through amending orders. The latest consolidated version of the general permitted development order is already available on the Government’s legislation website, alongside the original version.

I hope that I have provided the noble Lord with adequate reassurances, but we are unable to support these amendments at this time.

--- Later in debate ---

I understand that the Government have a problem here, but asylum seekers, in my view, have a right to be housed in a clean and safe environment while their asylum application is being heard. If the Government cannot do that in a speedy way, then they create for themselves a problem. But in this instance what is not acceptable, in a democracy, is for the solution to be that up to 2,000 individuals will be housed in former accommodation without the consent of the surrounding community, because it will have an impact on them. The impact can be ameliorated, but they need their voice to be heard. That, for me, is the issue. We live in a democracy, people have a right to have their voice heard, and that is the whole purpose of my amendment. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for introducing her amendment. We agree with everything she has just said. I am also objecting to Clause 101 standing part of the Bill, because we are very concerned about the implications of this clause. We have also put down an amendment to probe whether guidance will be published on Clause 101, but our major concern is with the clause itself.

As we have heard from the noble Baroness, Clause 101 inserts new sections into the Town and Country Planning Act to provide for two new routes to apply for planning permission for the development of Crown land in England. In other words, we are talking about land where there is a Crown or Duchy interest. In the case of either route, the provisions in the clause will allow the appropriate authorities to apply for planning permission direct to the Secretary of State, rather than being subject to the same requirements and application processes as anyone else wishing to undertake development. In such circumstances, the Secretary of State must notify the local planning authority whether they intend to decide the application. If they decide to determine it themselves, they can approve it either conditionally, or unconditionally, or refuse it. They will also have to consult the local planning authority, to which the application would otherwise have been made, but the authority will have no right to veto it.

What does the policy paper that sits alongside the Bill say? It says that it is a means to

“provide a faster and more effective route for urgent and nationally important Crown development”.

That sounds all well and good, but, like the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, we are also concerned about the implications of introducing such an open-ended measure. This is regarding both removing appropriate and necessary limits on the exercise of executive power and denying communities a chance to express their views about development in their area and their ability to indicate either consent or opposition.

We fully appreciate that there will be emergency situations where it is necessary to speed up the planning application process for essential development. Off the top of my head, I can think of the Nightingale hospitals during the Covid pandemic. However, the broad scope of the provisions in the clause, which do not provide for any limit on the type of development that can be approved directly by the Secretary of State, or in what circumstances, means that they could be used for a much wider range of proposals.

This could include a number of circumstances, but I would like to focus on one in particular, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. The Committee will know that the Government have opened centres to provide accommodation for asylum seekers and are looking to open further such centres. I would like to thank Asylum Matters, Medical Justice, the Helen Bamber Foundation and Ripon City of Sanctuary for their helpful briefings. The Government have, as the noble Baroness said, consistently sought to avoid public scrutiny of and consultation about the construction or operation of large-scale institutional facilities for asylum accommodation.

The Home Office has previously successfully opened such facilities on ex-military sites at Coltishall in Norfolk—which is now closed, despite an attempt to reopen it—Napier in Folkestone, which is still open, and Penally in Pembrokeshire, which is now also closed. It has further made attempts, despite local opposition, to construct or operate similar facilities in Barton Stacey, Hampshire, in a facility on the Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre site in Bedfordshire and, from April 2022, as was mentioned by the noble Baroness, at an ex-military base in the rural village of Linton-on-Ouse, North Yorkshire. All these projects have been the subject of intense controversy and, in the cases of Napier and Penally, legal challenge over the profound harm to people seeking asylum, as well as the lack of government consultation of local communities and the resulting impacts on community cohesion.

At both Yarl’s Wood and Linton-on-Ouse, pre-action correspondence was issued, and the developments were halted prior to judicial review. At Penally, the Secretary of State for Wales stated that he first had discussions with the Home Secretary about use of the site just nine days before it opened, and the local health board was informed three days prior. At Napier, the local council, local MP and local and district councillors wrote to the Home Office to protest that they had been given

“very little notice of the decision”

to open the barracks and that it was

“one they could not support”.

A similar lack of consultation occurred at Barton Stacey and at Yarl’s Wood. In the case of Napier, planning permission for the facility was initially secured under class Q emergency development rights for six months, subsequently extended to 12. The Secretary of State granted herself permission to use Napier Barracks for a further period of five years, without any public consultation, through the unusual procedure of using delegated legislation.

The Government’s approach has been criticised by your Lordships’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which raised concerns that the Town and Country Planning (Napier Barracks) Special Development Order 2021 had been laid while Parliament was in recess and that “insufficient information” had been provided by the Government about these developments.

After the fact, the Home Office ran a public “consultation” on the change of use of the site. But this cannot be considered a meaningful consultation, as it took place after permission had been extended. The planning statement that was issued at this time included a commitment to complete a statement of community involvement. This has still not been published, despite the consultation closing at the end of January last year. Perhaps the Minister could give an update on that.

In a judgment handed down on 24 June last year, the High Court ruled that the decision to grant planning permission for a further five years was unlawful. The judge ruled that there was a failure to have proper regard to the public sector equality duty and that the development raised

“very obvious issues … in particular relating to … potential victimisation and harassment … and the fostering of good relations”.

Lack of consultation by the Government has had serious effects on community cohesion in places where large-scale institutional sites have been contemplated. Last April, the Government announced their intention to move towards a system of large-scale permanent asylum accommodation centres in which to place people seeking asylum who would otherwise be destitute, while they await a decision on their claim. The flagship announcement of a facility to accommodate 1,500 people seeking asylum on the ex-RAF base at Linton-on-Ouse, which we have mentioned, was made without any reference at all to the local community, the parish council, the district council, the police and crime commissioner or local police and health services. An initial justification for this was that it was part of a bigger series of announcements.

Current planning laws and, in particular, the right of local residents to be heard on decisions which affect them have proved a barrier to government attempting to institute these large-scale accommodation facilities. Our concern is that the powers provided for in this clause are to facilitate the driving through of centres regardless of their impact on the people placed in them or the local communities in which they are situated. They allow government to totally bypass local councils on asylum accommodation. This is completely the wrong approach. We believe it should be a legal requirement to consult local authorities on asylum accommodation locations.

Appropriate safeguards must be added into the clause to ensure that there are limits to the use of these powers and that minimum requirements are in place to secure some measure of consent from affected local communities. Without a firm commitment that such safeguards will be introduced at a later stage, we believe that Clause 101 must be removed from the Bill.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, I have not participated in this Bill so far. I arrived today thinking seriously about the matter of principle in the powers given to the Government by Clause 101, and with some sympathy for the ideas behind Amendments 257B and 258ZA. I am disappointed by the way in which both noble Baronesses have spoken to them, moving away from the principle of the way in which the Government have powers to a discussion about immigration policy and the use of asylum centres. That is a much narrower issue; it will come out of this, but it gets away from the principle of the Government having undue powers for whatever reason. Moving on to something highly controversial and difficult at this stage muddies the water in a way that is unhelpful for those of us who think that Clause 101 contains undesirable powers.

The noble Baroness referred to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which I chaired during the Napier barracks statements. We have seen the Government push the envelope, in particular during the pandemic. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, will recall some of this as a former member of the committee. Things such as permitted developments were pushed out in response to the needs of the pandemic. I understand that; emergency statements needed to be taken and things needed to be done quickly.

We saw the impact of that in many ways, but most obviously in our having restaurants in the street, which was needed at the time because otherwise they would have had to close due to social distancing. We on the SLSC were content about this because there was a sunset clause built in. However, a year later it was removed by another piece of legislation. By two steps, the Government moved from one position to another with minimal scrutiny from your Lordships’ House and the other place. That is the issue I am interested in exploring in this clause, rather than involving ourselves in discussions about immigration, which will take us back to all sorts of difficult areas that will not help the development of the argument.

The Government said in response to our concerns about making these permitted developments permanent that we were semi-killjoys, trying to stop restaurants in the street and so on, but the reality is that they were controversial for mothers with buggies, pallet truck drivers, people with limited vision and, above all, people who lived above them—all of us talk rather louder and laugh a bit more when leaving a restaurant at 11 pm having had a few glasses of wine, so people found their children being kept awake and so on.

--- Later in debate ---

I know that the Minister understands the issues of rural economic development, as she was the very successful leader of Wiltshire County Council for many years. I hope that she is able, on behalf of the Government, to give a positive response to Amendment 268.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, there are two amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage: Amendment 259, which probes subsection (7), which is inserted by Clause 102; and Amendment 260, which probes the involvement of the Mayor of London under the new section. We consider Clause 102 to be relatively straightforward, in that it simply makes provisions concerning minor variations to planning permission, allowing for greater flexibility to make non-substantial changes that would not be possible at present without the submission of multiple applications by various different routes.

On that basis, we broadly welcome this change, because it will give effect to something that is long overdue, simplifying arrangements currently in place that were only ever intended as a short-term holding position. However, we have tabled Amendments 259 and 260 because there are a couple of areas of concern that we would like the Government to look at. First, current arrangements ensure that, if a variation to planning permission is sought, whether before or after completion, the circumstances of the day are considered when determining the Section 73 application. That, of course, includes the policies in place at the time and any other material considerations. However, as drafted, Clause 101(7) suggests to us—and the Minister may be able to clarify this—that the circumstances at the time of the original grant of permission would be the framework for determining applications in future. We are concerned that this would mean, for example, that if a new local plan had been adopted since the original permission, that plan—which might, for example, include more challenging environmental standards—could not be applied in deciding whether or not to grant the Section 73 application. It may well be that the Minister can clarify that for us.

Similarly, many Section 73 applications relate to the number of residential units or to floor space. Again, as drafted, we are concerned that the decision-maker would not be able to, for example, revisit the amount of affordable housing provided by the scheme, potentially creating a significant loophole. We think that local planning authorities should be able to consider up-to-date planning policy and/or guidance when determining such applications, to guard against such adverse consequences as I have just been talking about. We therefore propose that subsection (7) be removed from the clause.

Our second issue of concern relates to the powers that are devolved to the Mayor of London on strategic planning applications. As the Minister well knows, the Mayor has powers to become the decision-maker for strategic planning applications, subject to certain provisions. However, we are concerned that the Bill as drafted provides only for the Secretary of State’s call-in powers; we believe that leaves a vacuum in relation to the mayoral powers. We propose Amendment 260 to follow Clause 102(13) to ensure that the powers of the Mayor of London to call in applications in accordance with the terms of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order are still taken into account.

I shall say a very few words on the other amendments that have been discussed. First, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, for introducing Amendment 268 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. It is a very interesting amendment, and I am glad that she spoke to it. I absolutely agree with her that we should have a rural strategy. I should draw attention in my interest, in that I have recently been working with the Co-operative Party on its rural policy reviews: it is something that is very close to my heart at the moment. The Government should look closely at how they can give a bit of a leg-up to rural economic development. The Minister will know the particular challenges: there needs to be consideration and support and, as this is a levelling-up Bill, it is an opportunity to take that into account for our rural communities.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, very much for his very thorough introduction. It was very interesting, because I had read the amendment and thought, “Okay, it could be about this; this is what I am thinking”, but his clarification was extremely helpful. I think that he has drawn attention to a really important anomaly in the way the current legislation works. In many ways, that brings us back to something that we have said over and over again—that it would have been better had we had a very specific planning Bill, then we could have got into the nitty-gritty of the current legislation, looked at how it could have been improved and streamlined, and any anomalies such as the noble Lord has drawn our attention to, and any contradictions, could have been properly resolved. So I say to him that we support him in what he is looking to do with his amendment and it would be a very sensible and practical thing for the Government to bring forth such an amendment on Report.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

I just want to briefly say that I very strongly support the plea put in by my noble friend in relation to a rural strategy. I am also interested to understand the Minister’s response to the queries that the noble Baroness on the Labour Front Bench has raised about subsection (7); it requires some further explanation. I wait to see what the Government’s amendments look like. With that, I am happy to sit down and let proceedings continue.