Town and Country Planning (Fees and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond satisfactorily to the points that he raised.

Reading the Explanatory Note, my question is: who decides whether an application for a development is “of national importance” or “a matter of urgency”? I assume that there is a proposal from a department, presumably from the relevant Minister, that then goes to the Secretary of State in the noble Baroness’s department, and that the final decision is made by the Secretary of State, but on the recommendation of the relevant department. I assume that this means that the relevant department cannot itself define that something is urgent and of national importance. I think I have concluded that it is both, but that the final decision will lie with the Secretary of State. For me, the vital question for the Minister to clarify is: will the public be able to object? The Minister talked about the need to try to ensure consultation with local people, but will local people be able to object to an application, or will the decision lie simply with the Secretary of State?

I noticed the Minister’s comments on scrutiny. I think she said that there will be full scrutiny of the use of powers, but paragraph 10.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum says:

“The instrument does not include a statutory review clause”,


and paragraph 10.2 says:

“The Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government will monitor the overall effect of the implementation of the Crown Development and Urgent Crown Development routes for planning permission”.


It is not clear to me to what extent that will involve Parliament. I want to hear from the Minister that the monitoring review will be thorough and part of normal parliamentary procedures on matters of this kind.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her explanation of how we got from there to here; its clarity is welcome. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Young of Cookham, for their forensic questioning, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. We on these Benches are in agreement that projects in the national interest, especially those deemed urgent, must and should be expedited as swiftly as possible. We are also in agreement that the present system has failed to deliver the improvements necessary to promote economic growth and improve the productivity of our vastly unequal regions.

Subsidiarity, a word we do not hear very often, cuts to the heart of this SI and the changes it introduces. Decisions must and should be taken at the most appropriate level, proportionate to the impact of the decision, which this SI attempts to do. Only time will tell whether it has been successful.

However, to me, this is a two-way street, with powers devolved down as well as taken up. It is nothing short of madness that when I was an elected mayor, I had to go through a four-year torment and two judicial reviews needing the Secretary of State’s approval—of which there were many during those four years—to be able to turn an allotment site into much-needed facilities for our local hospital. Conversely, it is also unacceptable that plans to build a third runway at Heathrow have been in discussion for decades. Evidence abounds that something needs to change and the system is failing. I am therefore interested in the Minister joining the dots for me as to how the new regional super-mayors will be involved in this process, given that the Government are also giving them greater planning powers.

We can also see how this joins up to the Government’s broader agenda. We have all lived through the Crown Estate Act and agree with its aims to use land—we look forward to the clarification mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham—to create lasting and shared prosperity for the good of the nation as a whole. We can see how the SI is designed to drive through nationally significant projects at pace. However, the then Opposition, us included, were greatly concerned that such powers would be used only when necessary and with appropriate safeguards in place.

We will have to watch to see whether the safeguards and processes envisaged by these changes are effective, and whether the definition of “national importance” has been consistently applied and the criteria as laid out adhered to. Perhaps the Minister can give us some examples of what applications constitute a matter of urgency and warrant an expedited planning process.

Our overriding concern is the need for accountability and transparency. Can the Minister clarify what is envisaged—in the words of the Minister in the other place—to ensure that

“the House as a whole”

will have

“the opportunity to consider and scrutinise their general operation”?—[Official Report, Commons, 13/2/25; col. 33WS.]

Is this for each application or the generality of the process? To paraphrase my noble friend’s question, we would seek clarity on the review.

There are legitimate concerns around the erosion of local democracy—of not listening to local voices and their elected representatives. Can the Minister reassure us that all voices will be heard and consultation will be wide ranging, as appropriate to the application? I underline that phrase. Does the Minister agree that the undeniable right to be listened to and consulted does not confer a right of veto?

I am unconvinced that a retrospective annual report in the form of a letter of decisions taken, placed in both Libraries, fulfils the commitment to make sure this is scrutinised and accountable. We are looking forward to the changes to come in the context of the new Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which I am sure we are all eagerly looking forward to—or not. However, that is an argument for another day. We support this SI, with caveats on future scrutiny and transparency.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, as usual I declare the fact that I am a current councillor in Central Bedfordshire. I thank the Minister for her explanation on the SI and the reasons behind it. Like my fellow noble Lords, I recognise that we need to get on with these major infrastructure projects. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, gave the example of Heathrow, but one can also think of the Lower Thames Crossing, which I understand has received approval just today, after about 800 million pages of planning documents.

It is important that we do that, so in principle we support the need for the SI. The Minister has reiterated to us how important it is to get on with these things, but to do so by completely ignoring the public and the local planning process is a concern to this side of the House. We really want the assurance that it will be done only in exceptional circumstances and where speed is absolutely necessary. We recognise that the planning process is far from perfect; I too look forward to debating the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. This very much seems to be a mechanism to shoehorn through a process in a system that does not work. We really ought to look at making the system work.

I very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on why it is so necessary to do that and her assurances on why it is necessary to circumvent local planning processes and local transparency. I also support the calls from fellow Peers that local involvement should be maintained and representations to the Minister should be still able to be made.

Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2025

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2025 were laid before the House on 13 January 2025. These draft regulations increase planning fees for householder and other applications. This will provide essential extra funds to local planning authorities and improve the efficiency of our planning system. This is vital to speed up decision-making and support the Government’s plan of building 1.5 million homes and delivering economic growth.

I will start by providing some context and background to these regulations. Currently, the income from planning fees does not cover the cost to local planning authorities of determining applications. Overall, there is a national funding shortfall of approximately £362 million, the burden of which is borne by the general taxpayer. By increasing fees for applications with the greatest funding shortfalls, we can cover a greater proportion of the costs associated with processing these applications.

It is estimated that these fee increases will generate an additional £56 million annually for local planning authorities. This is a substantial sum that will significantly enhance the capacity and efficiency of our planning services.

We consulted on proposals to increase fees in July 2024. Respondents were generally supportive of our proposals, recognising the need to boost the funds available to local planning authorities, if this leads to improvements in planning performance. Noble Lords will realise that the Local Government Association has long campaigned for increases in planning fees.

I now turn to the detail of the regulations. First, they increase the fees for householders who want to enlarge, extend or alter their home from £258 to £528 for a single house and from £509 to £1,043 for more than one house. I recognise that some may consider that, during times of economic pressures for householders, we should not be increasing planning fees. However, in light of the clear funding shortfall that exists, it is right that applicants should contribute more towards the costs incurred by local planning authorities in delivering a planning service, rather than the taxpayer funding it.

We estimate that, in most cases, the cost of the planning application is less than 1% of overall development costs. Furthermore, some householder development can already be undertaken through permitted development rights and so would not be subject to a planning application fee.

The regulations also increase fees for a range of other application types, which currently are set too low. They increase the planning fees for prior approval applications from a flat fee of £120 to £240 and from £258 to £516 where they include building operations, and for the change of use of commercial buildings to residential uses from £125 per dwelling to £250 per dwelling. The regulations also increase the fees for discharge of conditions from £43 to £86 for householders and from £145 to £298 for all other applications, including discharge of biodiversity gain plans.

Finally, the regulations introduce a new three-tiered fee structure for Section 73 applications that are used to vary or remove conditions on planning applications. This reflects the higher costs associated with Section 73 applications on major developments. The regulations also make corrections to two fees that were erroneously set too low when the fee regulations were last amended in 2023. These regulations do not impose a fee on listed building consents, which continue to incur no fee.

I want to be clear that the Government expect local planning authorities to use the income from planning fees on their planning application service, so that they can build up their capability and capacity and improve performance. We know that this is what applicants expect in return for paying higher fees. In addition to these fee increases, the Government have committed to a £46 million package to enhance the capacity and capability of local planning officers. This includes recruiting 300 additional planners. I recognise that there is no planning officer tree where we can go and pick them; this is going to take a little time.

The Government have also announced their intention to introduce a measure in the planning and infrastructure Bill that will enable local planning authorities to set their own planning fees to meet their costs. This comprehensive approach ensures that local planning authorities are not only better funded but better equipped to handle the demands placed on them.

To summarise, while we take forward our measures for local fee setting, these regulations will provide local planning authorities with an immediate boost in resourcing. This will enable local planning authorities to budget with more confidence and be better equipped to deliver the housing and growth that our country needs. I hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting the draft regulations, which I commend to the Committee.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, the Liberal Democrats wholeheartedly support this rise in planning fees, so I apologise now for repeating some of the very good points that the Minister made. She should not expect me to keep saying that for ever, but I do on this occasion.

We have all known for years that planning departments are underfunded; they are not covering their costs, and the position is simply unsustainable. I am interested that the Government have decided to go for an interim position rather than a full cost recovery. I can kind of understand their wanting it to be balanced, but I wonder whether the work has been done on what will be needed to get to that position, which we believe we should get to.

As the Minister said, planning departments have long been subsidised by the taxpayer through council tax; they have been bearing the burden of the costs of planning applications, which do not directly benefit them—particularly for individual householder applications. It seems completely illogical that everyone should contribute to an individual’s home improvements, which usually add value to just their property.

We welcome the change of emphasis from the last Government, who did at least increase the fees in December 2023—but I always felt that their agenda seemed to be to keep fees down. I note that a Conservative Member of Parliament in the other place described the rise as “eye-watering”. My riposte is that he clearly does not know what builders are charging these days, as the planning fee, which is an essential tool to getting the development right, is but a tiny fraction of the total cost. Two friends have recently had extensions to their homes, and when I hear how much they spent on the projects as a whole, I feel that £528 is probably the lowest in the grand scheme of their costs.

Major housebuilders are demonstrably making money, and their applications take the most time and expertise, so a rise to begin to cover costs seems entirely reasonable—more so given the financial challenges that local government faces. Some of the pre-app talks and site visits can be really extensive and time consuming.

If we have a concern regarding sustainability, it is about the recruitment and retention of planners. The ambition to recruit 300 new planners is laudable and welcome, and it seems churlish to point out the fact that it equates to just one planner per authority—but that is the reality. The Home Builders Federation pointed out, through a freedom of information request, that 80% of local planning authorities are operating below capacity.

The recruitment and retention problem is exacerbated by differential salaries. The best young graduates appear to be snapped up by the major housebuilders, as they can afford to pay significantly more than local authorities. Especially in areas of high house prices, that can make recruitment even more of a challenge.

The Minister will know that some local authorities are working together to look for solutions by co-operating rather than working against each other, competing for the same people and even poaching. Career opportunities can be better for an individual if they can work across several councils, especially with smaller districts.

The RTPI has pointed an important fact—that there is a lack of robust data on how many planning officers we have in each region and local planning area. Accurate data would help to pinpoint where resources and training are most needed, so perhaps the Minister could give us some more detail on the changes to the Pathways to Planning programme.

We think that all these increases are necessary and overdue, and accept that it is sensible to tie this to an annual increase. The fact that previous rises were not index-linked was part of the problem. The gap between the cost of processing an application and the fees charged has widened significantly over time.

There has been some talk of monitoring and ring-fencing of funds. Because of the parlous situation of local government funding, will local authorities rob Peter to pay Paul? In my experience, most councils will honour the intentions of government when money is handed out for specific needs, and we see no reason why that would not be the case here, without the need to mandate it or introduce checks. This Government are committed to decentralisation, so it is essential to let go and trust local authorities. Trying to micromanage budgets could be unnecessarily overbearing. We believe that councils should make all their own spending decisions. The Government already have mechanisms in place to monitor planning performance.

The Minister was right to point out that councils get no fees from the massive extension to permitted development rights, yet when there are problems with those conversions, the planners are drafted in to give advice and help to put things right. The key is that if there had been a need to obtain planning permission, the issues would have been sorted out right at the beginning. Will the forthcoming planning Bill be more helpful in this regard? We hope so, and in particular we look forward to allowing local planning authorities to set their own planning fees to meet their costs. A degree of flexibility to adjust to local circumstances and needs is essential.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I reiterate my declaration of interest that I am a Central Bedfordshire councillor. These regulations propose important changes to the planning process, including substantial fee increases for householder applications, prior approvals and approval of details reserved by condition; and a new three-tier structure that will differentiate charges for householders, non-major developments and major developments. I thank the Minister for going through the instrument in some detail, and I will try not to repeat too often what she said.

Although His Majesty’s Opposition do not oppose these regulations in principle, we recognise that careful consideration is needed to ensure that these changes serve the interests of both home owners and developers.

The proposed increase in planning fees reflects the increasing demands on planning authorities and the need to recover costs, as the Minister mentioned. The fee for household applications will rise by 105% overall. We agree that these higher fees are necessary, as they ensure that planning authorities will have the resources to operate effectively. However, we must also be mindful of the impact on home owners, especially those who wish to make relatively modest improvements on their homes. We need to strike the right balance between cost recovery and affordability, ensuring that these fees do not place an undue burden on householders already facing financial pressures.

In addition to the householder fee increases, there are Section 73 increases, which, as outlined, will range from £86 for householders, £586 for non-major developments and £2,000 for major developments. This three-tiered structure is logical, and it is fair that the larger developments pay more, but we must ensure that the distinctions between the different types of development are clear, transparent and rational. We must also consider whether these fees inadvertently discourage smaller-scale developments or overburden individual home owners.

Finally, for biodiversity net gain approvals, there are increases of over 100%, from £145 to £298. What is the cumulative impact of all these fees? That is vital. What will they do for various developers, householders and so on? It is right that we get the right resources, but we also need to ensure that we do not overburden developers or small SMEs and enable them still to have financially viable projects.

The aim of these fees is to give resources to planning departments, so it is vital that they then deliver. Given the amount of frustration I get from householders, developers and so on about delays in the planning process and bureaucratic hold-ups, it is important that the fees result in faster, more efficient decision-making. We cannot just raise fees; we have to deliver faster, better planning processes.

I take this opportunity to note that, as mentioned earlier, the proposal to increase planning fees was originally a Conservative proposal—we did it in the previous Government—but I commit again that we need to fix the planning system so that stuff gets done in the allotted time. Timeliness and efficiency must accompany these fee increases.

Looking further ahead, I will touch on some of the proposals in the NPPF, which is really important. One reason we have delays in the planning process is that the planning system is complex, difficult and uncertain. The Government have made it clear that their intention is to simplify the planning process, and we welcome these efforts. We hope that they deliver a simplified planning system, but I also urge caution that simplification, while an important goal, should not come at the cost of clarity or integrity in the planning system. We need a process that is both simpler and more certain, and delivers quality developments so that businesses and individuals can have confidence in the decisions that affect their properties and developments.

In conclusion, while acknowledging the necessity of these fee increases and the proposed changes to the planning system, we urge the Government to ensure that the reforms strike the right balance. The Official Opposition are not opposed to reform, but we call on the Government to ensure that the planning system remains accessible and fair, particularly for smaller developers.

Moreover, as we look at these fee increases and the broader changes to the planning system, we encourage the Government to reflect on the need for a system that is not only more efficient but more responsive and certain. It is essential that the planning process delivers timely and effective decisions to business communities and home owners alike.

Private Rented Sector: Affordable Rents

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I understand the point the right reverend Prelate makes about the conversion of family homes into HMOs. I do not have those figures here, so I will write to her with a response.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, evidence from Scotland shows that only 4% of tenants with a rent rise use the First-tier Tribunal to challenge that rise. How will the Government ensure that more tenants are aware of and use this right? Does the Minister accept that, in a system where demand significantly outstrips supply, a tribunal decision that the rent is fair does not make it affordable?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I absolutely understand the point the noble Baroness makes, but tenants will be able to dispute rent increases they think are above market rate by referring their case to the First-tier Tribunal. The tribunal will assess what the landlord could expect to receive if re-letting the property on the open market, and it will determine the rent. Both landlords and tenants will have the opportunity to submit evidence, and the tribunal will not be able to determine a rent increase higher than the landlord had originally proposed—all through our Renters’ Rights Bill. So we are improving the position for tenants, and for landlords, who will be able to make their case at the tribunal.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, on their entry to the House. I really enjoyed both their speeches. I felt they were delivered with passion and with that which is always welcome in this House—humour. I thank the Minister, who has been very generous with her time in answering our many and varied queries.

This has been a very lengthy and informed debate, and at times somewhat heated. I was reminded—if I needed to be—that we are indeed a nation of pet lovers. Coming at this stage in the batting order and knowing that we all now really just want to hear the Minister’s responses to our very wide-ranging concerns, I have ruled out a lot of facts and details that noble Lords have diligently provided. I am aiming to be succinct, I hope, and not too repetitive.

First, I thank from our Benches the very many who have sent us briefings, particularly the Renters’ Reform Coalition—especially Generation Rent and Shelter. For the landlords—and let us be honest, the majority are good landlords—I thank the National Residential Landlords Association, Propertymark and LARG. They all welcome the Bill in different ways but see unintended consequences. We must explore these, and seek to remedy them and strengthen the Bill, which will be our task over the coming months.

As many have said, we too are pleased to receive the Bill. On the whole, there is much to be welcomed, such as the abolition of Section 21, which has been trailed so much and for so long that it is very much taken for granted. We do not accept the plea from landlords that we should wait until the courts are ready; they should be by now as they too have had ample notice. My question to the Minister is: are they ready?

That said, we do think there are other legitimate concerns from the landlords’ side, as was very well expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, in her detailed contribution. We will join that ride on the see-saw. In particular, we ask the Government for a timeline of the many and various aspects of the Bill to provide certainty, because that is what has been missed in all this. The sector—tenants and landlords—need certainty for all parties, so that we do not jeopardise the Bill’s key objectives in haste or unpreparedness.

It must be said, and has been said by several noble Lords, that a lack of supply of homes for social rent over decades has brought us to this crisis point. The noble Lord, Lord Best, outlined this particularly well. This has created an entire cohort of renters who would have previously been housed in social housing but are now struggling in the private rented sector. They can often be the most vulnerable and financially challenged, and in need of additional support. Our real concern is that despite the Bill they may well still be at the sharp end of renting, unable to access the rights enabled in the Bill and vulnerable to being threatened by the least scrupulous landlords—as was passionately and forcefully expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. We also have concerns for these residents around eligibility checks and guarantors. We need the issues raised by landlords to be fully answered to protect these renters.

The Bill relies on tenants to challenge their landlord across a range of issues, not just regarding rent rises but on unfit properties and repairs, as we have heard. Of course, the Bill gives tenants more rights. We applaud that but doubt whether the residents about whom we are most concerned will have the means or the motivation to take advantage of the new rights. Can the Minister outline any changes that will be brought in, possibly in other ways, to support tenant advocacy, as is the case in the social rented sector? The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, pointed out just how complex the current system is. It will deter even the hardiest tenant.

The Bill is clear that a database could be a great aid to tenants in this regard. We believe that it has the potential to be a game-changer, as outlined by my noble friend Lady Grender. We regret that the detail of its contents is to be left to secondary legislation. We seek for some clear criteria to be enshrined in the Bill to ensure that it really is fit for purpose. In particular, we would support failure to register on the database becoming a breach of duty which would count towards a rent repayment order. That would provide a real incentive to register, in addition to the heavy fines indicated in the Bill.

On renters repayment orders, we are pleased that the Bill introduces six more offences that constitute a breach, but we feel that this is somewhat neutered by the First-tier Tribunal’s powers. It appears that it must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that one of these offences has been committed, as this is the criminal standard of proof—it is a very high bar. I listened intently to the nuanced and detailed response of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, on this.

It is clear that every one of us is concerned about whether the measures in the Bill would lead to a drop in supply. It is strongly claimed by the landlord sector— I believe that evidence from Scotland has actually been mixed—but is contested by others, as there may be different reasons why some of the baby boomer owners have decided that they have had enough and want to sell up.

What is in no doubt is that there are legitimate concerns about the flight of landlords to more lucrative short-term lets, such as Airbnb. This concern is heightened in the Bill by the measure to abolish fixed-term tenancy, which, while a welcome measure for many, could have unintended consequences. Therefore, we feel that some provision for a review should be built into the Bill, no matter what it ends up being, because the rhetoric on both sides of this argument needs to be tested against reality. As the supply side is the crucial issue, can the Minister tell us when there will be a level playing field between both rental sectors, as the Airbnb side is far less regulated at present and there are no incentives to encourage landlords back? Several noble Lords will say that the Bill actually does the opposite.

The Liberal Democrats support build to rent. Supply of this and social homes is vital to climb slowly out of our housing crisis. We can no longer rely solely on the landlord owning between one and five properties, which has been the main market for decades, thus we will explore means to incentivise more build to rent. We also want to keep the smaller landlords in the game, and we should acknowledge that repossession of one’s property is a legitimate concern. They should be reassured that the grounds for repossession have been strengthened, but grounds 1A and 1B still remain a cause for concern. We believe that the threshold for sale and moving in a family member should be higher than at present, as this could still be a fig leaf for an illegal eviction—for once the tenant has moved out, who will in fact check that the house is sold or the family have moved in?

This leads us to the legitimate questions that have been raised by several noble Lords about the capacity and resource readiness of local councils and other agencies to deal with the Bill. Enforcement and the capability of enforcement are big issues; without effective enforcement, the Bill fails.

We were very pleased that the Government have been bold enough to extend the decent homes standard and Awaab’s law to the private rented sector. Many noble Lords supported this measure, but let us not underestimate it; it is not easy, having spoken to both landlords and tenants, to judge who is at fault. I feel that there is more debate to be had there, but we know in our hearts that the consequences can be fatal.

We are in no doubt that it will be a leap for many landlords who genuinely want to improve their properties, but it is a mountain to climb, as too many of our properties are non-decent—or is it indecent?—which is quite shocking for such a wealthy country. What we are concerned about is the reality shown to us by numerous case studies, including from Citizens Advice, that any property improvements resulting from public money have been shown to result in the landlord immediately asking for higher rent from the very tenant whose financial situation gave rise to the eligibility of the landlord to receive the grant and add value to their property in the first place. This cannot be right. We will look to explore this unfairness further in Committee.

We have heard from several noble Lords, and we were shocked to learn, that Ministry of Defence properties are exempt from the Bill. The argument has been put forcibly by others, but I will just say that our service families deserve, at the very least, the same as everyone else.

A key issue mentioned by several noble Lords—especially memorable was the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister—is the whole notion of affordability. We know that, in many parts of the country, rent is simply not affordable. My noble friend Lord Tope outlined the incredibly difficult situation in our capital city, but elsewhere too people are paying a far higher percentage of their income on simply putting a roof over their heads. This is not sustainable. The evidence and detail of this is irrefutable. We support the measures in the Bill to try to give some stability to rent increases, as many people are stretching themselves to the maximum to pay rent and the year-on-year increases implicit in the Bill—which do not keep up with wage increases and the cost of living—are simply unsustainable.

We are sceptical about how the First-tier Tribunal will work and the amount of work it may or may not end up with. We do not agree that its criteria to agree on a fair rent should be market rent, precisely because of the dearth of supply. We would like to work with the Minister to find a way forward on rent increases that is fair to both landlords and tenants.

Although we are not as pessimistic as some, we are not without a degree of scepticism about the unintended consequences of the Bill and whether the see-saw is balanced or broken. But we will work constructively to get it over the line.

Homelessness

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate is right to highlight homelessness for ex-offenders. Since 2021, more than £33 million has been awarded to local authorities to support nearly 6,000 ex-offenders into their own private rented accommodation. The number of individuals still enrolled on the programme and sustaining tenancies is nearly 3,000. The funding provided allows schemes to offer a range of support. It is very important that, alongside housing, we get that support, consisting of rental deposits, landlord incentives, and dedicated support staff with landlord liaison and tenancy support officers. That complements the MoJ’s community accommodation service. The right reverend Prelate is right that housing is key to preventing re-offending.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, worryingly, the total spend on homelessness is unknown, largely due to a loophole in what we call exempt accommodation, which I am sure the Minister is aware of. The usage of this is not tracked, and it is now evident that it attracts some of the worst providers. Can the Minister assure us that this Government will get to grips with this unquantified and uncontrolled spending, and with those who are exploiting some of the most vulnerable people in society and the public purse?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is quite right. It is outrageous that people choose to exploit the individuals concerned in this situation and the councils that have to fund their accommodation. We are doing everything we can to discover the extent of this and to tackle it head on. We recognise the increasing costs of that temporary accommodation and the pressure that it places on council budgets. As well as the homelessness prevention grant, councils are expected to draw from their wider local government finance, as the noble Baroness is aware. The overall local government settlement made extra provision for that, as well as the additional homelessness funding. It is totally unacceptable for homeless people to be exploited. We continue to track that down everywhere we can.

English Devolution

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, there are two absolutely key incentives to this programme of going forward with a mayor. Mayors will get new powers, devolved from Westminster, in a number of areas of competence. With the patience of the House, I will repeat those again: transport and local infrastructure; skills and employment support; housing and strategic planning; economic development and regeneration; environment and climate change; health, well-being and public service reform; and public safety. We are already setting out integrated budgets for the more established mayoral authorities to enable them to do that. There is a huge incentive to do that, as well as a seat around the table of the Council of the Nations and Regions. I hope local areas will see that as a positive opportunity. If they want to take more time to get there, that is fine, but it will be a great opportunity for our local regions.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I have the dubious distinction of holding a job as a directly elected mayor for 16 years, in the role that my party wished would never exist, so we have had an interesting debate. I absolutely understand some of the positives of the mayoral model—she would say that, wouldn’t she?—but I also appreciate the issues about democratic deficit. When Tony Blair imagined and brought into being directly elected mayors, he saw that the democratic deficit and the electoral process worked against a mayor having a real broad consensus in an area to be the chosen person. So he rightly ditched first past the post and brought in what we would consider to be an inferior PR: the alternative vote system. As we know, that was abolished by the previous Government—and one can only think about the reasons they might have had to do that. Genuinely, if you want a super-mayor with superpowers to really command authority and respect over an area, people must feel that their vote counts. At least in an AV model, the vast majority of people actually get their first or second choice candidate to win. Under first past the post, the winner, as we all know, can actually receive fewer votes than the rest of the field put together, which cannot be right if you are devolving that amount of power.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Baroness provided a wonderful role model for mayors going forward. Some of the innovations that she introduced during her time as Mayor of Watford are legendary, so I thank her for that service.

Mayors can use their mandate for change to take the difficult decisions needed. As the noble Baroness will be aware, they have both standing and soft power to convene local partners and tackle shared problems directly, exercising devolved powers and attracting inward investment. They have a platform for tackling obstacles to growth that might need a regional approach. Mayors are accountable to their citizens, as she rightly points out, and have the profile to stand up for them on a national stage and to partner with and challenge central government where needed—and of course it is needed sometimes.

As for the electoral system for mayors, we are not proposing to change that just now.

Housing: Permitted Development Rights

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My noble friend makes an excellent point about funding for affordable housing. Even in a very tight budget round, the Government have allocated an additional £500 million towards affordable housing, which brings the total up to around £3 billion altogether. But we need to consider all sources of funding. I spoke to a housing investment forum in the City of London just a few weeks ago, and there is great interest in this area; and of course, we still need to look at pension funds further for local investment to drive the housing market.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, surely it is the Government’s mission to create decent homes and not the slums of the future, and I am at a loss to know why the Government are procrastinating on this. Surely it is time to insist on full planning permission for the larger schemes, or at least to revert to the regulations that were in place before 2012.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I take the noble Baroness’s point; we need to keep this continually under review. Some of the permitted development homes have been of fair quality and have provided homes for people. But we need to continue to press that all new homes delivered through permitted development rights must provide adequate light, meet nationally described space standards and be decent, fit and safe for the people who live in them. We will continue to do that. Where there are bigger schemes, equally, they must meet those requirements.

Planning Committees: Reform

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I am not a lawyer, so I do not want to get involved in discussions about the merits of judicial review. People need to have some recourse to law at some stage. I will take her question back, because she makes a very good point. If she wants to put in a submission as a response to the working paper, I would be very pleased to consider it.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, the Deputy Prime Minister has flagged up the role of elected mayors of combined authorities. As someone who lamented the coalition scrapping regional spatial strategies, I see this as a possible way of replacing those. Can the Minister perhaps flesh out a little how she sees that layer working?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. There certainly needs to be a strategic planning level above the level of local plans. She can expect to see more news about that in the English devolution White Paper that will be coming out shortly.

New Homes

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity to say that I went to visit British Offsite with Weston Homes in Braintree earlier this week. What a fantastic example of British innovation, using recycled steel to build MMC products. MMC is an important opportunity to improve productivity in the construction sector, to deliver quickly the very high-quality energy-efficient homes we need, and to create new and diverse jobs. We are working to address the strategic barriers to the further uptake of MMC, including improved supply chain confidence, clarity for warranty and insurance markets, and planning reform. We will say more about that in the long-term housing strategy next year.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, there are currently tens of thousands of Section 106 affordable homes with detailed planning permission waiting to be built out on active sites, but stuck because the registered providers will not take them on due to the current financial capacity in that sector. Will the Government as a short-term emergency measure consider the use of Homes England grant funding specifically, so that registered providers can afford to take up these much-needed affordable homes on these stuck sites?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is quite right about the stuck sites but, in spite of the very difficult Budget round this year, the Government have put £500 million more into affordable housing. That takes the total for affordable housing up to about £3 billion. Homes England is working through its programme of how it is going to support the delivery of those affordable homes. I am sure that support for registered providers will form part of that.

Housing Supply and Homelessness

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as yet another vice-president of the Local Government Association. I begin by acknowledging the very personal valedictory speech of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. His wise but often challenging contributions will be missed.

As ever, it has been a stimulating, knowledgeable and important debate, but I confess that it has left me feeling a bit depressed. Noble Lords’ excellent contributions have shown that, yes, there is a consensus that we have a housing crisis—no surprise there—and, yes, there are lots of reasons why it has come to pass: noble Lords have cantered knowledgeably around the course, covering almost all of them. We also seem to agree that this is not new: it has been brewing for decades and the many and various attempts to build more homes have been, by and large, unsuccessful—hence my depression. But I am looking forward to the Minister’s response and I hope she can lift my gloom, because this is one area where we all want to see change, and radical change at that. It is a sign of the quality of the debate today that noble Lords have given the Minister many suggested solutions that give us hope.

As a result of the many and varied barriers to building more homes outlined in this debate, homelessness has risen, along with the number of families in temporary accommodation. It is also evident that the private rented sector is not coping with the increased demand, so in times of scarcity rents rise and tenants get evicted. All these points were amplified by many noble Lords, but I particularly enjoyed the contributions from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson.

This vicious circle was clearly outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, in her thorough, informed and compelling introduction. The contributions from the noble Lords, Lord Griffiths and Lord Bird, highlighted the very human consequences of people living without a home. It is about people and about poverty.

The causes of homelessness were very well outlined, particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton, when she turned her attention to the young. That is where our attention should be too. These causes include restrictions to benefit entitlement, rising living costs, mental health issues, relationship breakdown and, of course, the number one: eviction from the private rented sector due to increasing rent prices, which have risen by almost 9% in the past year alone. We look forward to working with the Minister on the forthcoming Renters’ Rights Bill to ameliorate some of these issues.

One of the inevitable consequences of an undersupply of homes is indeed increasing rents, but the reason for this is irrefutably the significant decline in the availability of social housing, which to these Benches is the big lever to pull to unlock the logjam, as analysed by my noble friends Lord Shipley and Lady Grender. That social housing has declined to the massive extent it has was well outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Best. I loved his “bricks not benefits” slogan, which we should adopt. It is inescapable that this decline has contributed significantly to the problems we have now. The figures speak for themselves: a net loss of over 11,000 homes in 2022-23 and a quarter of a million over a decade. You cannot remove that amount of supply without it having a significant impact, and it has.

That is why these Benches see a substantial increase in the building of homes for social rent as the key route out of the vicious circle. This must and should be subsidised, and all builders—particularly local SME builders, who have been squeezed out of the market—should be incentivised to build homes for social rent. I seek reassurances from the Minister that Homes England is being directed to fund homes for social rent and in places of greatest need. How can we incentivise more SME builders back into building more? Is it too much to hope that the new planning Bill and attendant National Planning Policy Framework will set clear expectations that local planning authorities must assess their need for social housing, and state their targets for all tenures according to local need? This would send a very strong signal to developers that this is not negotiable. We have had a decade of it being negotiable.

Local planning authorities have to give greater priority not just to the numbers and targets but to providing more social housing. Perhaps we also need to seriously incentivise private investors to invest in social housing schemes in those areas. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Young, about getting financial stability into the private rented sector.

Noble Lords may notice that I have not used the term affordable housing. I believe it is a misnomer that has come to be meaningless in so many contexts. If our friend Lord Stunell were still with us, he would certainly be holding forth on this whole issue of affordability and how we should address the problem. He would probably have agreed with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Hain, proposed.

As the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, outlined, we also have ample evidence of a declining and ageing workforce to build the homes we need. Where is the workforce strategy to deliver this number of homes? Targets and tough talk will come to naught if we do not have the capacity to actually build the homes, regardless of who builds them.

Among our many excellent briefings, one that jumped out at me concerned the number of empty homes, which was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and my noble friend Lord Shipley. Nearly 700,000 homes in England are unfurnished and empty, and 265,000 are classified as long term. From experience, I know how difficult it is to gain possession of an empty home, and I hope that this Government will make it easier for councils to do so and will consider incentivising sellers by exempting them from a percentage of capital gains tax.

I am deeply concerned about councils’ ability to find suitable temporary accommodation. Anecdotally, I know they are really struggling. Councils spent £1.74 billion last year supporting 104,000 households in temporary accommodation. Worryingly, there is growing evidence that some landlords are leaving the long-term private rented sector in order to supply this much sought after temporary accommodation at—guess what—much higher rents. We also know that it is stretching some district councils’ finances to breaking point, and there are fears of Section 104 notices being served.

The planning system is often cited as a barrier to building. In my view, this is overstated, usually by developers. They would say that, wouldn’t they? Councils are required to identify a five-year land supply, and 1 million planning permissions have been granted but not built out. Councils have no power to compel developers to come forward to develop these sites or to build out sites to which permission has already been given, yet they are judged and punished by the Government’s housing delivery test. Perhaps this Government might consider more powers for councils, such as being able to charge developers full council tax for every development that is not built out on the agreed time scale.

However, what certainly does deter developers is our NIMBY culture, as forcefully raised by the noble Lord, Lord Snape. Politicians of all stripes have pandered to this, to the detriment of more and quicker housing delivery. This is not new. The 1947 Act gave rise to the notion that development needed to be restrained and resisted as an antidote to urban sprawl. I note that, even back in those days, when the Minister with responsibility for housing visited existing residents on the site for the new town of Stevenage, he was driven from the meeting with shouts of “Dictator!” ringing in his ears, only to find his car tyres slashed and sugar in his petrol tank. I have received only online abuse, which lets me off lightly.

I hope the Government have a genuine new take on how to overcome this visible and negative impediment to development. We need to somehow change the narrative to “YIMBY” at both national and local level, and that takes real leadership. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, that we support a long-term cross-party strategy because we know this is a complex issue. It will take years, following the impact of decades of failure, to change the market significantly, yet the reality of people’s lives is that change cannot come quickly enough.