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

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Tuesday 8th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I too declare my interest as a vice-president of the LGA. I have a very strong sense of déjà vu, or Groundhog Day, because here we go again. This is of course a key issue for us on this side of the Chamber, because, despite overwhelming evidence from an amazingly wide range of sectors and professional bodies, apart from cutting red tape and speed, there are no compelling reasons to bring forward another raft of permitted development rights removing the need for full planning permission. Perhaps the Minister could enlighten us. This considerable disquiet has changed to a rather loud chorus of bewilderment and disbelief that these PDRs continue to be brought forward without even an attempt at an impact assessment or evaluation.

Much of the detail has already been given by my noble friend Lady Pinnock and the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Berkeley, on the level of parliamentary scrutiny and the undue haste to bring these changes into law under the negative procedure, which leaves a debate such as this the only route for any scrutiny. We on these Benches are by no means unsympathetic to the aims that the Ministers claim for them, but these proposals will not in any way contribute to those aims—quite the reverse. Paradoxically, we are likely to see property owners taking the quick and easy option of a change of use via PDRs, when a greater involvement by the local planning authority might have helped achieve a wider and more comprehensive scheme that would further the Government’s stated objectives. Among local planning officers, there is already anecdotal evidence: “Oh my God, if only they’d come to us first, we could have made this better”.

We also believe that this continuous erosion of the ability of communities and their local elected representatives to contribute to the shaping of the places they live in is damaging to democracy and ultimately counterproductive. People already feel disempowered by the planning system—you need only attend a local planning committee to know that. Even if they are denied a role in the planning process, they will, thank goodness, find a way to make their voices heard.

Of the several aspects of this SI, I give full support and agreement to the position on statues, ably outlined by my noble friend Lord Paddick and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton. In line with our localist principles, we believe that this is a matter for local communities to decide. We have heard from my noble friend Lady Bakewell about the potential loss of health centres and nurseries, and the danger that this will be exacerbated if such facilities can be converted to residential use without permission. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, extremely practical examples of how Whitehall does not always know best.

I would like to focus on further conversions to housing on the high street. The debate today shows that opening up high streets to property speculation—which is what this is—is a misguided attempt to answer current challenges that have existed for years and have been exacerbated significantly by Covid and by changes in our shopping patterns. We believe that it will only worsen the ingrained inequalities that have been so starkly exposed by the pandemic.

Back in 2019, the Housing, Communities and Local Government Select Committee produced a report on the future of the high street, which argued that the Government should suspend any further extension of PDRs, pending an evaluation of their impact on the high street. And here we are again. It is clear that this united opposition to the extension of PDRs, backed by evidence, has simply been ignored by the Government, apart from some small changes, such as that the homes created now should contain a window. It is too late for those that I brought to the attention of the House two years ago—the notorious case in Watford—but it is progress.

Changing the face and fortune of a town takes years. I know, because it was one of my primary objectives for 16 years while Mayor of Watford. Put bluntly, it is hard-going and requires building enduring partnerships with different stakeholders—easier said than done with the competing aims and demands from all those with a legitimate interest in the high street—and genuine community buy-in, as many of the changes are very significant, which is never easy to obtain and even more difficult to hold over time. Most of all, it needs a plan, resources and time. It flies in the face of all my experience that a planning free-for-all is the answer to that problem.

I am also concerned by the implication in these proposals that local authorities do not know what their high streets need and are not already working to produce good solutions. Good councils have long recognised that housing in a town centre is a good thing. They were at the forefront of recognising how repopulating town and city centres could turn urban decline into renaissance. They promoted flats above the shops, mixed-use development to create residential, leisure and community uses alongside retail, and a move to have activity in our town centres that was not just about daytime shopping and late-night drinking. It has taken years to get to that point in many a high street, including ours, and yet these proposals have the ability to undo that work.

Someone has to hold the ring for a whole place, not just think about making a fast buck from a single site. What will our high streets look like in five, 10 or 15 years’ time? How do we get there from here? We believe that these proposals undermine such strategic thinking, with a misguided attempt at a quick fix. They certainly undermine the democratic mandate of elected representatives.

These are big issues but, from my experience, PDRs have always had the potential to be controversial, and have been a source of anger and upset from affected residents. I have stood looking out of a window in a family’s beautiful home while having to explain that the significant extension their neighbour was building was legal, permitted by government rules and did not need planning permission, and that thus the council had no power to suggest amendments, let alone refuse it. I remember the look of incredulity on their faces. It was one small family home, but the impact on their enjoyment of it was huge. This is often the case, which is why council officers try to balance the needs of all parties and why obtaining planning permission has a useful and positive purpose, which appears not to be recognised by the Government.

Some of the issues the Government believe they are trying to solve are absolutely legitimate, and their views are shared by those on our Benches, but we are asking: why not allow people putting forward such schemes to apply for planning permission, as now? This would mean that genuine consultation can occur, and that planners and councillors would be able to do their jobs. It would help the Government’s professed objective of driving up quality and building beautiful. Prior approval gives officers a rotten job to deal with, knowing that they cannot really say no—after all, that is the purpose of these changes—and councillors still have to carry the can for a decision that they cannot influence or change. It is lose-lose for all but the developer/investor.

That is the crux of this issue, illustrated so well by my noble friend Lady Pinnock, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and others. The Government have continually eroded the role of local democracy to decide on or even influence matters that suit the circumstances of its communities. We believe that there is more to come in the future planning Bill. All this is before we even get to the quality of the conversions, which were heavily criticised by the Government’s Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission, which concluded that they have diminished quality, delivered low levels of affordable housing and reduced developer contributions. It said that increased PDRs had “inadvertently permissioned future slums”. That was colourfully articulated by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton. There is very little time to talk about the impact on conservation areas.

We feel that these reforms lack the critical safeguards to prevent further damage to already suffering high streets by turning community amenities into often substandard homes. Those are some of the reasons why we wish to express more than mere regret at what is happening to our planning system and, more importantly, to our communities and our democracy.

Queen’s Speech

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Monday 17th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD) [V]]

My Lords, this has been a wide-ranging and fascinating debate, and my contribution will focus solely on one aspect of the much-heralded planning reforms: public engagement, or the lack thereof.

I am certain, judging by the controversy stirred up by the release last August of the Planning for the Future White Paper and a wide range of ongoing consultations, that this will be one of the most contentious Bills of this Queen’s Speech. There will be ample time to dissect the Bill when it eventually comes before us, but I have huge concerns that the Government are taking neither the public nor their own MPs with them on this important journey to solve our housing crisis, and thus they are probably doomed to failure.

I have noted in the press over the last week that MPs from the shire counties are already organising to oppose these reforms. The Government have already caved in to these MPs by scrapping the algorithm that produced the new targets, so they got some reduction in their targets, while urban areas saw theirs increased. In Watford, ours have been tripled in recent years, resulting in our oven-ready local plan having to be scrapped and started again.

In my former position as an elected mayor, development was a very real and constant worry. Sadly, development management meetings were usually acrimonious, with the anger and bewilderment of the public evident. Their main cry was: “Why don’t you just say no?” As we all know, councils cannot “just say no” to government policy, yet, as was shown in the recent local elections, councillors of different parties and in different parts of the country are being punished at the ballot box for what is seen by their electors as overdevelopment.

Planning by appeal is not a sign of good governance, but it gets you on the side of the voters, with cheers at the planning committee, only for hopes to be dashed as inspectors overturn the decisions on appeal. Currently, about a third of appeals go in the developers’ favour, which in the Government’s eyes means that too many schemes are being refused that should be approved. Presumably it is to avoid that there are also plans to penalise local planning authorities when they lose appeals.

The planning reforms will further dilute democratic involvement. We believe that they are being introduced precisely because public engagement is difficult and challenging, and so the Government are finding ways of bypassing it altogether without actually saying so. Where are the plans to change this confrontational narrative and to press the need for more homes and for more appropriate housing, such as social housing, supported housing and homes for the elderly?

The reforms will mean that the future focus of local engagement in planning will be at the local plan-making stage, so communities will not be able to influence applications as they do now. Good councils already do this up-front consultation, so there is plenty of evidence that, while working closely with communities in the early stages can be positive, it does not preclude massive protest when a detailed application eventually goes in. It is doubtless this that has led to the Government’s presumption in favour of development in the zoning proposals. There is ample evidence that zoning has not worked in planning previously, so where is the evidence that it will work now?

Development within growth zones will receive automatic outline consent, while renewal areas will have presumption in favour of development. As a result, there will be no opportunity for either public consultation or assessment by local authority councillors or officers. According to the White Paper, public involvement will be limited to

“detailed matters to be resolved”,

rather than on a particular building or development and whether it is appropriate in its local context. This, alongside proposals for faster decisions on planning applications, and further expansion of the controversial permitted development right, leaves far less room for local input into individual decisions and is an erosion of democracy within the system.

Finally, development is always bound to be controversial. People are never likely to be thrilled that the attractive fields that their garden backs on to are to become a housing estate; nor that low-rise town centre offices are to be demolished to make way for something much taller. But, as things stand, we have a broken national conversation about development in which local authorities, planners and councillors feel as though they are everybody’s scapegoats, whether for building too little or too much. If the Government are serious about solving our housing crisis, they must first convince the public that there is one. That key issue is ignored in this Queen’s Speech.

Leaseholders and Property Management Companies

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Thursday 29th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I am aware that there are sharp practices across the board. But, by law, service charges and other charges have to be reasonable, and costs have to relate to the work or services undertaken, which need to be of a reasonable standard. We will take the noble Lord’s point and advice to see how we can address that issue.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, the housing complaints resolution service was proudly announced in January 2019 as a portal system to overcome what James Brokenshire, the then Minister for Housing, Communities and Local Government, called the “complicated and bureaucratic system” we have currently. Could the Minister update us on progress? Will this new body have new powers to enforce decisions in court by statute, or will it be a crocodile with rubber teeth?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, this is clearly a wide-ranging question that raises all kinds of issues. I will have to write to the noble Baroness on the progress of that matter.

Planning: Net Zero Emissions Targets

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Monday 19th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, the Government recognise the benefits of retrofit ahead of demolition. Reuse and adaption of existing buildings can make an important contribution toward tackling climate change. The national planning policy framework already encourages this.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, core to this issue is the forthcoming future home standard, which currently threatens to remove the discretion of local authorities to set zero-carbon policies that go beyond current building regulations. Does the Minister agree that the future home standard should be a floor to those authorities struggling to keep up rather than a ceiling constraining what the most ambitious authorities quite rightly are doing to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from new development and lead the way for other councils?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, it is quite clear that the future home standard is there to provide a floor rather than a ceiling in respect of ambition for local authorities. The Government will set standards that will require the avoidance of fossil fuels in future homes.

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

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 4th February 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, as this is my first contribution, I draw the attention of the Committee to my relevant registered interests: as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, chair of the Heart of Medway Housing Association and a non-executive director of MHS Homes Ltd.

Amendment 1 would put on the face of the Bill a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to publish a Statement setting out

“how the Valuation Office Agency and local authorities were consulted in relation to the provisions of this Act prior to its passage.”

A property’s rateable value, which business rates are based on, has been assessed independently of Ministers by the Valuation Office Agency since 1990. The Bill will, among other things, make a change to when the Valuation Office Agency must publish draft rateable values. The noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, has told us previously that this is to support the smooth transition of the revaluation. The publication of these draft rateable values will be aligned with the timing of decisions relating to the multipliers and transitional arrangements.

This is only a probing amendment and I am hopeful that the noble Lord will be able to set out for the Grand Committee exactly how what is asked for in the amendment has been done. If the agency and local authorities have not been consulted, can he tell us why not, and why the Government think that that is an acceptable course of action?

Amendment 6, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Thornhill, would insert a new clause into the Bill. I am very much in support of this new clause, as it would provide for an impact assessment of the timing of a rates revaluation. I am sure that we will get a full explanation of the amendment from the noble Baronesses.

There is of course a wider debate to be had about the whole question of business rates and their appropriateness as an element of local government funding. It is important to note that the Government have cut £15 billion from central government funding for local government in the last decade. The Covid-19 pandemic has had a catastrophic impact on local authority finances, with income falling and costs rising. The current lockdown, which is the right thing to do, will also have a serious impact. Here, the Government need to keep their promise to fully fund local authorities for the costs of the pandemic.

According to the Local Government Association, local councils in England will face a funding gap of more than £5 billion just to maintain services at current levels. But to respond to demand pressures and plug the existing funding gap, an additional £10 billion per year in funding will be needed by 2023-24. For those reasons and many others, which I am sure we will hear from the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Thornhill, I support their amendment. I beg to move.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I, too, am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I wish to speak in favour of Amendment 6, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Pinnock, and to support Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark.

I am very aware that this is a narrowly focused Bill and that it has had broad support and been welcomed. However, it is significant that, despite that, several Members of your Lordships’ House have taken the opportunity to table amendments. I believe that that shows the depth of concern around the whole issue of business rates. The amount of interest shown in both this tightly drawn Bill and the Government’s consultation for their ongoing business rates review shows how important it is for the review to be both bold and radical.

It is also significant that all the amendments seek to hold the Government’s feet to the fire with regard to the various ongoing impacts of the Bill, be they on sports clubs, the high street or local government finance—hence, Amendment 6 stipulates a timeframe of six months. This is due to the fact that the instability and uncertainty provoked by the impact of Covid-19 are exacerbating issues that were already of significant concern—and we are not out of the woods yet.

Indeed, the amendment seeks to continue to draw your Lordships’ attention to the challenging situation regarding local council finances. The latest figures from the Local Government Association show that the financial impact of Covid-19 on local authorities is an estimated £9.7 billion for 2020-21, with a further £2.8 billion of lost income from council tax and business rates. However, it must be noted that these figures were reported before the lockdown and the spread of the new strain was known. This is a significantly different set of circumstances from when the 2020-21 funding package was last evaluated, and is part of the reason for continuing concern around council finances. I am sure it is appreciated by all noble Lords just how important business rates are to the individual finances of a local authority.

One reason for the amendment is to highlight the volatility of the tax base, which is so unpredictable at present. For example, the loss of office space to residential—a topic much discussed with the Minister in this House—is a trend that is likely to continue with inevitable loss of revenue. The Valuation Office Agency is currently negotiating appeals and challenges for offices, airports and factories under a material change of circumstances appeal, due to Covid-19. A rebate of up to 25% was mooted. The reduction in income could be substantial. If a rebate were forthcoming, would subsequent losses be repaid to local government in line with the recently announced tax income guarantee? Some 75% of losses will be guaranteed for 2020-21, but nothing has been said yet about 2021-22. Of course, local government must make up the other 25%.

The amount of money that councils have had to put aside for appeals is also significant, hence local government concerns around cutting down the window of time to appeal and getting the number of appeals reduced. The more certainty that we can add to the processes the better. To date, councils have had to divert £3 billion from services to appeals. A significant amount of money is also tied up in irrecoverable losses for both business rates and council tax. With debt recovery and enforcement activities understandably limited due to the pandemic, and with limits on activities and pressures on court time, councils’ ability to recover debts and secure income as they usually would, will be restricted. These are not usual times, and more businesses are likely to fail.

I use these points to illustrate one purpose of the amendment and the volatility of this important tax base. There is much instability in the system at present, which is being masked by the current, much-needed and much-valued reliefs offered to businesses from the Government. This could change significantly when the reliefs end; it could impact on local authority incomes, but we do not know when this will be. If the amendment is not accepted, could the Government at least agree to look closely at the impact once all reliefs have been suspended? This could provide vital evidence on which sectors are most impacted as well as on local councils’ finances.

Regarding Amendment 1, it was noted by several noble Lords at Second Reading that the VOA has been formally criticised as being cumbersome and difficult to deal with, and its valuations opaque and inconsistent. This is why I endorse what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and support his amendment and additional amendments tabled by my noble friends. In short, the amendment asks the Government how the pandemic that happening now will affect the revaluation in 2023, based on values at April 2021, which will not be looked at again until 2028.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, who certainly speaks with authority in this area, not least from her time as Mayor of Watford. I speak to the first group of amendments and, as I indicated at Second Reading, I strongly support this Bill. It is welcome, it is needed, it is positive, and I hope that it passes unadorned. I thank the Association of Convenience Stores for its briefing on this subject. It too strongly welcomes this legislation.

The effect of moving the business rate revaluation to 1 April 2023 will mean, as has been noted, that valuations will be fixed as at 1 April 2021. This will prevent the base being on a very high value, or on a relatively high value, as at 2019. This Bill will, in short, ensure that the base that is used reflects the impact of the pandemic. That is welcome. It will also provide certainty to non-domestic rate payers. This is very welcome to a hard-pressed sector. However, I have some questions for my noble friend the Minister. While I am very much in favour of passing this Bill, I would welcome some further reassurance from my noble friend regarding what discussions there have been with the Valuation Office Agency and local authorities about timescales and resources.

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

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

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

[Baroness Thornhill (LD) [V]]

I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. As my noble friend Lord Shipley and others have so ably stated, we have few issues around the specifics of the Bill and the most pertinent points have already had a good airing during this excellent debate. Like many others speaking today, I believe that the time for tinkering with and tweaking the business rates system has long passed. I eagerly await the outcome of the review and urge the Government to be both bold and radical.

During my years as the elected Mayor of Watford, in any discussion with businesses in the town, business rates would crop up. I had a set patter about how we, the local authority, did not set business rates, nor did we get all the money into our coffers; we were merely the collector. Interestingly, that fact was always greeted with incredulity. The first complaint was that the rates were too high, of course, and the next that the system of exemptions and reliefs was too complicated; it is. Then, a matter of which I knew nothing at first was the long gap between valuations and the real problems that led to. They clearly felt that such valuations were out of kilter with local economic realities and should be more frequent. In previous iterations of the Bill, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, a period of three years was proposed, but it has now gone back to five years, while many groups press for annual valuations. Perhaps the Minister could explain the thinking behind that.

There is no doubt that the Bill, in kicking back the revaluation by a further year, will give businesses some stability, which has been broadly welcomed. But I fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, on the AVD, and I too would like the Minister to explain the rationale for the next valuation to be based on April 2021 costs and rentals. That is surely too early for the full impact of the pandemic to hit, and yet it will not be implemented until April 2023. As my noble friend Lord Stunell said, businesses that get a valuation downwards have to pay more rates for a further two years, at an already difficult time.

If I really wanted to see sparks fly in the conversations I mentioned earlier, I only had to mention transitional relief schemes. This is but one of a number of examples in which the current web of reliefs hinders the system and, more importantly, contributes to further unfairness. It needs serious reform. There was also always “Don’t get me started on appeals,” usually with a look towards the heavens. Appeals have already been mentioned by several noble Lords, as well as the backlog of 50,000 cases for the 2010 and 2017 lists. Minister, is there a closing date for the appeals from the 2017 list yet? Within the forthcoming reforms, is there consideration for a much shorter window of time following a revaluation—say, six months—in which to appeal?

It has long been recognised that the Valuation Office Agency is not agile enough to keep up with and adapt to changes in demand within sectors, such as the shift towards online, which has been much mentioned this afternoon. The case could be made that delayed devaluations have, in fact, acted as a subsidy for online retail. While logistics space has massively increased as a result of this trend, it is not taxed anywhere near as heavily as retail shop space. Are the Government looking to address this particular unfairness in their upcoming reforms? The VOA has been criticised for being difficult to deal with and cumbersome, and its valuations as often opaque and inconsistent. Minister, will any consideration be given to local government being the responsible authority for valuations, working in genuine partnership with local experts who know their patch and can respond to change more quickly? This happens successfully in some other countries, often alongside annual revaluations. It can be done.

The principle behind the local retention of business rates is good but, unfortunately, in reality it has meant that local authorities are now competing with each other, not only to attract inward investment, but even to outbid each other in the now controversial commercial entrepreneurial investments. I feel that, particularly in a two-tier system, economic areas are just too small to be really effective and local enterprise partnerships lack the powers and finance to make a difference.

Combined authorities, however, are showing what can be done to drive improvement across larger economic areas. Minister, to encourage and incentivise councils to work together on economic development, which is surely needed, would the Government consider allowing areas that agree to work in this pooling system to keep 100% of their business rates? Finally, can the Minister at least hint at whether it is the Government’s intention, eventually, to transfer the powers and freedoms around businesses rates that are currently available to elected mayors in combined authorities to all local authorities?

National Planning Policy Statements: Climate Change

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Thursday 3rd December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, there is a tremendous commitment to the objective that my noble friend—well, not my noble friend; sorry, I am not good on the protocol yet, but I consider the noble Lord a friend, even though I cannot say so. The Prime Minister set out his ambitious Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution. It covers clean energy, transport, nature and innovative technologies. There is a real ambition in this Government to ensure that we meet our climate change commitments, and we will continue to work on delivering that plan. It is no good having a plan unless you implement it.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I too am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. The White Paper proudly proclaims to be sweeping away red tape and simplifying requirements for environmental assessment and mitigation. How will the Minister guarantee that this deregulation will not lead to a rollback of environmental standards? What will be the role of the local authority—if at all—with regard to monitoring and enforcing new standards when they eventually arrive? They do not appear to be involved in the drawing up of them, according to what I can read in the White Paper.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, that is a misrepresentation of the thrust of the planning reforms. We need to engage with communities. The idea of the planning reforms is to ensure that engagement happens up front and that it works within a framework to make sure that we get sustainable development and that we also hit the objectives that we have set as a Government.

Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2020

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I am delighted to be sharing the Chamber today with our two new Members, who are clearly going to bring to it the considerable expertise for which we are known and renowned—but, I expect, from very different perspectives.

My noble friend Lord German was right to table his Motion as it seems there is much disquiet about these and previous SIs, as well as the proposals in the Government’s current White Paper. Our concern is that taken together these constitute, in the words of a government Minister, the most significant changes to the planning system in 20 years and, in the words of another, a complete overhaul of the planning system. Thus, we feel there has not been sufficient consultation, or opportunities to really know and understand the cumulative impact of the Government’s legislative changes.

I too question the premise on which the current policy direction appears to be based: that the underdelivery of homes is largely the fault of the planning system. It has been mentioned many times in this Chamber that 90% of permissions are actually granted and that close to a million permissions have still not been built out. I wonder if there is something in the Government’s new proposal to take care of that, but I do not believe there is. The Letwin report also made it clear that the financial model on which the construction industry is based is far more significant in affecting the actual delivery of homes. I hope that we can have another debate on this issue, as in my experience it is a very complex one and government agencies also play their part in planning delays.

Permitted development rights were rightly introduced to reduce bureaucracy in specific and clearly understood circumstances, but these SIs drive a coach and horses through the normal system of judging and determining a proposed development. Together, the changes represent a significant shift in control away from local authorities and the communities they represent towards a significantly less regulated environment. I believe that nationally prescribed development rights disempower communities and local councils. Is it too cynical of me to suggest that that is the intention?

It is also clear that the Government’s current White Paper foreshadows the possibility of further changes to the entire planning system over the coming months, and it may well be that further permitted development reforms follow. This is perhaps why there is considerable disquiet and concern in many quarters. Alan Jones, president of the Royal Institute of British Architects, said of the Government that the arrogance and lack of understanding was “breathtaking.”

It is not just RIBA that thinks the extensions to permitted development are a bad idea. They are opposed by the Royal Town Planning Institute, the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, the Chartered Institute of Building, the Chartered Institute of Housing, the Town and Country Planning Association, and more. Uniting all of these organisations, which are far from always being in happy harmony, is a remarkable achievement and a sign of the real problems of this approach that need to be looked into. Apart from those who seek to make serious money from these changes, it is hard to see who supports them.

The reputable planning consultancy, Lichfields, has stated that the changes are very significant, but are only the tip of the iceberg for potential planning changes on the immediate horizon. Hence the collective concern that the Government have failed to allow adequate time and scrutiny for these SIs and we have had no concrete reassurances as to how they will be evaluated in their totality. That is a concern which appears to be justified when you consider that the Government’s independently commissioned work on permitted development rights was damning. The report of the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission’s notes that permitted development rights for office-to-residential change of use has led to much criticism for diminishing quality, delivering lower levels of affordable housing and reducing developer contributions. Those are three key issues. The Commission concludes that PDRs

“have inadvertently permissioned future slums … allowing sub-standard homes to be built with little to no natural light and smaller than budget hotel rooms.”

Can the Minister offer any serious reassurance that these concerns have been addressed?

The Housing, Communities and Local Government Select Committee produced a report in 2019 on the future of the high street which said:

“The Government should suspend any further extension of PDRs, pending an evaluation of their impact on the high street.”


Yet in these SIs we see significant changes to class uses that we have heard little about but which I have no doubt will have some concerns.

Do the Government intend to do a cumulative impact assessment of these and other recent SIs in tandem with the current proposals in the pipeline? If not, why not, and if yes, whoopie, but when?

Housing Delivery Test

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2020 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Thornhill]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the efficacy of the Housing Delivery Test.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD) [V]]

I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

[The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)]

The housing delivery test plays an important role in providing transparency about where housing is or is not being delivered. It helps to identify the reasons behind underdelivery through action plans, which are required when delivery falls below 95%. Through these, we can see that, on the whole, authorities are taking the right steps to identify the causes of reduced housing delivery and are working proactively to address these issues.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD) [V]]

I thank the Minister. I understand what he said, but what powers do the Government believe that a council has for the delivery of a scheme once planning permission has been granted? This annual test not only monitors but also judges and punishes a council for the developer’s failure to deliver. Should this inequitable test finally be scrapped altogether or, given the uncertainty that the pandemic is causing in the construction industry, should it at least be suspended for this current year?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, speaking as a former council leader, I know that planning permissions are only extant for a certain period. The policy appears to be working. We have seen an uptick in the numbers of homes built; there have been more than 241,000, which is a greater number than before the introduction of this housing delivery test.

Devolution in England

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I will take a careful look at the No More Tiers paper published by Policy Exchange some 14 years ago. I can assure my noble friend that there will be no blanket abolition of districts and that we will take a locally driven approach and ensure that decision-making is taken as close as possible to the people we are serving.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I am glad to hear the Minister say that, because my question is around unitary authorities. Obviously, the rumour mill is rife at the moment that this is causing some delays. The Minister will be aware that many councils are already working on plans for this, either with a positive frame or negatively, and that any delay or uncertainty is unsettling and demoralising. It has financial and practical implications. If we take recruitment, who wants to move to an authority that might not exist in two years’ time; and who wants to waste taxpayers’ money working up economic models that are never going to happen? Can the Minister reassure us that the Government recognise that this is a real issue for local government, and that these very important decisions will be made swiftly, as soon as possible?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness makes the important point that we need to move quickly and make decisions so that we are clear about the future. I have assured the House that unitarisation will not be a topdown, blanket approach and we will not see the wholesale abolition of districts.