Houses in Multiple Occupation (Asylum-Seeker Accommodation) (England) Regulations 2023

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Tuesday 16th May 2023 Grand Committee

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction. I start by saying that my comments will mainly be directed at the Home Office. I am sure that the Minister, with her experience in local government, will be quite sympathetic to some of the things that I will say, even if she cannot say so here. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for their comments, much of which I totally agree with.

Coming as they do on the back of the complete disregard the Home Office afforded local government and other local stakeholders in the procurement of hotel accommodation for asylum seekers, the provisions in this statutory instrument represent another potential catastrophe as the Home Office once again rides roughshod over the asylum seekers directly affected— I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, about the dehumanising effect of successive actions that have been taken in this regard—the neighbours and communities of the housing this impacts and the local councils and other agencies that will once again be left to pick up the pieces. Why should our communities be subject to this turbulence because the Home Office has abysmally failed to tackle the weaknesses in its asylum processing capacity and capability? The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, gave the figures, so I will not repeat them.

The impact of government procurement of hotel space at such short notice and with little, if any, liaison with local authorities continues. Local tourism and events have been left short of hotel space. Some events have had to be cancelled or postponed. Weddings and other family celebrations have been cancelled. Staffing has been disrupted because of the need for different service levels. Unsuitable locations have been chosen, leaving asylum seekers stranded with no access to vital services. Local public services have found themselves, without warning, faced with the pressure of tackling complex needs and demands with no chance to prepare or assess the resources they need to deal with them.

Removing the protections in the HMO licensing requirements, which ensure the safety and quality of accommodation, by exempting for up to two years HMOs taking asylum seekers is potentially dangerous and divisive. It risks stacking up long-term problems for asylum seekers in terms of their mental and physical health, their safety in the properties and their recourse where conditions do not meet acceptable standards. The protections the licensing requirements afford around occupancy rates, compliance with safety requirements, sound management practices and the fit and proper test for landlords are essential protections. Councils take them very seriously as they carry out their inspection and enforcement duties.

We could potentially be creating a two-tier system here, where asylum seekers, many of whom are already suffering from trauma and other stress-related conditions, will be relegated to substandard accommodation. We note that the Government say that every property will be inspected by a Home Office contract inspector. What checks will be done to ensure that these contracts are carried out consistently by experienced and qualified inspectors? Will those inspectors be independent of the Home Office and, given current Home Office pressures and capacity, will there be enough resource in the department to manage this process as it rolls out across the UK?

What assessment will be carried out of the capacity of local areas that may already have high numbers of asylum seekers located there to cope with the additional numbers, and how will the potential for community tensions be assessed? Who will do that? The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, referred to dispersal. How is this being monitored and managed? Can the Minister tell us what the minimum standards will be for this HMO accommodation in terms of, for example, space standards to avoid overcrowding, access to kitchen and bathroom facilities and the location of properties to enable access to other services that asylum seekers may need, such as health facilities?

The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, went through some of the other provisions, which I will not repeat, but a detailed statement of what is included in the Home Office inspections would be extremely helpful. Is it the intention that these HMO facilities will be used only for single adults or are they to be used for families as well? If the latter, can the Minister tell us what minimum level of provision the Government would expect to see for children living in HMOs? How are the Government liaising with local authorities about the potential impact on their existing supply of affordable housing and homelessness provision that may be exacerbated by government procurement of HMO capacity?

London Councils has data from 25 London boroughs showing that they procured 26% fewer private rented sector properties for homeless households in February 2023 than in the same month in 2022, and the total number of temporary accommodation properties requested back by landlords was 150% higher over the same period. As a result of this, the number of households in unsuitable bed and breakfast accommodation in London was 167% higher in February 2023 compared to February 2022. Data provided by 23 councils show the number of families in bed and breakfast accommodation for longer than six weeks was up 823%. Those figures were for London. Have the Government done any assessment of how these figures are increasing outside London and what impact the policy in this SI may have on the availability of homeless accommodation? I am pleased to hear about the additional funding for local government, but it does not help with the availability of housing provision that it will be losing.

Can the Minister tell us what local liaison will be in place for asylum seekers placed in HMO accommodation when they need to raise issues of poor standards or health and safety? I hear what the Minister said about Migrant Help, but I remain to be convinced about the consistency of provision of that on a 24-hour basis, when there may be problems with properties. What engagement structures have been put in place with local government and other public services to ensure that they are able to do all that they can to make this work properly? If councils are not involved, will the Home Office take direct responsibility for safeguarding, health and safety and well-being?

The LGA has requested in its excellent briefing— I agree with what noble Lords have said about how good it is—that there is a commitment from the Government about the timescale with which they expect this provision to be in place and that they have requested that local government be involved in the ongoing review. I am pleased to hear the Minister’s comments on this, but it is telling that the LGA had to write to us all on this issue to give its point of view. It should have been engaged from the very start of this process so that it worked with the Home Office on what the processes would be. Is that something that the Government will now put in place? I hope that that was the assurance from the Minister.

Both the LGA and London Councils—the latter also provided noble Lords with an excellent briefing—have questioned what evidence there is to suggest that this change in regulations will speed up procurement of accommodation. This is already a high-risk part of the housing sector, and the potential to undermine safety and standards seems very risky if there is not clear evidence to suggest that it will achieve the Home Office’s intended outcomes. Can the Minister clarify how this proposed transfer of responsibilities away from local teams will speed up the assessment of properties?

There are so many questions—too many questions to make me feel comfortable that this is going to work at all. One has to ask, just who is this policy for? It is not for asylum seekers, who it seems are to be relegated to some lower-tier housing division which removes any protections, safety and security they may have had while their applications are processed. It is not for local authorities, or other public services, which are left in the dark again and then expected to pick up the pieces of a policy which it seems no one except the Home Office thinks will work. It is certainly not for the communities, which are being asked to pay the price for years of the Home Office’s failure to act. You have to ask—just what is the Home Secretary thinking of?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate today. Much of what has been discussed is obviously for the Home Office; in my responsibility as a Government Minister, I shall attempt to answer everything I can, but there will be things that I will have to come back to. I hope that I can persuade noble Lords to join me in supporting these regulations, which are a necessary step to accelerate moving asylum seekers from what is not suitable—we have had this debate many times in this House, and hotel accommodation is not suitable—into more suitable accommodation for them.

This is not dehumanising; this is actually giving them a better place to live, and trying to get people out of hotels as quickly as possible. Both the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, asked why we are doing this. We are doing it because the asylum accommodation service people are telling us that they have identified that the whole process of licensing requirements is really a challenge to swiftly bring on board the properties that we need in order to get people out of the hotel system.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I think either the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, or the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, I cannot remember which, asked whether any thought was given to improving the resources for local government to take this on, rather than setting up a whole new system. Is the Minister able to comment on that?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I will go through the support we are providing to local authorities, but I do not think the local authorities could have moved as fast as was necessary to do this: it takes training, et cetera. It is about getting people out of hotels and into better accommodation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, brought up the Home Office contracts. I have listed all the requirements under the licensing. I am sorry I have not got an answer to everything. Gas and safety requirements are there in the contracts for the Home Office, as well as compliance with wider private rented sector minimum standards, but I will go through each and every requirement in the licensing and we will send a letter explaining what is there and what is in the contract so that we are absolutely transparent about that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I asked for an answer on that, but I do not think it has come forward. I am really sorry; I will get these answers to noble Lords as quickly as I possibly can. I am conscious of what they are asking me to do.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I know it is not the tradition of the Committee to not vote for SIs, or to vote against them, and I understand that—I will not do anything like that—but had this come before my council, with the lack of information that we have about why it is being done, not just what is being done, I could not have supported it. Whether local government could do this job equally well was never assessed. If the Home Office can recruit more inspectors, local government can do so too. If the Home Office are going to look at the same things that local government looks at, why is local government not looking at it? Can we have some clarity about what will be looked at? I am happy to have that in writing.

Before I sit down, I profusely apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, whom I called by the wrong name. I had written the wrong name on my papers, which is completely my fault, and I apologise profusely. I will not get it wrong next time.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I cannot let it go that we are not making it clear why we are doing this. I want to make it very clear that we are doing it to speed up the movement of these people from what the House has clearly said many times is unsuitable hotel accommodation, which is not right over a long period of time, into better accommodation. That is why we are doing it. We want to do it as quickly as possible, and we fell that, in the short term of two years, the licensing regime was slowing that movement down.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd May 2023 Lords Chamber

Childcare is an essential part of our economic infra- structure. For many parents, it is as crucial to getting to work as roads or trains. I know that this amendment would not solve all these problems, but it would help to ensure that families with children do not see childcare prices forced up or waiting lists becoming even longer as a result of much-needed new and affordable housing. That is why I support this important amendment.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to the amendments in this group in my noble friend Lady Hayman’s name and in my name, and comment on other amendments submitted. As this is the first group on the infrastructure levy before the Committee, I will make some general comments, which I will try not to repeat in future groups so as not to test Members’ patience.

The introduction of the infrastructure levy has broadly been welcomed by local government and the Local Government Association, as it is non-negotiable and set at a local level. I hope that, eventually, it will rationalise the current system of the CIL and Section 106. However, as my grandmother is from Wiltshire, I feel justified in saying that it is a jiffling picture at the moment.

The proof of its success will be whether the levy delivers more in infrastructure, affordable housing and, key to this group of amendments, some of the social infra- structure that greatly concerns local residents when they hear of new development. Key to this is whether, as the current community infrastructure levy and Section 106 system transitions to this new arrangement, the levy actually delivers at least as much as, if not more than, the current system. What protections does local government have against the temptation for Secretaries of State—I will not name anyone—to top-slice the infrastructure levy?

Forgive my cynicism, but I have the clear memory of the new homes bonus in mind. The new homes bonus was, first, top-sliced from local authority budgets then cut in successive years, so it was really just another mechanism to cut local government budgets. I know that the infrastructure levy is substantially different, in that funding is delivered from the development sector, but will this be too tempting a pot for the Treasury to resist?

The LGA has expressed concerns that significant elements of the levy are not yet clear in the Bill, such as definitions of larger sites, rate-setting and the relationship between different tiers of authorities that will be in receipt of the levy. There also needs to be a clear definition of what infrastructure is in scope and what is not, which is the subject of many amendments in this group. For example, if the system is to move on from Section 106, how will contributions towards issues currently funded by that method be treated, such as skills, apprenticeships and the local workforce—in other words, issues that sit outside the built environment?

Local government has also urged the Government to reconsider the timing of the levy. The new system as proposed may help developers’ cash flow, but local authorities want to ensure that infrastructure is provided early in the development process so that existing local residents can be reassured that there will not be an uncomfortable transition phase while the provision of infrastructure lags behind development and results in a period of pressure on existing resources. I moved around our new town four or five times when I was growing up, as new developments were built, each time to areas with no shops or services and little in the way of public transport. The sequencing of infrastructure is really important.

Like many other voices in local government, I have long been an advocate for removing the permitted development process, which undermines local plan-making and the quality standards of new homes. But if the Government insist on retaining permitted development—it looks as though they will—there must be a way of applying the levy to such change-of-use developments.

Many of the amendments in this group are seeking some clarity from the Government about how the infra- structure levy can be used and how they will demonstrate what is being achieved in this respect. Our Amendment 314, in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman, raises the key issue of demonstrating how the levy will impact public transport in travel-to-work areas and requests that the Minister must publish within two years of Royal Assent a summary setting out progress. If we are serious about reducing car dependency to aid our net-zero ambitions, clear commitments from this legislation are essential.

Similarly, Amendment 315 probes whether the levy may be used in relation to the contribution required for restoring railways. We have heard a great deal in earlier discussions on the Bill about, for example, the use of restored former rail routes to improve interconnectivity. The levy could provide a very important contribution to this. We hope that when we see the detail of the regulations associated with the levy, it will be empowered to do so.

Amendment 316 again probes the intended scope of the infrastructure levy. When we talk to local people, their concerns about new developments, as well as the impact on the environment, are often about the pressure that these put on services and facilities that meet local and strategic needs and contribute towards a good quality of life, such as health provision, education, community, play, youth services, recreation, sports, faith and emergency services facilities. Too often, they have felt that developers focus just on the profit side of the equation, with little regard for the needs of existing communities or those for whom they are building. Although CIL and Section 106 have made some provision for parts of social infrastructure in the past, they have been too limited in the amount provided and in restrictions on what is provided. As an extreme example, in my borough, a Section 106 agreement could be used only to deliver a bus shelter in an area that had long since lost its only bus service. We would like to see a broad scope for the infrastructure levy, driven locally by local need and with flexibility for it to be used in appropriate ways as communities develop.

It would be wrong not to mention the knotty issue of viability. I draw attention to the Explanatory Notes to the Bill, which say at paragraph 725:

“The purpose of IL is: to ensure that the costs incurred in supporting the development of an area (including by the provision of affordable housing), and achieving any additional purpose specified in IL regulations, are funded at least in part by owners or developers of land, but in a way that does not make development in the area economically unviable”.


One has to ask: unviable to whom? If the infrastructure needed is not to be provided through this route, how is it to be provided? Will it be by the local authorities which are already so strapped for cash they are cutting services, not developing them, or by the Government? My noble friend Lady Hayman’s Amendment 343 seeks to specify a wider scope for the infrastructure levy in the Bill, so that it is clear that developers may be asked to make wider contributions to the infrastructure demands that their development is driving.

Amendment 355, in my name, seeks to limit the circumstances in which the Secretary of State can direct a charging authority to review its charging schedule. We understand why it may be necessary to ensure that charging schedules are kept up to date, but surely these timescales are for local determination, and it should be only in the most extreme circumstances that intervention would be necessary. The community infrastructure levy itself is a relatively new form of charging infrastructure against developments, so it will be important to have a benchmark on what it has achieved in this respect so that it is possible to assess the infrastructure levy against the current arrangements.

I will comment briefly on other amendments in this group. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Russell, is to ensure that large-scale developments can be required to provide funding for childcare services and settings. My noble friend Lady Hayman’s Amendment 343 also seeks to broaden the scope of social provision under the infrastructure levy. In her amendment to Schedule 11, paragraph (c) refers specifically to nurseries, so we support this amendment. The plea of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, was powerfully made. Having been a single parent myself, I know that the issue of nurseries and childcare is really vital, but we need to identify what the infrastructure levy can do with capital and revenue funding streams. It is no good building nurseries if there is no funding to run them. The noble Lord, Lord Young, was right to raise the complex issues around funding for childcare. If we are going to resolve some of this through the infrastructure levy, we need to understand how.

There are a number of amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Greenhalgh and Lord Wasserman, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter regarding the implications of the infrastructure levy for our emergency services. We understand the motivation behind these amendments: although emergency services may be asked to comment and make submissions on planning applications, they are, more often than not, unable to be there at the point of decision-making. It is important that the Bill gives clarification on how emergency services are to be treated for the purposes of the infrastructure levy.

Amendment 335, in the name of my noble friend Lady Warwick, the noble Baronesses, Lady Watkins and Lady Thornhill, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, seeks to ensure that infrastructure levy funds cannot be used by local authorities to cover the costs of unspecified items. The wording in Schedule 11, which this amendment would remove, is simply not clear enough. The amendment highlights again how important it is that the Bill is absolutely clear about what can be covered by IL and what cannot.

We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his tireless pursuit of opportunities that the Bill could give to increase the delivery of supported housing, particularly for older people. We believe that this should be a strong consideration in the structure of the infrastructure levy, so we support his amendment. The noble Lord’s Amendments 337 to 339 and 354 all refer to the independent examination of the IL charging schedules by an independent examiner. We look forward to the Minister’s comments on the rationale for this provision in Schedule 11. Is this service to come under the remit of the Planning Inspectorate? If not, who will carry out this role, how, and how will they be appointed?

In respect of Amendment 348 from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, we are interested to hear the views of the Minister on the treatment of town and parish councils under the new infrastructure levy regime. There are over 10,000 parish, town and community councils in England, ably represented by the National Association of Local Councils. Is it the intention of the Bill that these councils be a specified recipient of the neighbourhood share of the infrastructure levy; for that share to be 25%, or 35% for a parish council with a neighbourhood development plan; and for a parish council to have full flexibility over how those receipts are spent?

NALC believes that the higher CIL amount provides an additional incentive to undertake a neighbourhood development plan and to identify extra investment in infrastructure or anything else concerned with addressing demands of development. Do the Government intend to build on CIL for the new infrastructure levy, with a parish council being the body which will receive the neighbourhood share? They are not named explicitly in the Bill. Will the uplift in neighbourhood share still be available to parish councils which have prepared a neighbourhood plan?

I hope your Lordships will forgive me for a long intervention, but this is a huge group with a lot of different amendments in it. In summary, a great deal of clarification is needed around the introduction of the infrastructure levy. We urge that as much of this clarification as possible is included in the Bill and that there is a thorough period of pilots introduced to test the implementation of the infrastructure levy in practice and whether it can deliver against the opportunities that it should be able to realise.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise for the length of time that I am going to take, but it has been a very diverse debate about a number of things and some important issues, so please bear with me.

When new development is built, it creates a demand for public services and local infrastructure. The granting of planning permission also increases the value of land. It is important that local authorities can secure contributions from developers to share in the land value uplift that comes from granting planning permission and use this to deliver local infrastructure and affordable housing for communities.

The current system of developer contributions is uncertain and fragmented. The negotiation of Section 106 agreements frequently results in delays in granting planning permission and these agreements can be renegotiated as the development progresses, as we have heard. Local authorities cannot be expected to negotiate as effectively as big developers. The developers can always build elsewhere, which weakens a local authority’s leverage in negotiations. Developers can devote more financial resources to negotiation, out-gunning local authorities. This can generate uncertainty for local communities over how much affordable housing will be available and what infrastructure will be delivered.

Local authorities can also charge the community infrastructure levy, which is a non-negotiable—but optional —charge. Only half of local planning authorities currently charge the levy. Of those that do not, over one-third believe that introducing it would increase their ability to capture land value. The community infrastructure levy is also unresponsive to change in development value as it is charged at a fixed rate per square metre of new development and does not go up in line with house prices. That is why we are introducing the new infrastructure levy; to largely replace the existing system of developer contributions.

The new levy will aim to capture land value uplift at a higher level than the current developer contributions regime by charging rates based on the final value of developments. This should ensure that a fairer price is initially paid for the land by the developer, and then that the developer pays a fairer contribution to the infrastructure and affordable housing. As it is a non-negotiable charge, it should help to reduce delays associated with Section 106 agreements, while maintaining the viability of developments. It will also end the inequality of arms, where local planning authorities must negotiate for affordable housing with developers. The levy will be charged on the majority of types of development, providing opportunities to secure funding for affordable housing and infrastructure from developments that currently contribute very little. I totally agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, that the important issue for developer contributions is housing.

The Government recognise that the new infrastructure levy is a significant change and a major undertaking. For this reason, we are taking a “test and learn” approach to its implementation. This will be vital to monitor and test the design of the levy as it works on the ground. This means that, once levy regulations have been developed following Royal Assent, only a small number of local authorities will adopt the levy initially. This “test and learn” approach will allow the Government to continue to work with local authorities, developers and local stakeholders to achieve a system that is optimally designed. We have published a detailed technical consultation, which closes on 9 June, to inform the design of the new levy regulations. We have approached this consultation in a very open manner with the sector, and we really want to listen to, and take on board, the feedback.

I turn to Amendments 290, 324, 335 and 343, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh and the noble Baronesses, Lady Warwick and Lady Hayman. The amendments relate to the definition of “infrastructure”. I will highlight first the point that the priority for receipts from the new levy will be the provision of infrastructure: affordable housing, schools, GP surgeries, green spaces and transport. This infrastructure is vital to support the local community and mitigate the impact of any new development.

Although I understand the desire for future levy receipts to be spent on a wider range of other important priorities, I must be clear that this will not be an unlimited pot of money and that any other spending will come at the expense of affordable housing and local infrastructure that is needed to directly mitigate the impact of new development. Although we have the ability to allow for some spending on non-infrastructure priorities through the Bill, we recognise that there are important trade-offs here. Through the consultation, we are testing the extent to which we should require local authorities to prioritise affordable housing and infrastructure before unlocking such flexibilities.

Secondly, I will address childcare, which I think everybody in the Committee agrees is exceptionally important—I know that this is a priority for all of us in the House and the other place. It is also a priority for the Government, and I am happy to say that, since Amendment 290 was tabled, the Chancellor has announced transformative reforms to the funding and delivery of childcare, as part of the Spring Budget. By 2027-28, this Government expect to spend in excess of £8 billion every year on free hours and early education, helping working families with their childcare costs. This represents the single biggest investment in childcare in England ever, and it means that eligible working parents of children from nine months old to their start in primary school will all have 30 hours of free childcare per week. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that the Chancellor’s announcement means that it is no longer necessary to try to bolt together the planning system and funding for childcare through the Bill.

I make it clear to the noble Lord, Lord Russell, that guidance for applications for free schools already includes explicit assumptions that any new free schools will include proposals for nurseries. Therefore, education investment in a possible new development will include a nursery, unless there are very strong reasons why this would be inappropriate. So the Government are dealing with the issue of ongoing support for childcare and, at the same time, there is already in guidance the necessity for more nursery places where houses are built.

I turn to infrastructure spending more broadly. New Section 204N(3) provides a non-exhaustive list of kinds of infrastructure, which assists with broadly understanding what the levy might be spent on. But spending is not restricted to any of the listed items: the levy can be spent on any infrastructure that supports the development of an area. This means funding the provision, improvement, replacement, operation or maintenance of infrastructure, provided that this in accordance with the overall aim of the levy, as set out in new Section 204A. To strengthen infrastructure delivery, new Section 204Q requires local authorities to prepare “infrastructure delivery strategies”, which will set out a strategy for delivering local infrastructure and spending levy proceeds.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Where do the infrastructure delivery strategies sit in terms of the local plan process? The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred to this. What role will they play in relation to NDMPs? It is not clear from the legislation exactly how they fit in with the rest of the planning process, and it is important that either the Bill sets that out or we have guidance elsewhere—for example, in the National Planning Policy Framework—that makes it crystal clear where those strategies sit.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I understand that, and I will write to the noble Baroness to explain this completely. I know that this is confusing because the NPPF has not been agreed, so I understand where she is coming from and I will make sure that we send her a letter.

Turning to Amendment 324, I agree with my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh that the emergency and rescue services should be among the infrastructure providers that are able to receive levy funds from local planning authorities. For this reason, they are already included in the illustrative list of infrastructure in new Section 204N(3), which makes it explicit that levy funds can be applied towards

“facilities and equipment for emergency and rescue services”.

We do not provide detailed definitions across all kinds of infrastructure, as this is not necessary. The words used must be given their natural and common-sense meaning—so “infrastructure” too must be given its ordinary meaning. I have stated that it can encompass matters not listed in new Section 204N(3).

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

What we have said is that this will deliver no fewer affordable homes. Of course, the number and type of affordable homes that are built will be a local decision. If local authorities want more homes—I suggest that we need more homes in this country—we should be able to deliver more homes.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the Minister from our side for the very detailed response she gave to all the contributions that have been made. In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, we have a further group on this, so I am sure we will debate it further in the course of that group. The combination of the lack of clarity around what the new infrastructure levy is going to deliver in affordable housing and the removal of housing targets looks like a terrible contribution. I know the Minister said that this would not mean fewer affordable homes, but the number that have been built in the last few years is woeful. We want that to improve; we want to get more affordable housing out of this. I know we will discuss this again in a subsequent group, but it is really important. I hope we can get some clarification in that group about how this new infrastructure levy system is going to help us deliver the affordable homes that we all know we need.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

This is about not just the new infrastructure levy but the whole Bill. We know that where local authorities have local plans, they build more houses. The Bill is there to enable and encourage local authorities to have local plans. It is the combination of all these things within the Bill that should deliver more houses.

--- Later in debate ---

My final remark is whether this rather poorly considered proposal—in my opinion—to cap certain land sales is equitable and whether the right solution, if the underlying problem is land value capture, is not best addressed through planning conditions or general taxation. I beg to move.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, warned me that we may go head to head on this, and I fear that that might be the case this afternoon. This group of amendments addresses a very important set of conditions about compulsory purchase and the skewing effect of hope value, which we consider is vital to address to help the delivery of genuine regeneration schemes and social and/or truly affordable housing.

Definitions are important here, which is why the first amendment in my name in this group probes how the Secretary of State will work with local authorities to determine an appropriate definition for regeneration. Too often, this has been left in the hands of developers so that existing communities feel, at best, that their views about how they would like the area to be regenerated are ignored and, at worst, that they are being displaced by regeneration schemes, as developers are relentless in their pursuit of uplifting the values of properties for their own benefit.

I understand the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and I am sure that there are cases which result in the kinds of circumstances he has described, but the boot is quite often on the other foot. However, I support his comments about how many important sections of the Bill are subject to consultations running in parallel with the progress of the Bill through Parliament. It does not give us much confidence that listening is going on, and it means that we are trying to incorporate all the pre-legislative processes as we are going through the process of the Bill. So the consultations are running, and we should then have pre-legislative scrutiny—which we have ended up having to do as we go through the Bill—and then legislation. I think that is why we have had such a long set of proceedings on the Bill. There are issues here.

The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, includes a power of acquisition for local authorities, specifically for the purpose of social or affordable housing. I believe that there are powers already under previous Acts of Parliament that allow this, but it is important that those powers are sped up or enhanced in some way. Part of the “Today” programme on Radio 4 this morning was about social housing in Wales. Before the Minister is tempted to come back and say that that is to do with Labour running Wales—which I do understand—this situation, of a gentleman who had been waiting some 20 years for social housing, occurs across the country. One of the responses from Shelter, which also appeared on that programme, was that local authorities need a fast-track route to purchase empty homes for social housing. The power is already there, but it can take for ever. I have been dealing with a case in my own borough where, 22 years later, we have still not managed to purchase a very dilapidated house because of the various circumstances attached to that case. It makes it very difficult. Where it is possible, local authorities should be helped and assisted to do that.

My Amendment 412 aims to ensure that compulsory acquisitions by a local authority do not materially change the housing provision in an area. It is important to clarify that we do not intend this amendment to suggest that the housing has to be re-provided on the same site, although that may be a choice that the local authority wishes to make. If it is not, the housing should be re-provided elsewhere in the local authority area and be specified at the time of planning for the site in question.

Voter ID

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government implemented this rushed programme for voter ID against the advice of the Electoral Commission, the Association of Electoral Administrators and the Local Government Association, which all said that it needed more time. Does the Minister now agree that they were right, given that around 1.5 million people eligible to vote do not have the accepted ID or certificate? Tomorrow’s election will be the greatest restriction of the franchise in our democratic history, taking the vote from seven times as many people as were given the vote in the Great Reform Act. What will it take tomorrow for the Government to rescind this policy? How many people will the Government allow to be turned away before admitting that this experiment has failed?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)]

No, I do not agree that we have done it in haste, because I have spoken personally to the LGA and many leaders across the country who are having polls. I have also spoken to the Electoral Commission. The processes that were put in place worked well; the IT worked well, and we will know after tomorrow what the outcome is. As I said yesterday in this House, the number of people who have not registered for a voter authority card will come out in the data. Whether or not we need to look at any changes, this Government and the people of this country want voter ID. Two out of three people asked said they would feel more confident in our democratic process if it was in place.

Housing: Overcrowding

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Tuesday 25th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

We have no plans to do so at the moment but I will keep the noble Baroness and the House aware of any that we might have in the future.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the National Housing Federation for its excellent report highlighting this crucial issue, and to my noble friend Lady Warwick for her tireless work on housing. The level of overcrowding highlighted by the NHF is one of the strongest indicators of the woeful state of housing in this country and the shameful record of this Government, with only 6,000 social homes built last year and 2 million families on waiting lists. The recent decision to abandon housing targets has exacerbated the housing crisis and will worsen the issue of overcrowded properties. Given that planning applications in England are now at a record low, will the Minister bring forward amendments to the levelling-up Bill to put the targets back into law?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness. We have had this debate on a number of occasions throughout the LUR Bill, and I am sure we will have this discussion again. We are clear that we are looking at the NPPF into the future, but it is up to local planning authorities to decide on the types of housing that they are going to put into their local plans and how many. We feel that, with the new changes in the LURB, local plans will be easier to produce and there will be more of them, delivering more housing for this country.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 24th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these three amendments, which enable planning appeals to be heard virtually, where the choice is being made by an appointed inspector. I wholly support the opportunity for virtual hearings. Currently, as the Minister explained, there are two options for appeal hearings: one is by written procedure and the other is by a full public hearing. It is usually the choice of the appellant which procedure they use. So someone appealing against, say, a planning refusal can ask for it to be heard in a public setting. I would like reassurance that that will still be the case.

Some members of the public find it easier to join virtually, and that is a really positive move. I accept the argument the Minister has made that it opens it up for more people to take part. Equally, though, there are always some who find that difficult, especially if they live in more remote areas where access to good-quality broadband is not possible. I am thinking of colleagues I have who live in North Yorkshire; when I have Zoom calls with them, it is hit and miss. I would just like reassurance that those people would be able to engage if they wanted to.

Now I have a question about the future. Some planning appeals are so important that, in my view, they are better heard in a public session. If there is a wide interest in the locality, a public hearing in person gives more reassurance to a local community than one that is held virtually or by the written procedure. The reason I argue this is that if you are in a room full of people, you feel the mood and sense what is going on much better than you do in a similar virtual hearing.

I support what has been said, with those provisos. Lastly, local plans have, obviously, planning inspector involvement. Is it anticipated that these too could be heard virtually, or will that still be largely in person?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I know it is not the practice in your Lordships’ House to have long discussions on government amendments. I do not intend to do that, but I want to make some comments on these amendments, because I think they are interesting.

On Amendment 285A, I make the point that varying proceedings should always be the subject of very effective communication, not only because we have professionals engaged in these processes but because the public are involved and need to understand exactly what is happening. Where there are changes, even more effort should be made to communicate why they have been made. I raise again the issue of resourcing of PINS. A lot of clauses in the Bill are putting another heavy burden on the Planning Inspectorate, and those issues need to be taken into account.

Secondly, as we have heard, Amendment 285B indicates that the Government wish the planning process to allow people to participate remotely in planning proceedings at the grant of the Planning Inspectorate. If the Government can see the value of this—I am very pleased that they can—I ask the Minister why what is good for planning proceedings is so inappropriate for the rest of local government? We have had debates on this previously in the Bill.

The Minister made the point that participating virtually increases diversity of participation, which I completely agree with. It also saves unnecessary travel; we have had those discussions on previous clauses. We are all trying to get down to net zero, and people do not have to travel if they can participate virtually. In addition, it helps those who live in bigger geographical areas. My borough is very small geographically, so it is not really a great hardship for anyone to have to come to the town hall for a discussion on a planning application or anything else. However, if you live in some of the parts of the country where that is not such an easy journey, particularly at certain times of the year, it can be much more difficult. So, I am confused about why we seem to think that this is a really helpful process for one part of local government activity but not for the rest of it. I also probe why the amendment says, “require or permit”. I am concerned about “require” and whether the planning inspector is going to be able to insist that this happens virtually, and how that is going to work.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, referred to feeling the mood in planning meetings. That is a variable experience, from my experience in local government. Sometimes it can be useful to do that, and sometimes you would not want to be anywhere near feeling the mood in a planning meeting—but that is another matter. I echo the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, about whether the intention is that this should apply to local planning inquiries. That is a whole other issue that needs further consideration.

By the way, I know that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, responded quite extensively on the ability to have local government proceedings virtually, and that is on the record. I would just appreciate a response from the Minister on why this is right for planning but so wrong for everything else in local government.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Let me respond to a couple of those points. On the difference between a case officer and a planning inspector and how you bring in the appellant, at the moment the case officer handles the administration of a planning appeal case, which includes the appointment of a planning inspector, but they also determine the mode of the procedure after seeking input from the parties and the inspector. Therefore, at the moment it is the case officer who talks to the parties and the inspector, and who then makes a decision taking all of that into account. We are suggesting that the planning inspector, who is the decision-maker or recommendation maker for called-in and recovered cases, will assess the details of the case and representations received from all parties in just the same way, so they would be seeking input from all parties before they made that decision.

On local plans, the major party in that will be the local planning authority or the local authority, and I cannot see those discussions being taken online. I suppose a local authority could ask for that, but those are usually quite long and arduous meetings that sometimes go on for weeks, so I am pretty sure they would be public.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests in farming and land ownership as set out in the register. I agree with every word that the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, has said; I would perhaps go a little further in some areas.

My understanding of Clause 123—and, therefore, my reason to seek its removal—is that, through its inclusion in the Bill, it seeks to give authority to any Government to amend primary legislation that underpins planning and compulsory purchase legislation through the means of secondary legislation. Such changes might have a profound impact on the way planning is delivered. It is not appropriate that this legislation gives such a wide remit to the Government to change primary legislation for an objective that is yet to be determined without the full scrutiny of Parliament through debates in both Houses.

In other words, Clause 123, which gives the Government the ability to consolidate and amend compulsory purchase legislation, should be deleted from the Bill as it gives the Government too wide a remit to encroach on property rights without a clear objective. It could lead to changes in compulsory purchase legislation that tip the balance further towards the developer and away from protecting the home owner’s and landowner’s rights. The ability to amend more than 25 key pieces of primary legislation, described as “relevant enactments” in Clause 123(2), in any way that any Government see fit—potentially with limited consultation or scrutiny—must raise very serious concerns.

Additionally, it is premature to propose amending compulsory purchase legislation before, as I understand it, the Government have received the outcome of the Law Commission’s review into compulsory purchase reform. There is also the matter of the lack of a government response to the consultation on compulsory purchase compensation, which is still awaited despite the Government including some of these controversial measures in this Bill. The department is clearly in breach of the consultation principles, which state that it should:

“Publish responses within 12 weeks of the consultation or provide an explanation why this is not possible. Where consultation concerns a statutory instrument publish responses before or at the same time as the instrument is laid, except in very exceptional circumstances (and even then publish responses as soon as possible). Allow appropriate time between closing the consultation and implementing policy or legislation”;


that last point is relevant in this particular case. Planning legislation is the foundation of so much, particularly in the rural economy. There is a real risk that growth of the rural economy and housing delivery could be held back by amendments that have gone through without proper scrutiny.

I look forward to hearing the Government’s response and reasons.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, regarding Clause 123, we believe that this provision was added to the Bill subsequent to consideration in the other place, so it has perhaps not had the same scrutiny as other parts of the Bill.

Amendment 285AA, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, seeks to have the status of combined mayoral authority with planning powers added to the list of exemptions. A distinction was drawn previously in your Lordships’ House between the devolution powers conferred on mayors and the legislative powers devolved to Administrations, but what meetings and discussions have been held with devolved Administrations in this respect?

I express our concern, alongside that of the noble Lords, Lord Stunell and Lord Carrington, about the implications of this clause in any case. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, argues that the clause should not be part of the Bill at all. I can understand this view as in this part of the Bill, as in others, there are very significant powers being taken by the Secretary of State to amend these long lists of 25 pieces of primary legislation, with limited scrutiny or consultation and without reversion to either House. That would give us great cause for concern. I hope that the Minister can respond to this, but we support the clause stand part notice.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I have listened carefully to the concerns expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Stunell and Lord Carrington, and hope and believe that I can fully reassure them both. I will respond to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in a second, but will begin by addressing Amendment 285AA, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell.

This amendment would restrict the nature of amendments that can be made under the power contained in Clause 123 so that the Secretary of State could not use it in relation to matters within a devolved competence or where a mayor has planning powers. Noble Lords will be aware that under Clause 123(6) any changes made by regulations under this section do not come into effect except where Parliament enacts a relevant consolidation Act and that Act comes into effect. In practice, these regulations will smooth the transition of the law from its current unconsolidated state to its future consolidated state. To do this, they have legal effect for only a moment, immediately before the relevant consolidation Act comes into effect.

Noble Lords will know that consolidation is a highly technical exercise restricted to the clarification and restatement of the existing law. This power is likewise restricted. It cannot be used to change the terms of devolution, nor to interfere in policy matters which are devolved. The power to make incidental provision in relation to a devolved competence is included here to reflect that much of planning and compulsory purchase law pre-dates devolution. Without this power allowing the Secretary of State to disentangle the law in England, we would be unable to ensure that in substance the legal position within devolved competence would be unchanged when the law applying in England was disentangled. In relation to the second—

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Earl for giving way. The provision in Clause 123(4) says:

“For the purposes of this section, ‘amend’ includes repeal and revoke”.


That sounds like a sledgehammer being used to crack a nut if it is a matter of consolidation.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

Consolidation in this area of the law is immensely complex. Frankly, we do not know the full extent of the relevant planning provisions that must be considered in any common consolidation exercise because the exercise has not been commenced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

I am sorry to hear that. The point I was seeking to make is that the general public need to trust the law and know what the law is, as does anyone dealing with the planning system. That is why the Government’s ambition is to put in train a consolidation exercise, which may take a considerable time. I have been quite frank with the Committee that there are not only 50 Acts that we know about which deal with planning and compulsory purchase, but—as my notes say—innumerable other Acts which cross-reference those 50 Acts. It will require a major legal exercise to bring all the threads together.

I cannot commit to a timescale for consolidation from the Dispatch Box today. There is a large amount of work to do before we can get to that stage and that will naturally have to be balanced against the wider legislative programme. It is for that reason that we are asking for this power to prepare the way—I think that is the best way of putting it—to make the ultimate consolidation a more achievable exercise.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am sorry to keep pursuing this point but it is really very important indeed. Any of us who has worked on this Bill knows the difficulty of how many crossovers there are with other Bills. On the previous group of amendments, from my perspective and I am sure from those of colleagues on these Benches, we ended up referencing back through various Bills to get to the point that the amendments referred to. That does not make life easy, and I am sure it makes it very opaque for professionals and the public trying to deal with the system. That simply underlines yet again, as we have done many times through this process, that a planning Bill might have been a better option to get to the rationalisation of the planning system, but we are where we are with that.

We remain concerned about just how this exercise will be done. Will a whole series of statutory instruments come through? Will it just be for the Secretary of State to make the decisions and then change the legislation—I am not entirely sure how that works in process terms—or will we have a whole other Bill that will be the “consolidation of planning Bill 2025” or something? I am interested as to what the process will be for this, because we have 25 Acts here at least—there are probably more than that, in truth—that need amending.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

As I said, the exercise is an enormous one. It requires legal brains to get their heads around the statutes before we can even think about putting a consolidation Bill together. I am afraid I cannot be precise in answer to the noble Baroness but I will see whether I can clarify and distil what I have tried to say—obviously not very adequately—by writing to her. I will of course copy my letter to the noble Lords, Lord Stunell and Lord Carrington. In doing so, I hope I can provide complete reassurance about the intent behind these regulation-making powers.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 24th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I believe it is in one local authority, but I will check that. I will let the noble Lord know and make sure that everybody else in the Committee is aware.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and to the Minister for yet another thorough and thoughtful answer in response to the amendments.

When I moved my amendment last week, I said that I was pleased to see that the government amendment seemed to be complementary to my amendment, and therefore it was good to hear that some new steps are coming forward as regards placing some more requirements on developers in this respect. The Minister outlined some of those, such as publishing data on developers and diversity, the proposal on slow delivery and how it results in turn-downs, and financial penalties that we would be able to impose from local government, and so on. However, it would be good to see the details of those and how they are going to be incorporated. I assume they may go into the National Planning Policy Framework, but again, to echo the point we made several times, so far we have not seen that.

I remind noble Lords that the Local Government Association has said that it did not believe that “tangible powers” had been brought forward in the Bill to enable councillors to encourage developers to build out. I hear what the Minister said about secondary applications from those builders, but local authorities need powers to deal with current applications, where the buildout is slow too, so I hope some more thought might be given to that. The noble Lord, Lord Best, referred to the fact that builders may operate across different areas, which is a good point. However, if we take action on developers in the first instance, perhaps they will be encouraged not to go and apply elsewhere if they think that there will be action and that financial penalties will be imposed where they are too slow to build out.

I reiterate our strong support for Amendment 269 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best. On the issue of diversification in larger developments, I take the Minister’s point that that might also apply to other developments in terms of making sure they include all types of accommodation. We have had long debates in your Lordships’ House around supported accommodation, but it can also apply to student accommodation—I have a particular passion for social housing. That is important. I also wanted to make the point that those types of accommodation being requirements, whether it is through the local planning authority or as part of the National Planning Policy Framework, would also help encourage the development of specialist builders and help us to get a wider picture across the country with specialist builders who have great experience in developing for those particular areas.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, spoke about the viability issue, which I am sure has and will be the subject of discussions. On the Islington example she gave, those questions have arisen across the country. It is important we continue to debate that as part of the Bill, because I believe it is an opportunity to try to crack some of these issues around viability that we have been trying to wrestle with.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, gave examples of the huge failure to build out, which means that 2.8 million permissions have been granted since 2011 but only 1.6 million homes have been built. We desperately need those homes, so we need to do whatever we can to push that forward and end the delays in the system—from land banking but also from other issues.

I come back to the issue of diversification of property. If we are not going to have a proper diversification strategy built in, we need a proper definition of affordable housing, because the current definition just does not work; that has been a theme throughout discussion of the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, said, the affordable housing definition does not work for lots of people in our communities, as we have discussed many times in this House. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 261 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in giving general support to the thrust of the amendments, not only on the grounds advanced by other noble Lords but because they would mitigate something I regard as a positive evil. It has become possible in recent years for major developers proposing major projects to offer to local planning authorities to fund the salary of a planning officer to help deal with their case. When I had responsibility in a London borough for planning policy, I resisted accepting that sort of offer, but perhaps we could afford to do so.

This strikes to some extent at the heart of public confidence in the planning system, which is always a little fragile. Noble Lords who have been involved in it will know that there are always people who suspect that there has been a fix and that something corrupt is going on, but that is not the case in my experience. However, to allow a developer to fund a planning officer only exaggerates that perception and damages public confidence in the planning system. The way out of this, not least in the context of devolution, must be to allow the charges to cover the costs. It also seems appropriate if we want to empower elected officials in local authorities. It is open to the possibility of abuse, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said, and a local authority could seek to deter applications by setting punitively high fees, but my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham’s amendment broadly addresses that possibility. It might need a little refinement, but the principle is none the less clear and acceptable. I encourage support for this amendment because we are not taking sufficient notice of the evil I mentioned, which harms the planning system.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 267 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Young, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, was music to my ears; Amendment 287 from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, is very similar. I have never understood why the public purse—the hard-pressed local government public purse at that—has to subsidise the development industry even for the very largest and most profitable developments. We have long spoken about a “polluter pays” principle in discussions on the environment; perhaps it is time we had a “profiter pays” principle in planning.

This issue has long been debated in local government. It is the subject of general incredulity that, at this time of financial crisis for local government, it is still allowed to continue. The Local Government Association has lobbied consistently on this point, stating in its recent response:

“We welcome the proposal to increase planning application fees, as it has for a long time been our position that there is a need for a well-resourced planning system. However, the Government should go further by allowing councils to set planning fees locally.”


I do not think it is a surprise to any noble Lords that local authority planning departments are at full stretch already. The noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to how they will respond to the 47 clauses in this Bill, never mind the issue of street votes—they will have plenty of work to do, that is for sure. It is an area of specialism where there are considerable shortages of professionals. In spite of a great deal of work being done to encourage young people to consider planning as a career and increase the number of routes into the profession, there remain difficulties in recruitment and retention. This is even worse in areas surrounding London, where it is almost impossible for local authorities to compete with the packages offered to planning officers in London.

This is exacerbated by the pressure of work; I know that many noble Lords in the Chamber will have sat through contentious planning application hearings, and I do not think any of us would be surprised to learn that our officers subject themselves to considerable stress. Therefore, it is only right that the industry makes a fair contribution to the cost of processing applications where it will reap substantial developer profit. This will enable local authorities to ensure that their planning teams are resourced adequately.

We also strongly support Amendment 283 in the name of my noble friend Lady Young, and so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. She is absolutely right that statutory consultees, often hard-pressed themselves, should be able to recover the costs from applicants. I understand that of the £50 million bill for this, cited by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, 60% was incurred by Natural England and the Environment Agency as the two statutory consultees dealing with the greatest number of planning consultations. It was as far back as 2018 that the top five statutory consultees came together to form a working group to identify potential alternative funding mechanisms to address the increasingly critical and unsustainable position. They made recommendations to DLUHC in March 2019. This work highlighted the need for a change in primary legislation to provide a broad enabling power under which statutory planning consultees could pass on the costs incurred in providing statutory advice to applicants, either as part of the existing planning fees or as an additional separate charge.

We welcome the inclusion of a power in the LURB to enable statutory consultees to recover costs incurred in providing advice on nationally significant infrastructure projects. That alone, though, makes only a modest contribution to addressing the challenge of establishing the sustainable funding model. I believe for Natural England, approximately 70% of the statutory consultation work will continue to be reliant on grant in aid. Will the Government introduce a power that will help us? If not, the Government are, in effect, committing to rely on the Exchequer as the primary means of funding the essential role that statutory consultees play in support of the operation of the planning system.

There is also the danger that we will create an inconsistent funding model between NSIP cases and non-NSIP cases that are of a comparable size or impact, such as large-scale housing developments. That could result in the need to prioritise resources for NSIP work over non-NSIP work, create inconsistency in service levels and potentially disadvantage large housing developments, which would be the exact opposite direction to the way we want to go. I hope that the strength of my noble friend Lady Young’s amendment will be taken into account.

Consideration should also be given to other statutory agencies. We have seen similar pressures on colleagues in the National Health Service, for example, where they have to comment on planning applications. There is also pressure on the resources of county councils to respond to matters relating to highways, flood risk, education and adult and children’s care provision—to name just a few—which is required on almost every major application and some smaller applications. It is simply not right that those costs should fall on public agencies whose funding is limited. If they were adequately recompensed, their ability to respond to applications in a timely manner might be improved.

Government Amendment 285C is similar to that proposed by my noble friend Lady Young—I hope we can at least agree on that—but, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, pointed out, this may not refer to charging for local authorities. We would want to see both local authorities and statutory consultees able to charge something like the recovery of the costs they incur in relation to the planning system.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 267 and 287 have been tabled by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, respectively. I assure your Lordships that the Government understand the concerns about stretched resources in local planning authorities. However, we do not believe that enabling local planning authorities to vary fees and charges is the way to answer resourcing issues, and it does not provide any incentive to tackle inefficiencies. Local authorities having different fees creates uncertainty and unfairness for applicants and, if set too high, could risk unintended consequences by discouraging development.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

275: Clause 107, page 142, line 8, after “completed,” insert “or 4 years if there is a significant impact on the local environment,”
Member's explanatory statement
This means that the extended time limits for enforcement of planning controls does not apply when there is a significant impact on the local environment.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendments 277, 280 to 281B and 282 in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman and in mine. I shall also make some comments in relation to Amendments 276, 278 and 279, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and Amendment 281C in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead.

The increasingly acrimonious circumstances in which planning is often discussed, debated and granted has significantly increased the burden of enforcement. This is combined with a contraction of local authority planning teams due to reductions in local authority funding, which is putting increasing burdens on the planning process, as we have already debated today in Committee. Our amendments are in recognition of that and to ensure that timescales, fines and practices are developed in a way that is proportionate to the current circumstances.

As one brief example, most local councillors will be familiar with their weekly planning list having a number of certificate of lawfulness applications—they are a particular bugbear of mine. These mean that the applicant has not applied for the appropriate permissions in advance and, having now built out their development, is only now seeking the approval of the planning authority. There is little if any appropriate sanction for this behaviour, which seems grossly unfair to all those who take the necessary steps to submit their applications properly in advance of building.

It is fair to say that such developers face the risk of the planning authority turning down their retrospective application, and there have been notable examples of authorities requiring buildings and/or alterations to be taken down. However, with the powers of enforcement diminished, both in this respect and for straightforward breaches of planning, simply by the lack of resources to deal with enforcement, the danger is that we continue to see from the worst offenders a cavalier approach taken to the planning process.

Amendments 275 and 277 in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock are designed to draw attention to the fact that it may be necessary to foreshorten the extended time limits for the enforcement of planning controls where there is a significant impact on the environment. We appreciate that the 10-year window is necessary for raising issues relating to planning enforcement, but it will be important that all involved in development understand that, if enforcement relates to an issue where substantial harm is being caused to the environment, planning officers will expect these to be dealt with more quickly. We hope this amendment will give them the power to do so. The amendment aims to prevent a delayed response from developers, not to limit the amount of time planning controls can be exercised over environmental matters. This should be 10 years, as for all other matters.

We have discussed previously in Committee the need for rapid digitisation of the planning process, where that has not already been done. Amendment 280 is a probing amendment to ensure that this is the case for the enforcement aspects of planning as well.

As in other parts of the Bill, we believe that new burdens may be imposed on local authorities in relation to enforcement. Amendment 281 in my name is to flag up again that there will be a need for an overall assessment of all parts of the Bill to understand the likely financial impact on local authorities. We have received previous assurances from the Minister on new burdens funding. It would be good to know that relevant professional and representative bodies will be consulted on this important issue as quickly as possible after the Bill passes into law, so that no undue financial burdens are placed on already hard-pressed local authorities.

As we have discussed in previous clauses, the financial burden of planning does not fall proportionately on the developer, which is true of enforcement too. Amendment 281A in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock is included to ensure that we do not inadvertently create an enforcement fine regime where it is more cost effective for the developer to breach planning rules and guidelines because the cost of non-compliance is less than the profit they are likely to make from any breach.

My Amendment 281B seeks to introduce a very important provision that would prevent developers applying for an exemption to the provisions in a planning application to deliver affordable housing in a development. We are all very familiar with the long wrangles that planning authorities are having over viability. Our concern is that, if this exemption from enforcement clause were to apply to the delivery of agreed affordable housing, it would simply be another get-out clause in the armoury for developers, with their significant legal firepower, to avoid providing much-needed affordable housing.

Clause 116 is concerned with ensuring that the planning process works as efficiently as possible and makes best use of digital technology. My Amendment 282 seeks to set the purpose of this in the Bill, so there can be no doubt that it is the intention to avoid delays wherever possible.

Amendment 276 is in the names of the noble Earls, Lord Lytton and Lord Devon. Just as our amendments recognise the importance of a shorter enforcement period for environmental issues, it recognises the importance of changes of use to a dwelling house. We agree that, where enforcement relates to somebody’s home, a shorter time period than 10 years would be preferable.

Amendment 278, in the names of the noble Earls, Lord Lytton and Lord Devon, recommends consultation with affected parties on extending the time limits for planning enforcement from four years to 10 years. We would always support such steps, as professional bodies and local government representative bodies can be essential consultees in ensuring that all consequences are understood from the outset and that any unintended consequences can be predicted and mitigated.

On Amendment 279, in the names of the noble Earls, Lord Lytton and Lord Devon, we will be interested to hear the Minister’s response on whether it is the intention for the provisions of the Bill to be retrospectively applied to developments which, under current legislation, have reached the time limit for enforcement. Is the legislation to apply only to enforcement for developments started after the commencement of the Act? Will there be a transition period, or will it automatically apply to all developments that have reached the current four-year limit?

Amendment 281C in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, seeks to insert in the Bill the explanation of the purpose of Clause 113, as is contained in the Explanatory Notes. We have had a number of examples during our examination of this Bill where the absence of these explanatory clauses could potentially cause ambiguity in their interpretation. Therefore, we support this sensible move to insert the explanatory clause in the Bill. I beg to move my amendment.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, probing Amendment 276, and Amendments 278 in 279, are in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, who is regrettably unable to be with us today. Apart from declaring an interest as a property owner, I must also explain that I have in the past been threatened with enforcement proceedings—so guilty as charged, or perhaps not guilty as charged. I am very grateful to a number of planning practitioners who explained some of the finer points of all this to me.

These amendments relate to Clause 107 and refer to what is known as the four-year rule. The current position is that, if works to a property have been undertaken more than four years previously, the owner is immune from enforcement action by the local authority. The equivalent period for changes of use, which of course may be harder to spot, is 10 years. A minimum of 10 years unchallenged enjoyment of both works and change of use is required before a lawful use certificate can be claimed. If you like, the entitlement at that stage becomes absolute.

I should add that, for works or changes of use to a listed building or, I think, for one in a conservation area, time does not run against the enforcing authority, and so protection of heritage is not an issue. Furthermore, works of development that are done secretively or by concealment are, I believe, also not protected by the four-year rule. So the building of a house within the confines of an agricultural barn, as happened in one rather infamous case, would not escape.

The system has operated for many years, quite successfully as far as I know. In the most recent review of the arrangements, the four-year cut off remained unamended. My own sense is that, if works have not been spotted after four years, it is quite unlikely that they will be spotted more readily in years five to 10. Indeed, one might conclude that, if it is that unobtrusive, it should scarcely be a planning concern anyway. It is more likely that it will crop up to ensnare an unwary owner who makes a subsequent application and some historic non-compliance is spotted at that stage.

The four-year rule also recognises that planning is complex, with many pitfalls for the unwary, and that it is not necessary or desirable to micromanage planning uses of land and buildings. For instance, erection of deer fencing, construction of ponds and the placing of certain structures on land may in some cases require consent but in others they do not. A movable item nearly always does not trigger a planning issue but leaving it in the same place for too long does.

Many households think that a permitted development right absolves them of the need for any consent at all. I believe it is government policy to reduce burdens on householders. Furthermore, where a local planning authority has issued what is known as an Article 4 direction, removing permitted development rights for certain types of development, owners may not be aware of this or be made aware, even in a purchase situation. As in one instance which occurred in my professional career, a shopkeeper might find that they are subject to enforcement procedures for displaying an internally illuminated sign fixed to the interior of their shop window glass, but not if it is a foot or two further back. The rules are opaque, convoluted and may be interpreted differentially per authority. As I see it, the four-year rule served to prevent this becoming a more serious issue.

But Clause 107 would remove this protection. I know of no justification for doing this, nor any public consultation that underpins that decision to include it in the Bill. I think that most householders, and possibly quite a few lenders, would view this with concern. But the removal would have, in my opinion, a somewhat more sinister side-effect. I know of instances whereby an annoyed builder has set out to shop a property owner who did not award him a contract of works, or shopped the successful contractor—or a neighbour averring to the authorities that works in non-compliance are taking place, either because of neighbourly detestation or, as in one case known to me, because the neighbour took umbrage about the builders’ vehicle parking and plant-unloading arrangements in the street outside their home. So to leave the door open for an additional six years to this sort of risk of a snooper’s charter is socially, economically and administratively undesirable.

--- Later in debate ---

My department is already working with local authorities to tackle the very issue this amendment raises. We are working collaboratively with local authorities through the Open Digital Planning project, which aims to increase efficiencies in the development management process through creating modern development management software. The local authorities that are using the modern development management software we are trialling have seen an estimated 35% time saving in the pre-validation process, when an application is first submitted, and, post validation, in the process the reach a decision. Before enacting these powers, we will fully engage with local planning authorities and the sector as a whole. Given that one of the core aims of this power is to streamline the process, we will, of course, consider the impact on speed of decision-making. So, while I support the intention of this amendment, I hope the noble Baroness will be content not to move it when it is reached.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. I am also grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for his response. I am afraid that enforcement is an element of planning that is little understood by the public; they often think that our powers and resources are much greater than they are to deal with some of the issues that arise. I pay tribute to planning officers who field all of this on a daily basis. Even in our short discussion here, it has been clear that it is not always very straightforward. We are all striving to improve confidence in the process as we go through the amendments to the Bill.

Some confusion has arisen around the proposed amendments to the time periods, but, having had the explanation from the noble Earl, that is a bit clearer. It was about whether the four-year time limit was there to begin enforcement action and that was now being moved to 10 years, which gives a longer wind. I accept all the comments that have been made—particularly by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton—asking whether, if nobody has noticed it in four years, they will notice it in 10 years, and whether it really matters if they do. However, these issues can be very serious, as we have heard in previous debates in this Committee. I think a longer time period for enforcement to be able to be taken does not make sense, particularly where, as explained, there are two timescales at play in the Town and Country Planning Act.

Our concern is that this might give reasons for delay to the enforcement action itself, particularly for issues around environmental action. We need to make absolutely sure that we are not going to give any opportunity for delay in responding to enforcement action. If there is going to be a delay in the reporting of it, that is one thing. If there is going to be a delay in responding to it, that is a whole other issue. In terms of the points made by the noble Earl on engagement with key stakeholders, I was reassured to hear him say that the delay to the time period had come directly from the key stakeholders involved.

We have had plenty of discussions in previous Committee sessions on the Bill about digitisation. I think that local government has gone quite a lot further than some of the people in DLUHC might think. I will leave that there, but of course we can always do better on digitisation.

The issue of local authority resources is very important to all of us, as we are constantly debating. There are quite a lot of acutely aware people in the public who might see the introduction of enforcement notices, potentially creating an expectation that we are going to have further action on them. We always have to be careful that we look at the resources that are going to be required to deal with new measures, and the same applies to this part of the Bill. I was extremely pleased to hear about the increase in fines for retrospective applications, which have been a long-standing bugbear of mine, as I said earlier.

The noble Earl mentioned that it is not the intention to give relief from affordable housing provisions. I understand what he said: that that provision is directed at emergency provision for construction sites. Those of us who were in local government at the time had plenty of contact from both the construction sector and from members of the public about changes to that—there was a need for emergency procedures then. We will take a closer look at that, as we believe there could be unintended consequences—particularly on the provisions for affordable housing—from that issue.

I will now turn to some of the comments made by other noble Lords. I have already mentioned the comment by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who asked whether, if something had not been spotted in four years, it was really an issue at all. It is often surveyors who pick up these issues at the exchange of property: a surveyor might go in and realise that something is not quite right with the property. I was quite surprised to hear the noble Earl say that there should be a line drawn under this after four years. Owners may not be aware of the Article 4 directions; I do think there is a very widespread lack of understanding around Article 4 directions and what they can mean. The rules are certainly a bit opaque, but I do not think it is repressive and intrusive local councils that are causing the problem here.

We do have the issue around HMOs and permitted development—which the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred to very powerfully—where you end up with these beds in sheds developments. The permitted development and HMO regimes exacerbate that and may need just as much attention as the enforcement mechanisms. I would agree that a better outcome would be trying to get compliance, rather than going into litigation. I really chimed with her point about people chopping down trees with TPOs—they would do that and then worry about the TPO afterwards.

I am grateful for all the responses to the points that have been made. I do remain concerned that the Bill is not terribly clear about whether it is enforcement or reporting of enforcement breaches that are extended to 10 years. That could do with some clarification. We will take a further look at that. With that, I withdraw my amendment for the time being.

Amendment 275 withdrawn.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, is quite right to raise the issue of accessible and inclusive design. Everyone benefits where design is accessible and inclusive for everyone, so all planners and all local plan strategies should bear that in mind as a prior consideration. The noble Lord has our complete support.

We must say two things to the Government that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has said several times today. We need the content of both the National Planning Policy Framework and the national development management plan before we get to Report, otherwise we will have to include in the Bill content that may later appear in either of those two important plans. We cannot operate in this vacuum of lack of knowledge and information about the content of two absolutely fundamental building blocks of strategic planning. We need to keep raising that—I think it was also raised today by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage—and I hope the Minister has heard the pleas from across the Committee.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, not just for his amendment but for his continued work to ensure that we keep issues of inclusivity at the forefront when considering all aspects of the Bill, particularly planning. Levelling up must relate not just to tackling inequalities between the regions and places in the UK but to ensuring that no group is excluded from opportunities that are open to the rest of us. That is why the amendments in this group are so important.

We absolutely support the principle behind the noble Lord’s Amendment 217 and will definitely support the consideration of observations and advice relating to inclusive design as local authorities go through their plan-making process. But for the sake of practicality, if this amendment is accepted, there may be a need for further guidance about whether local authorities could be exempted on individual developments if they are able to demonstrate adequate reasons for that. I certainly do not suggest that they should be able to do so on many grounds—they would have to be very exceptional circumstances—but if that was not included, there may be examples, such as where heritage assets are involved in the development or something like that, where there would need to be some consideration of other factors. But it is a very good amendment, as is Amendment 302, which is an unequivocal statement, which we absolutely support, to ensure that inclusive design is enshrined in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

A hugely important issue has been raised, because it is not just the area of the Fens that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, mentioned in terms of water shortage but the south-east and the east of England, where water supply is restricting housing development. He is absolutely right in those terms. All I would say on that score is that the north of England has a good supply of water, and we are willing to sell it, at a cost, to those areas of shortage—actually, that does not work either, because it is very difficult to move water around the country. I will listen carefully to what the Minister has to say—I always do—but this is a fundamental issue about strategic planning on a national scale, so it would be worth hearing what has been said.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords. It will be just a very brief intervention from me. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for raising what is a very important issue, having been involved with two very long-term major projects in my role as council leader and having seen how difficult it is to tie in the provision of major infrastructure, which is generally done at the national level because that is the way that the operators and the regulators work, with what is going on at the local level.

At the heart of this is the need to create a very smooth path for the provision of infrastructure, so that, when there are interruptions to the process along the way, the system can cope. If we do not do that, we end up with disconnection between the development itself and the provision of infrastructure, with one holding the other up. In our case, in the east of England, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said, water is an issue, so we have to think about that. One of our major developments related to a greenfield site that had not been developed—it still has not; we have been working for 27 years on that one. When we started, we would not have thought about solar or wind energy, but now we have to think about those things, so there must be flexibility—and of course we also have new forms of infrastructure coming in, such as broadband.

This is a key amendment that points us towards looking at how we deal with the infrastructure of developments as we go through the planning process, linking the bodies that work at national level, national infrastructure funding and so on with local development. How will that work and fit in with this system? We have talked a lot about how the various bits of the planning system fit together, and a probing amendment on this issue is extremely helpful; I am very grateful to the noble Lord for tabling it. If the Minister does not accept it today, I hope she will give it some thought as we go through the rest of the Bill.

Supported Housing

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2023 Grand Committee

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe for securing this important debate, and all noble Lords who have participated. I also thank the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the National Housing Federation and Shelter for their exceptionally helpful briefings, and, of course, our brilliant Library, which, as ever, has provided us with a comprehensive, relevant and balanced briefing.

Many of us in local government care passionately about supported housing and genuinely understand the importance of having safe, secure and stable accommodation accompanied by support tailored to individual needs. However, we often feel that we have been trying to deliver this for years with both hands tied behind our backs. We make the case over and again that, for vulnerable groups such as older people, those with learning or physical disabilities, families at risk—including the homeless—those who have been in the criminal justice system, people with complex needs that may include drug or alcohol dependency, those with poor mental health and those fleeing domestic abuse, a safe, secure and affordable home is the starting point for supporting their other needs.

We should also take note of the overwhelming evidence that providing these groups quickly with the housing and other support they need has the potential to save the public purse billions, as it prevents more expensive interventions having to be used, as comprehensively outlined by my noble friend Lady Warwick, the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, and other noble Lords.

It is fair to say that there are some fantastic examples of just what can be achieved all over the country, and it is to the enormous credit of local government that it has delivered some of these innovations in spite of the truly unprecedented cuts in local government funding and unfunded inflation experienced in recent years. The problem now is that we see a patchwork approach to this instead of what we want to see, which is excellence delivered everywhere.

I will give a couple of examples from Stevenage, which I know best, but there are great examples all over the country, including the one that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester kindly outlined about One Roof Leicester. We are developing new residential accommodation for older people, based on their ambitions and aspirations articulated during our consultation process. Sheltered housing will be located alongside extra care facilities so that people do not lose their community connections, neighbours, shops, faith groups and so on when they need more support. There will be on-site provision of health, podiatry, chiropody, hairdressing and so on—all available for them.

Our “No More” service started as a support project to help those with complex needs sustain tenancies, providing one-to-one support from a caseworker. Following the pandemic, it extended to incorporate a new range of housing under our housing first project. Using a combination of modern-method-of-construction buildings, new builds and regenerated homes, we are making sure that people have a roof over their heads and are supported by a package we have negotiated with the adult care team at the county council.

Lastly, for domestic abuse victims, we have our safe space accommodation. The noble Lord, Lord Young, clearly articulated the need for this, and kindly referred to the supporting people funding programme, which provides fully equipped homes for abuse victims and their families which have everything they need, even if they flee with nothing but the clothes they stand up in. They receive support from our team and initially occupy under licence but, in some cases, we are able to convert to a permanent tenancy if that proves in the interest of the victim.

However, there remain structural, financial and, occasionally, legal challenges to making the best provision for those who need supported housing. With support provision being under the remit of adult care and the NHS, as well as voluntary and community sector providers, and housing sitting with the district council, this becomes very complicated in two-tier areas and, I suspect, not much less complicated in areas with unitary government. The National Housing Federation reports that nine out of 10 supported housing residents have complex needs and at least one health condition or disability; half of them have more than one of these conditions.

Financing is always a challenge. With housing authorities still facing considerable difficulties, with receipts taken from right to buy by government and rent levels capped, it takes herculean efforts to fund the innovation we need to see in supported housing. Does the Minister have any idea what further steps the Government can take for financial incentives to deliver supported housing?

We had a useful, thoughtful and helpful debate in Committee of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill about what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, described as a challenging planning environment. In response to a question in your Lordships’ Chamber this morning, the Minister indicated that she would be open to amendments to LURB to encourage supported housing provision. We would be interested whether she has any further thoughts on that this afternoon.

I will conclude—I could go on about this all day but will try not to. We know that there is an unmet need for supported housing, alongside all the other community aspects that can improve physical health and well-being. Sadly, the important role of all of these in public mental health is under great pressure following years of austerity cuts, as outlined by many noble Lords. We believe that this is short-sighted and only puts far more cost pressure on acute services. Let us pick up the innovation already under way in local government so that everyone who needs it has the supported housing provision best suited to their needs, leading to, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester mentioned, the transformational outcomes that we all want to see.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)]

My Lords, I am very conscious that I do not have an awful lot of time. I will get through as much as I can and, if I do not answer everything, I will write to noble Lords.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, for securing in such a timely manner this important debate on supported housing and its impact on homelessness prevention, health and well-being. I also thank all noble Lords for their considered and insightful contributions. I have a personal interest in this sector. My daughter, Sarah, who has been physically handicapped from birth, has just moved into wonderful supported housing in Winchester. It has transformed her life. She thought that she could not continue to be independent, but she is and has that support. However, noble Lords are absolutely right that funding for supported housing is more difficult and can be more expensive for people. We must consider this; as the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, said, there are good facilities but there are also some bad ones.

The reach of supported housing is wide, providing vital support for many people to live independently. These include older people, people experiencing homelessness, people with disabilities and those with mental ill health. There are many good providers, but there are others that we need to deal with.

The Government see supported housing as key to the delivery of successful outcomes in areas of utmost importance, including rough sleeping, domestic abuse, and adult social care, as we have heard. Not least through the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Bill, the Government are committed to ensuring that there is supported housing for those people not just in numbers but of good quality into the future. We are hearing horror stories about what is happening in the sector.

I am grateful to the National Housing Federation for commissioning its important research on the impact of supported housing on homelessness prevention, health and well-being. Its key findings include the finding that, were it not for supported housing, there would be an increase in homelessness and more need for in-patient care and prison places. The research also highlights the importance of pathways from supported housing, as we heard, and the difficulties that may be experienced by some people when moving on—there was a lot of talk about moving on, which is an important issue.

As I said, the Government are very aware of having enough accommodation for people, not only supported housing but accommodation afterwards. That is why two things are happening: there is £11.5 billion in the affordable homes programme, which includes a necessity for local authorities to look at housing for older, disabled and vulnerable people in their areas. Our planning rules, which will be strengthened through the LUR Bill, mean that, in councils’ local plans, they must consider the needs of these people, which is perhaps an important change in attitude.

Socially rented homes often serve the needs of the most vulnerable in society, and, as I said, the Government recognised this in the levelling-up White Paper. We want people who need help to live independently to be able to access supported housing, but, where possible, they should also be able to move forward with their lives and into general housing in a timely way.

There is evidence that the demand for supported housing is growing, particularly among certain cohorts. Research by the London School of Economics in 2017 projected that, by 2030, the amount of supported housing needed in England for older people and people with learning disabilities would increase by 35% and 55%, respectively—that is a big increase. However, national data is outdated and needs to be improved, which is why the department has commissioned research to provide an up-to-date estimate of the size, cost and demand of the supported housing sector. The findings are expected to be published at the end of this year, and they will be important in further policy development in this sector.

In the longer term, and subject to Royal Assent, strategic planning and licensing measures in the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Bill—which the noble Lord, Lord Best, will ably lead through the House—will enable further opportunities for data collection to support national and local decision-making on supported housing. Taken together, these steps will build a better national picture of the need for, and supply of, supported housing into the future, as I said.

The Government encourage new supply of supported housing through capital subsidy—I mentioned the £11.5 billion affordable homes programme—alongside the Department of Health and Social Care investment in supported housing through the care and support specialised housing fund. But, as noble Lords said, we know that supported housing is more than the bricks and mortar of a building; it is about the critical support services that come along with the home, to enable people to live independently.

Funding for housing-related local support services is through the wider local government settlement. This will perhaps be difficult for anyone in local government to take into account, because they are under so many pressures, but local government got £59.7 billion in England this year, and much of that was for use in adult social care.

But the integrated care systems coming together in areas are also key to this, because that is where we can look at the joined-up health and care services—the council working with the health community—to see where we can keep independence. I have to say that it is also probably where we can look to save money locally, or at least get more service than is currently there, by keeping people independent in really good accommodation, such as supported housing. So that is an opportunity to have those conversations locally in integrated care partnerships.

Supported housing is, and will continue to be, an integral part of achieving the Government’s manifesto commitment to end rough sleeping by the end of this Parliament. However, as I have said, we do not care just about the amount but about the quality. That is why the Government are backing the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Best. We look forward to its Second Reading on 21 April. The Government will support it wholeheartedly.

I just make it clear to the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, that care homes are separately regulated under the CQC. They are not supported housing, but some forms of housing with care—such as extra care or supported living—are. It is quite a complex issue and it is important that we understand that. That is why the Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Best, is so important: it covers the regulatory bit of the supported housing that the CQC provides at the moment in care homes.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, talked about poor housing that is not fit for purpose. Again, I ask that we make time for the Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Best, because that is an important part of taking that forward.

We have talked about moving-on accommodation; I think that I have covered everything that noble Lords have asked, but I will go through Hansard. We recognise the benefits of supported housing and what it can deliver for not only residents but wider society. The Government are committed to ensuring that supported housing is available and provides good-quality support—quality is important—and accommodation for all those in our communities who need it.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, may I raise a point about the funding that has gone to upper-tier authorities in two-tier areas for adult social care? There is no requirement for those authorities to passport any of that to the housing authority, which is a really big issue. We can deliver what we can with the funding that we have in district authorities, but there is no requirement on those other authorities to pass that funding on. That is something that the Government may want to think about.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I take that into account; I will look at it and come back to the noble Baroness.

Building (Public Bodies and Higher-Risk Building Work) (England) Regulations 2023

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Tuesday 28th March 2023 Grand Committee

I apologise to the Minister for saying again that this has to be put right, but what is in the regulations is positive. With those few questions, which I am sure the Minister will be able to answer, I support this instrument.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, we absolutely support the introduction of these regulations, which are the latest welcome—if somewhat belated—step in establishing a more stringent building safety regime for higher-risk buildings, as recommended in Dame Judith Hackitt’s review as far back as 2018. Although we are going in the right direction, it remains an appalling scandal that tackling the shocking failures in building safety standards has now dragged on for more than five years.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that the push for the deregulation of building control in favour of the private sector providing those services was at least a contributory factor in some cases to non-compliance with building safety regulations. I know that the Minister is aware of the case of Vista Tower in Stevenage and Sophie Bichener, who has fought a long campaign on these matters. We welcome the focus now on ensuring that the Building Safety Regulator is the building control authority for all higher-risk building work carried out on public body buildings.

This SI also removes the power for the Secretary of State to grant exemptions for higher-risk buildings, although, as the Minister told us, the exemption power still remains for non-higher-risk buildings. We will need to be reassured that these definitions are very tight and will be adhered to so that we can be assured that all building work will be correctly categorised in terms of the building’s risk. There will need to be clear criteria for the change when an authority is required to declare that its building has gone from “non-higher-risk” to “higher-risk”.

I have done so before, but I want to pay tribute to the tenacity of the campaigning Grenfell survivors, building safety campaign groups and individuals across the country who have worked tirelessly to bring the seriousness of the issues being dealt with here today to the attention of the Government and the public. I draw the Minister’s attention to a number of questions that have been raised in relation to the Explanatory Memorandum, although, of course, we will be happy to receive responses in written form if she is not able to answer them today; they are questions of clarification and do not change our support for the regulations.

First, when looking at the building safety leaseholder protections regulations, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee identified the issue of public bodies claiming that their SPVs—special purpose vehicles—are responsible for building safety, rather than the bodies themselves. Would these regulations also apply to SPVs?

The Explanatory Memorandum to the earlier Higher-Risk Buildings (Key Building Information etc.) (England) Regulations 2023 quoted a number of 13,000 higher-risk buildings in the UK. Do we know how many of them are the responsibility of public bodies?

What estimate has been made of the resources needed by the Building Safety Regulator to assess and carry out this building control work? I am aware that, earlier this month, the Government announced a welcome £42 million to recruit building control inspectors and fire inspectors for the Building Safety Regulator. Do we know the timeline for their recruitment and how quickly that will move forward?

Has any thought been given to the possibility that public bodies may have to pass on charges to tenants for retrospective building safety work? Have the Government specifically prohibited public bodies from doing so? Once the Building Safety Regulator starts looking at buildings, it may well identify further causes of work and that charge may be passed on to tenants; they can be very substantial bills.

The Explanatory Memorandum refers to a separate instrument that will limit the Metropolitan Police’s existing exemption and ensure that the Building Safety Regulator is the sole building control body for its buildings. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock: I cannot think of any reason why it is exempt from this in the first place but, clearly, that needs a separate instrument. How many buildings are affected by this and when will the instrument be introduced? Do we have a date yet?

The Explanatory Memorandum refers to a “for information” letter that has been sent to all government departments. Will the Minister please lay a copy of it in the Library?

The impact statement on this SI, as on other similar regulations relating to building safety, states:

“There is no, or no significant, impact on the public sector.”


Surely the assessment and collation of information, particularly where public bodies such as housing authorities have significant property holdings, will present a resource issue. If the Building Safety Regulator identifies significant issues, that, too, will result in potentially expensive remedial works. I am thinking particularly but not exclusively of local authorities, whose resources are already stretched to breaking point. Has the Local Government Association been consulted on this or asked for a view on the impact of safety regulations such as these on public bodies?

This is my last question; I am sure the Minister will be pleased to know that. Does Section 32 of the Building Safety Act apply similar provisions to those in this SI to buildings in the private sector? Does this mean that the framework for building control of higher-risk buildings is now complete, or are there still other regulations to be laid before the House?

In conclusion, we are pleased to see this suite of building safety regulations come forward and that this SI puts building control back into the hands of a regulator who will, we hope, ensure that the highest standards are met. We welcome the Government’s commitment, as stated by the Minister. We have some concerns about the resources and capacity of the Building Safety Regulator, on which it would be helpful to have some reassurance from the Minister; about the potential impact on resources for the public sector; and about whether this can be passed on to tenants. However, with those caveats, we welcome this better regulation overall and hope that it will give some further reassurance to those who occupy the buildings belonging to public bodies.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Committee and the two noble Baronesses opposite for their support of these regulations. This marks another step for building safety reform and the introduction of a higher-risk building control regime overseen by the Building Safety Regulator. I will go through a few of the questions that were asked.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked why a public body would be exempt. I have to say that these are just procedural exemptions; public bodies still have to comply with building regulation. They provided public bodies with some flexibility, if the Government agreed, but no more bodies will be drawn in; we are at the end of that now.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Taylor of Stevenage, asked why the Met Police got an exemption. The Met Police will be included from October for all its higher-risk buildings. We will have a separate SI for the Met Police so it is not going to get away with it; this will cover it as well.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked how many public bodies with existing exemptions are affected. As I said, all public bodies interested in getting a building control procedural exemption, either partly or wholly for higher-risk building work, are affected. They will no longer be considered for an exemption as these will be unlawful. Interest in using this exemption has been very low: there is currently only one public body with an exemption and only one exemption has been granted since 2000. We are talking about one body and no public bodies are currently requesting a new exemption. As I said, the one public body that has that exemption is the Metropolitan Police. It covers all its building work but it was agreed that, from October 2023, it will be limited to non-higher-risk building work only. This change will be included in separate regulations later in the year, as I said.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked about the definition of higher-risk buildings. She is quite right that this is about residential buildings—they must have at least two residential units in them—and care homes and hospitals. They also have to meet the 18-metre or seven-storey height threshold. The other areas that she was talking about are non-residential and are therefore subject to separate fire regulations.

I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, who asked about the recruitment of building control officers. This is important. We have put £42 million into this and we have started a programme of recruitment over three years, before we have to recharge it. That work is already happening; I will ask if there are any further details or updates on that as well.

I might have to look in Hansard for the details of some of the further questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, but I have noted some. I will write a letter on SPVs; the overarching answer is no but I want to make sure that I give the noble Baroness the details of why.

We talked about the 13,000 properties and how many the SI affects. It is one; that has been answered. As I have said, we have put in £42 million to help with recruitment. There was also something about retrospective charges in the public sector but I will look at the details of the noble Baroness’s question and send her something. We have discussed the Met Police.

The noble Baroness mentioned a letter. I am not aware of it but we will look into that and, if possible, put it in the Library for all noble Lords. We will also give the noble Baroness more detail about the private sector and local authorities in a letter, and make sure that both noble Baronesses get that letter and a copy is put in the Library.

As noble Lords know, these regulations are an important part of this Government’s reforms to ensure that residents are safe and feel safe in their homes. Before I sit down, I once again pay tribute to the Grenfell community. Without them and their sad loss, we would not be discussing these things. They are always in our thoughts. I once again thank noble Lords for their contributions today.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 27th March 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

185A: Clause 86, page 94, leave out lines 28 to 30
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would remove inserted subsection (5C), which would give primacy to the national development management policies over a development plan in the event of a conflict.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, the previous discussion highlighted some of the concerns we have about the contradictions between the matters that have been enshrined in the Bill, which some of us might think are not quite so important, and those which have been left out. Getting the balance right is clearly important. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and my noble friend Lady Hayman all said, now really is the time for nature recovery and such issues to be a clear focus and for them to be put into the Bill.

We have had lengthy earlier discussions relating to the unwelcome and centralising shift represented by the introduction of NDMPs. I hope that the Government have been left in no doubt about the deep disquiet in the local government community about this provision. Further to the earlier comments made on those serious planning matters, we believe that the Bill is simply not clear enough about how conflicts between local plans and NDMPs are to be dealt with. Our amendments in this group therefore address these issues.

Amendment 185A in my name seeks to take out the lines from Clause 86 that give automatic primacy to the NDMP where a conflict arises between it and the local plan. It is simply unthinkable that this could happen by virtue of statute, with no dialogue relating to why the local authority or the combined county authority considered it necessary to depart from the NDMP. Let me be provocative and suggest that it would, in effect, mean there was almost no point in preparing a local plan at all, if any conflict arising is to be determined in favour of the NDMP—which is, after all, determined in Whitehall. I will be interested in the Minister’s comments on this. Surely the provision goes against the key principles of devolution.

Amendment 186 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is similar but refers to “insignificant conflicts” between the local development plans and the NDMPs. If I know local government, I fear that this would involve considerable arguments, perhaps even resulting in legal arguments about what is and is not insignificant.

My noble friend Lady Hayman’s Amendment 187 aims to clarify the situation relating to how conflicts between local plans and the NDMP might be dealt with. It would add a further subsection to Clause 86, setting out how conflicts could be resolved in favour of the local development plan where a CCA had been handed powers over planning, highways, the environment and other functions of public bodies under the circumstances outlined in Schedules 16 and 17 or where the development plan comes under a joint spatial development strategy, or if it is in Greater London.

Amendment 192 is a probing amendment. It would insert a clause in the Bill setting out the primacy of the development plan over the NDMP, should there be a conflict. This amendment sits alongside other amendments to Clause 87 which aim to ensure—I want to be really clear about this—that the voices of local people and their democratically elected representatives have the primacy in determining the development of local areas.

Amendments 193 and 195 probe if there is to be any role for parliamentary scrutiny of how conflicts between development plans and the NDMP are resolved and/or whether Parliament is to be informed of the Secretary of State’s intention to override the local process. They also probe what role there is to be for a CCA whose constituent member or members may find themselves in a conflict between their development plan and the NDMP.

In summary, what is the mediation process to be? Surely there will not be an automatic assumption in favour of the policies produced centrally with no reference to local people. There is not much in the way of devolution in that proposal. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)]

My Lords, I have to inform your Lordships that, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 186, 187 and 187A because of pre-emption.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The point is to make clear that there is no conflict.

Amendment 193, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, would require the Secretary of State to

“lay a Statement before both Houses of Parliament”

if there is

“a conflict between the national development management policy and a development plan”.

As I have noted, actual instances of conflict between national development plan policies and those being included in the plans should be relatively unusual, as the Bill makes clear that planning policies should avoid such conflicts—something that will, in cases of doubt, be assessed transparently through public examination of those emerging plans as they are made. Should any conflicts arise when considering individual planning applications or appeals—for example, where the local plan has become very out of date—this will need to be made very clear through the report on the application, or the evidence before the planning inspector. These procedures will ensure transparency for communities. At the same time, it would be impossible for the Government to track every instance of such a conflict arising and to report to Parliament on it. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, will understand that this is not an amendment we can support.

Amendment 195, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, would require the Secretary of State to consult county combined authorities if it is deemed that there is a conflict between the national development management policy and a development plan. As I have already explained, where any inconsistencies arise between an emerging plan and the national development management policies, these will be evident during the plan preparation and examination. We expect that any county combined authority will be engaged in this process at the local level. There is no need for an additional statutory requirement to be placed on the Secretary of State in the way the amendment would do.

I have also pointed out the impracticality of applying a requirement of this nature in relation to any inconsistencies which might arise in the handling of individual planning applications, the great majority of which will not be cases that the Government are party to. Consequently, I hope that the noble Baroness will understand that we are unable to support this amendment. I hope that I have said enough to enable the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, to withdraw her Amendment 185 and for other amendments in this group not to be moved as they are reached.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, asked what intervention powers the Government will have to get involved. We think that local authorities know their area best and, unequivocally, are best placed to produce their own local plans. However, if local plans are not produced or are failing, or if something is absolutely wrong with that plan, the Secretary of State will retain the power to intervene if necessary.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, one of the problems that those of us who have been very involved in the planning system are having is that we cannot see how this all fits together and works in practice. In her last statement, the Minister said that local authorities know their area best, and those who have been involved in this system would certainly agree with that but, as we go through the process of looking closely at the Bill, it is getting more rather than less confusing.

We had a good discussion and some key issues have emerged, first around how little detail there is about the hierarchy of this new planning process. I accept that the Minister has offered to have a round table with us to discuss what that structure looks like and to listen to more of our concerns about how this is going to work in practice. There was a great deal of consideration of the issues around the strategic development plans for these new CCAs. A lot of work will go into the joint working on those strategic development plans, with their constituent members and partners. They reflect the significant new powers that they will have over transport, environment and issues relating to some other public bodies—potentially health, policing and so on. Some of us are struggling to understand why, after all the work that has gone in, there may be an intervention from the Government via the NDMPs to say that the planning process has to be intervened in or overturned. That is also of concern.

Another element was the consideration of whether this would be different depending on whether an up-to-date plan is in place or not. That is a key consideration and I accept the point from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that it may make a great difference as we go through the consideration of how these plans will work and what the review requirements are. We made the point in previous discussions, and I will make it again, that the big difference between the NPPF and the new NDMP is that the NPPF is guidance. As we have discussed previously, it can be flexible to local needs and often is, whereas the NDMP is going to be statutory. For example, how would it deal with applications made within the green belt? These are some of the practical issues with which some of us are wrestling, and I hope that a round-table discussion helps clear some of that up.

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, gave a very clear exposition of how he sees the word “significant” making a difference. I appreciate that. Of course, lawyers will be lawyers—I know there are some in this Chamber, so I will not take this line too far—but they embrace any words that can be interpreted in different ways, as we know. Those of us who have been in legal battles around these things before have the scars to show for it. My concern about that amendment was simply that it would result in a great deal of litigation.

We were discussing the planning powers of constituent local authorities and, of course, the role of these new CCAs will be very different from the role of either district councils, when they are doing their local plan, or county planning authorities, when they do things such as mineral and waste plans. I think we need some careful consideration of how those much more strategic plans will relate to NDMPs.

I have commented on the point from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about up-to-date plans; I think, where we have one, they should take precedence. The Minister also talked about how, if the neighbourhood plan is more up to date than the local plan, the neighbourhood plan would take precedence. By logic then, if the local plan is more up to date than the NDMP and there is a conflict between them, the local plan should take precedence. I cannot see why one would apply and the other would not.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

196A: Clause 88, page 95, line 24, leave out “are” and insert “the Mayor considers to be”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to remove ambiguity about whose opinion is relevant in relation to whether or not a matter is of strategic importance to more than one London borough.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, my Amendments 196A, 197 and 197A relate to implications from clauses in the Bill that impact specifically on London. The devolution proposals are, perhaps understandably, focused on areas outside London, with an emphasis on mayoral authorities, and do not always recognise the unique governance arrangements within London. London councils continue to make the case for further devolution to London and that boroughs should have a central role in this alongside the mayor.

Amendment 196A would clarify the ambiguity in the current wording of the Bill regarding the spatial development strategy for the development and use of land in Greater London. Policies that the mayor considers to be of strategic importance are included in that statement.

Amendment 197 would ensure that there are no unintended consequences of precluding policies that may apply to other urban areas or are not specific to Greater London uniquely.

Amendment 197A refers again to an issue that we discussed extensively last week. We were very clean to clarify it, but I am not sure we did to any great extent. It would remove the words that specifically preclude any clause from the NDMP being put into the spatial development strategy. In the case of London, as elsewhere, the Bill is saying that the strategy must neither be inconsistent with nor repeat anything in the NDMP. Surely all development plans will necessarily set out how they are using the NDMP and adapting it for their local context. In some cases, this may mean repeating what is in the NDMP.

My next amendment in this group, Amendment 199, would remove the restriction in Schedule 7 that a combined authority may not prepare a joint spatial development strategy. Combined authorities set up under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 may have established working arrangements that could well be used to work constructively towards developing joint spatial development strategies. I am interested to hear the Minister’s view about why they should be explicitly excluded from doing so in this clause.

I am interested to hear the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, in relation to her Amendments 198A and 198B, but to confer powers to develop spatial development strategies on county councils would be yet another major change to the current planning system. Combined authorities will already have authorities within them that have planning powers. County councils, as the system stands, have powers only over mineral and waste plans. Is it the noble Baroness’s intention that we should also have this major restructuring of the planning system in two-tier areas?

Amendment 200 from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would include a permissive clause to enable the joint spatial strategy to include strategic employment sites. This goes over and above the more general provision in Schedule 7 for new Section 15AA(2)(c), which is a general power to promote or improve economic well-being in the area. This seems a very sensible inclusion for the Bill.

Similarly, my noble friend Lady Hayman’s Amendment 200A is a permissive amendment to Schedule 7 to allow the inclusion of specific sites for health and social care purposes—including, importantly, palliative care services—in joint spatial strategies.

The amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, point to the need for those preparing joint spatial strategies to identify sites for vital infrastructure needed to support development at an early stage in strategic planning. This helps communities that are engaged in considering developments to be reassured that the infrastructure has been considered in detail and gives certainty, in the case of employment sites, to investors, and, in the case of health and social care sites, to both public and private providers, that their needs are being fully considered.

Amendments 202 to 204, my next three in this group, refer to the sub-paragraphs in Schedule 7 on consultation and engagement with all those who may have an interest in the plan. Amendment 202 is designed as a catch-all to ensure that all community groups are considered. The current provision refers to voluntary bodies; groups representing racial, ethnic or national groups or religious groups; and business organisations. Every area is different and has its own network of community organisations, so this would make sure that every relevant group is included.

Amendment 203 is very important. It removes the inexplicable sub-paragraph in the Bill that states:

“No person is to have a right to be heard at an examination in public.”


The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 contains specific provisions relating to when representations may be disregarded, but it seems a singularly swingeing provision for the Bill to suggest that no one has a right to be heard. I suspect that the intention is that the emphasis is on “right” rather than “no one”, but, at a time when we are trying to encourage more engagement of the public in planning and democracy generally, the wording here is particularly off-putting.

One of the huge issues that councils face is that the public often do not engage with the planning process at all until an application that immediately affects them is submitted. We should be encouraging more public engagement at a time when, for example, sites and land uses are being designated, so that the public feel that they have been able to contribute their local knowledge and views. I have another amendment in a later group on this. Will the Minister reflect on this wording?

People should absolutely have a right to be heard at an examination in public. For that reason, we have included Amendment 204, which adds an additional subsection to proposed new Clause 15AC, after proposed new subsection (7). At the moment, it states that only

“participating authorities, and … any person invited to do so by the person conducting the examination in public”

may attend. We believe that this should be amended so that people who have made representations to the inquiry in public and wish to attend should be able to. We appreciate that consideration may have to be given so that the examiner can decide not to hear representations, for example where they are not legitimate planning matters or are vexatious. In those cases, the individual should be informed of the reasons why they are not invited to appear.

Amendment 205, from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, sets out a new provision in the Bill to ensure that all relevant authorities in a travel to work area of a joint spatial development strategy are engaged in the preparation of the strategy. It has been a feature of planning in recent years that, increasingly, travel to work areas are a key consideration of the planning process. Indeed, as far back as 2014, in a letter addressed to the Planning Inspectorate, the then Minister for Housing and Planning, Brandon Lewis, urged that local plans take account of travel to work areas for their strategic housing market assessments. As borders between authorities become more fluid due to their economic profile, housing markets, transport and infrastructure; because the factors associated with climate change mitigation cannot operate within tight boundaries; and because of the strategic nature of joint spatial strategy preparation, it makes sense to us to incorporate this provision, which we would support.

In a similar vein, for the reasons that I have just explained, my Amendment 206 writes into the Bill a duty to co-operate where there is no joint spatial development strategy in place. In effect, most areas are already undertaking such joint planning exercises, and it would be unusual for a planning inspector or public inquiry not to look at this in some depth. It seems sensible to ensure that this is now enshrined in the Bill to give it the necessary foundation in law, and certainty to local authorities. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I will take the point back and consider it further, because some important issues have been brought up. I will make sure that, having given it some thought, we will discuss it further before Report.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Before we move on from this topic, I will add another observation: the county members are the ones that have the places on the combined authority. The districts do not have voting rights on those combined authorities. So I do not understand how it will work if the counties will not be included and cannot make decisions over planning when they are the constituent members with the powers to put the plan through. I think that this needs a little more thinking through.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I quite agree, and that is why I will take the point back and think further on it. As a county person myself, I have a lot of sympathy.

To make sure that our plan for a joint spatial development strategy happens, we are giving county councils the formal status of statutory consultee, as I said, so they can bring forward their expertise, particularly on matters relating to transport, highways, flood risk management, education, and minerals and waste, as noble Lords have said. Planning inspectors examining a joint spatial development strategy will want to see evidence that the work on these key issues has been done, and to make sure that any views expressed by the county council have been properly taken into consideration.

Amendment 199, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, would leave out new Section 15A(2)(b), which is inserted by Schedule 7. This would enable local planning authorities within a combined authority to be eligible to produce a joint spatial development strategy. In an area with elected mayors, we believe that it is vital that the mayor is formally involved in the production of a spatial development strategy to provide clear and accountable leadership for it. That is why the authorities within a combined authority should not be eligible to produce a joint spatial development strategy. In such cases, the mayor, with the support of the member authorities, can approach the Government to ask for the spatial development strategy powers to be conferred on them as part of their devolution deal. Obviously, we do not want to see competing spatial development strategies in any area.

Amendment 202 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, would extend the list of groups that local planning authorities must consult to include community groups. Although I understand the reasons for this, the list of bodies in new Section 15AB(3) that participating authorities should consider sending a draft joint spatial development strategy to is already comprehensive and can reasonably be assumed to include most community organisations. It is not, however, an exhaustive list, and authorities are free to send drafts to whichever organisations they feel necessary.

The noble Baroness’s Amendments 203 and 204 would give people a right to be heard at an examination in public in relation to a joint spatial development plan. The current procedure for the examination of a spatial development strategy is now well established and, although it is true that, unlike for local plans, there is no formal right to appear in person, we are confident that the current arrangements are fair, proportionate and effective. Experience shows that planning inspectors ensure that a broad range of relevant interests and views are heard at examinations for spatial development strategies.

The final amendment in this group in the name of the noble Baroness is Amendment 206. This would introduce a new clause mandating a duty to co-operate where no joint spatial development strategy exists. Unfortunately, the duty to co-operate is widely agreed to have been an ineffective mechanism for achieving co-operation. It has been criticised as an inflexible and burdensome bureaucratic exercise, causing significant delays to the production of local plans. We intend to replace the duty with a more flexible policy requirement within the revised National Planning Policy Framework, providing local planning authorities with greater flexibility.

Clause 93 introduces a new requirement to assist with plan making to ensure that the key stakeholders whose involvement is vital to production of plans, including the delivery and planning of infrastructure, are required to be involved. This places a requirement on specific bodies with public functions—an example would be Historic England—to assist in the plan-making process if requested by a plan-making authority. Taken together, these measures mean that there is no need to revert to the duty to co-operate in any circumstances.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, I turn to Amendment 205 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley. The aim of this amendment is to ensure that proper cross-boundary engagement is undertaken when preparing a joint spatial development strategy. This is laudable and something that I see as essential to making good planning. The Government have committed to including an alignment policy within the National Planning Policy Framework. The aim of such a policy is to ensure that the policies and proposals of plans are aligned, or if not aligned that there is a very good justification for different approaches. This policy approach is being taken because of the failings of the current duty to co-operate contained in Section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004—I spoke about this in relation to Amendment 206—which this Bill revokes. I assure my noble friend that, in line with the Government’s commitments, the detail of the alignment policy will be consulted upon as part of a wider package of changes to the NPPF to support this Bill. I hope my noble friend will not press his amendment.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to noble Lords for a good debate on these topics relating to spatial planning. They are very important issues, and this is a key part of the Bill.

There are some key themes that have emerged as part of this discussion. The first is the integration of plans and timetables and how important that is going to be as we move forward with these proposals.

Secondly, we have had long discussions around the services that county councils deliver and their engagement in the process of the strategic development strategies. As well as transport, highways, minerals, waste and so on, we had an earlier discussion in the Committee about healthy homes. Our county councils look after a huge range of services that relate to social care provision and so on, and that is another reason why it is essential they get involved in strategic planning at this level. I should have referred to my interests in the register as a county councillor and a district councillor; I wear both hats in this respect.

The third overall point was around the inclusion of combined authorities. I know it is late but I want to relate the experience in Hertfordshire. Without having any of the processes of the Bill in place, the 10 Hertfordshire authorities and the county council have got together, separating Hertfordshire into two clusters, to work on employment, housing sites, climate change, transport—including a new mass rapid transit facility that we have been planning for—community wealth-building, town centre regeneration, digital infrastructure and a number of other things. In Hertfordshire, we are helped by having coterminous boundaries with both the local enterprise partnership and policing. We do not have coterminous borders with health, but I do not think anybody does—that is a little more complicated. We do not necessarily need legislation to do this. However, I am anxious that, as a part of the Bill, we do not stop people doing things which are ambitious and have vision for their areas.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I think that is an important point. That is what I was saying: the Bill will not stop that; it will give the opportunity to do something. Many authorities do great things informally, but sometimes, if there is a formal agreement to it, other doors are opened. That is part of what we are trying to do.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for that reassurance.

We had some discussions around borders—I will say more about that in a moment—but Herts has boundaries with London in the south of the county and with very rural areas in Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire in the north of the county.

The other key point we mentioned was the urban-rural split, on which the noble Lord, Lord Deben, spoke very powerfully, and the value of counties understanding how this helps move the development agenda forward for rural areas as well as urban ones. I echo the point that people feel that this is largely related to urban areas. It is important for us to make sure that people in rural areas feel that their interests are taken into account in both levelling up and regeneration.

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, spoke about opportunities for the planning processes to be co-ordinated. I have referred to the points on healthy homes that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, made earlier in the debate. We need to give some more thought to that before Report and to how we can make sure that we take the opportunities the Bill might offer to better co-ordinate planning processes. The point about timetables is very well made. We have lots of different plans that run on lots of different timetables in local government and in other parts of the public sector, and it would be helpful if we could think about how we might bring some of that together.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, spoke about the very important potential of the Bill to enable us to tackle climate change and the housing emergency in a more co-ordinated way. I do not want to miss those opportunities, which is why these points about planning are so important. She mentioned the ability of county councils to convene councils to work together. That has certainly been my experience, and I hope we can find a way to develop that.

I have mentioned the points that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, made about making sure that we focus on rural as well as urban areas.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, spoke about the travel to work areas. The point is not that we do not want to make plans for boundaries, but you have to think beyond the boundaries and take them into account, particularly with employment sites—otherwise, for example, you will not be planning properly for your transport arrangements. We have to think about what we are doing in a wider sense than the boundaries of local authorities as they would appear on the Boundary Commission register.

To summarise briefly, we have to be careful. We could miss opportunities for combined authorities and for the ambition we all have for levelling up to reach right across the huge areas of our country that are covered by two-tier local government—or three tiers in some cases, as we know. I know the Minister wants to reassure us that rural areas will be included, but the picture in this planning realm can still be a bit confused, particularly with the way that there are different plans for different places, which do not seem to be particularly well co-ordinated. I hope we can give that some more thought.

I am very grateful to the Minister for her detailed answer to all our amendments. That said, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 196A.

Amendment 196A withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

198: After Clause 90, insert the following new Clause—
“Deliberative democracy: local planning(1) Before preparing any development or outline plan, a local planning authority must undertake a process of deliberative democracy involving the community to set—(a) the balance of economic, environmental, infrastructure and special plans,(b) the type of housing to be delivered,(c) the infrastructure that is required to be hosted,(d) the type of economic space, and(e) environmental considerations, including making sites sustainable.(2) A process of deliberative democracy under this section must—(a) invite all residents of the local authority area to apply to be a representative in the deliberative democracy process,(b) include measures to try to ensure that there will be a diverse representation of that community in the process, and(c) provide for a forum of representatives that—(i) will determine its terms of reference, number of meetings and agenda at its first meeting, and(ii) will produce a report from the deliberative democracy process.(3) A report under subsection (2)(c)(ii) may determine the scope of development on a site.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would introduce a deliberative democracy forum comprised of members of the public prior to the formation of a new development plan or outline plan.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sorry that we come to these amendments so late in the evening. Amendment 198 and the subsequent amendments are things I feel particularly strongly about. Amendment 198 would introduce the principle of deliberative democracy as part of the planning process. Recent years have seen a wave of interest in doing democracy in a more deliberative way, enabling citizens to participate in a reflective and informed discussion about key policy questions before any of us, who are decision-makers, reach those decisions.

The Constitution Unit at University College London has been at the forefront of applying such approaches in the UK. In two recent projects, it took part in running citizens’ assemblies to explore how such bodies could help resolve complex policy problems. In other projects, the unit has examined ways in which deliberative approaches to politics could be applied in the UK context. Rather than go into the realms of theory and testing everyone’s patience at this time of night, I shall briefly give the rationale and two quick examples of how this type of engagement with complex issues can help develop understanding and buy-in with complex policy decisions.

In terms of planning, as I said earlier, residents often do not engage with planning at the stage of the local plan and by the time they are faced with a planning application they object to, the land use, housing numbers, infrastructure requirements, environmental policies and so on are already set out and have been through the extensive local plan process. They have often been through the inspectorate and a public inquiry as well. This leads to a great deal of frustration for residents, who may feel that the process, in this case the local plan, has been done to them, rather than with them. Even where residents do engage with the local plan process, the formality of proceedings can be daunting and impenetrable.

The introduction of a deliberative democracy element into the planning process would give the opportunity for local people to get more involved in a meaningful way much earlier in the process. The format can be designed to encourage debate and contributions and careful facilitation can draw out the minority views as well as those with the loudest voices. All this can help inform the local authority or the combined authority as it goes into the formal stages of developing its plan. This approach also enables participants to be provided with information that is accurate, relevant, accessible and balanced. It helps to tackle misinformation and enables deliberations to be informed by accurate, fact-checked data; for example, that provided in the UK by the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

In Stevenage, we have used this method to enable debates on our budget process. As the cuts to local government funding deepened, we wanted to hear our residents’ views on how we should tackle the subsequent budget exercise, so we asked an independent agency to pull together a group of around 50 people from a mixed demographic. Using independent facilitators, we took them through an exercise of information sharing on the challenges we faced and carried out exercises of budget prioritisation with them, to see what their preferences would be. The learning was considerable on both sides. Some participants told me at the end of the day that they were glad it was not them who had to make the decisions. The other impact was that a group of people was then out in our community with all the facts of decision-making to take into conversations at work and in social settings, et cetera.

The Oxford Citizens Assembly on Climate Change involved a randomly selected representative sample of 50 Oxford residents, who learned about climate change and explored different options to cut carbon emissions through a combination of presentations from experts and facilitated workshops. Oxford was the first city in the UK to deliver a citizens’ assembly on climate change. As the evidence around man-made climate change is clear and overwhelming, it was treated as a given, and the assembly was not asked to consider whether or not that was a reality, but participants considered measures to reduce Oxford’s carbon emissions to net zero and, as part of this, measures to reduce Oxford City Council’s carbon footprint to net zero by 2030. In that case, Ipsos MORI was appointed to undertake the recruitment of participants and provide overall facilitation for the Oxford Citizens Assembly on Climate Change. Following that approach, Oxford has been able to undertake an ambitious programme of climate change mitigation and adaptation.

We want the Bill to be ambitious in the way that it tackles levelling up in all its aspects. We believe that a move to deliberative democracy in the planning system will create a whole new dimension for community engagement and provide a channel for our residents to contribute to tackling the complex challenges of the modern planning process.

--- Later in debate ---

With those explanations, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, to withdraw her amendment and other noble Lords not to move theirs.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, once again I thank noble Lords for a very interesting debate on very important aspects of the Bill. I am grateful to the Minister for her detailed response on all the amendments that have been discussed in the debate.

I will address the key themes coming out of the debate, starting with my first amendment in this group on deliberative democracy. I was very grateful for the comments on this from the noble Lord, Lord Young. Like him, I was a bit of a convert to this; I was a bit sceptical about it when I first heard about it. However, the intention of deliberative democracy is to complement and support the work of decision-makers, not to take it over, and it can provide a very useful technique. Now that we have all been through Covid and we all know how to use things such as Teams and Zoom, it can be greatly assisted and facilitated by digital engagement as well. So it is a good technique for developing a wider picture and for engaging our citizens in the important aspects of planning.

On the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on this subject, from my understanding of how deliberative democracy works, it does not matter what size your authority is, because you would engage a representative group and there are plenty of places where you can go to get help to draw together your representative group. There is nothing in deliberative democracy that excludes the contribution of parish councils; they have their own methods of communicating and engaging with the planning process. While I accept there are a variety of techniques to engage local citizens in the planning process, I think that it will be important for us all to consider how we will refresh and review not just the ability for people to get involved but the methods we use to engage them. We all know that there are flaws at the moment in the way we try to engage people, and anything that can help to improve that would be useful.

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, referred to having a legislative structure which should underpin what is in the guidance, and we would certainly support that. All the way through our discussions on the Bill, we have seen that there are not always clear links. We are told that one aspect is in guidance and that another aspect will be in the Bill, but the links between the two are not always as clear as they should be. We should be using the process of the Bill in Committee to help to resolve some of those issues where it is not as clear as it should be. I think that a clear distinction between policies which are strategic and not strategic will be quite important for those people tasked with delivering the plans going forward, so I hope that some thought might be given to that.

We had some comments on the need for certainty and clarity on the local plan in response to my noble friend Lady Hayman’s amendment on the possibility of amending after local elections. There were some fair points made there, and we will go back and look again at aspects of the Bill that enable local authorities to review parts of their plan. Although we do not want to overturn the plan every time there is an election, it will be important that people can look at things. As the picture changes in a local area, it may be necessary to undertake reviews for that reason, not just because there has been an election. I think we need to have another look at that as the Bill goes forward.

It really rang a bell with me when the noble Lord, Lord Young, talked about the need to boost the supply of homes. We have further groups of amendments that cover that topic. He referred to not weakening or removing levers for housing. Those of us who have been trying to deliver more housing over the last few years feel as though sometimes we have had our hands tied behind our backs on housing delivery and that that has gone on for too long.

We must be ambitious and work on delivering the housing we need, but the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is quite right to say that growth must incorporatethe issues that we have discussed many times in your Lordships’ House on the environment, sustainable employment and sustainable housing growth. However, that makes planning more important, not less. Communities should be planned, not just the delivery of housing. After the Second World War, at a time when more than 100,000 homes a year were being built, there was still time set aside for master-planning and building for communities, not just delivering housing in dormitories. I suggest that deliberative democracy might play a part in that process.

The other aspect that was discussed extensively in this short debate was environmental outcome reports. I hear the Minister’s words of reassurance around how they might be incorporated in the planning process, but I think we would want to go through some of the other discussions around climate change to make sure we understand how that works. The Minister described the plans as an alphabet soup, which is probably a good description. We heard her talking about neighbourhood priority statements. This aspect of the Bill is another layer of planning that sits in this new hierarchy. It is difficult to understand from what is in the Bill exactly where it sits, so we look forward to the round table that will help clarify some of these issues. As for neighbourhood priority statements, it saysthat any of the authorities involved can make these neighbourhood priority statements, but it is not clear exactly how that works.

This has been a good debate on these very important planning issues. As I said, I am very grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions, and I am sure that some of the issues we raised will come up again in future debates. That said, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 198 withdrawn.