Planning Permissions and Unauthorised Developments

Debate between Bob Stewart and Christopher Pincher

Wednesday 26th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)]

It is a great pleasure to speak in this important Adjournment debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) on raising an important issue on behalf of his and all our constituents, as well as our colleagues and partners in local government.

If we want our country to have a planning system that is prepared for the challenges of the future, we need to keep the conversation going about how the system will work in practice. I admire my hon. Friend’s personal commitment to the issue. If I may say so, there is certainly nothing woke about this bloke, because last year he proposed several interesting changes to the enforcement regime in the private Member’s Bill to which he alluded. We have had some constructive conversations about those changes, and I look forward to further such conversations to determine what we can take forward together. This matter may not generate as huge a number of column inches as other touchstone issues of our day, but I assure the House and my hon. Friend that the Government share his interest in and commitment to improving planning enforcement in this country.

I also share the interest shown by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), and I am concerned by the ongoing issue he faces. He will appreciate that I should not say too much more about it because of my quasi-judicial role, but I am certainly happy to discuss his worries about inter-departmental connectivity—let us call it that—and how agencies work together to effect appropriate planning decisions. He will know that we propose to bring forward planning reform, and I will certainly talk to my colleagues at DEFRA and engage him in those conversations. He is a distinguished Member of this House with a distinguished ministerial career, and in his 21 years here he has been a doughty campaigner on his constituents’ behalf. He has demonstrated that again this afternoon.

It goes without saying that the overwhelming majority of people across the country will need to engage with our planning system only when they are looking for planning permission prior to any works they may want done. While a small number of works will inevitably slip through the net, with people accidentally undertaking work without realising it requires planning permission—most people, as my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington rightly said, want to play by the rules—some will try to bend the rules to their will by gambling that planning permission will be granted retrospectively.

That gamble should never be allowed to pay off. It shows contempt for the rules that hold the system together, and it is unacceptable to every person who approaches the planning regime with good faith. When the system is gamed, local authorities have an array of powers—my hon. Friend alluded to some of them—in their enforcement arsenal, including strong financial penalties for non-compliance. Councils can step in to suspend works on a site so that proper investigation can take place. Again, if an individual or companies try to subvert that process, they can find themselves facing an unlimited fine for non-compliance.

[Bob Stewart]

In support of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), a close constituency neighbour, he and I both have a problem, because people gamble with the weekend. We must give local authorities the power to take immediate action when people start their work, as my hon. Friend said, on a Friday evening or Saturday morning and then work through the weekend before anyone can actually take enforcement action. Such action should be almost immediate, and the police should be given the power to evict people before they start building too much.

[Christopher Pincher]

My right hon. Friend makes a practical point, and I will come on to say something about the support we want to give local authorities so that they are better able to enforce the rules. It is all very well regulating, but regulations are only as good as the enforcement capability of those charges with that responsibility—[Interruption.] I note, as I look to my right, that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) appears to be about to get to his feet, so I shall pre-empt him by sitting down.

Building Safety Bill

Debate between Bob Stewart and Christopher Pincher

Report stage
Wednesday 19th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Christopher Pincher]

I am happy to set out this group of new clauses and amendments that I hope will be non-contentious as they relate to special measures.

Let me briefly remind the House that special measures orders are a last-resort regulatory intervention that will be invoked if there has been a serious failure or multiple failures by the accountable person to meet their duties under part 4 of the Bill. The new clauses and amendments, beginning with new clause 19, provide for the special measures regime to operate in high-risk buildings across all housing tenures. They also ensure that a special measure order cannot be circumvented by a recalcitrant accountable person, including in respect of a situation in which an accountable person sells their interest in the building and tries to avoid being bound by the special measures order.

New clause 19 introduces new schedule 1, which will encompass the special measures provisions and replace clauses 104 to 113. I shall refer to the paragraphs in the schedule as I address the House. Proposed new paragraph 9 is a new provision that provides for a financial management proposal. This will detail how the accountable person will fund the relevant building safety expenses across both leasehold and rented buildings that are subject to special measures. The financial management proposal sets out the estimated expenses, the measures that they will fund and the special measures manager will undertake, and the apportionment of payments if there is more than one accountable person.

Proposed new paragraph 10(3)(b) ensures that for commonhold buildings a special measures manager may carry out the functions of a receiver of commonhold building safety assessments. This aligns with the provisions on the building safety charge and ensures that the manager is remunerated and can carry out their functions for such a tenure of building. Amendments 33 to 35 are supporting provisions for special measures in common-hold buildings.

Proposed new paragraph 12 is a new provision that ensures financial propriety and provides that any payments received by a manager further to the proposal are deposited into an account to be held on trust. Proposed new paragraph 16 gives power to the Building Safety Regulator to provide financial assistance to the special measures manager to enable it to carry out its functions.

Proposed new paragraph 18 provides for a proactive regulator who will review key aspects under the special measures order and, where necessary, apply to vary the order if the regulator considers that any of the functions or terms require amendment.

Proposed new paragraphs 20(7) to 20(9) provide that on the discharge of a special measures order, the tribunal must direct the special measures manager to prepare a reconciliation of those accounts held on trust and may direct final payments from the manager or accountable persons as appropriate.

Proposed new paragraph 22 creates provisions that ensure that while it is in force the terms of a special measures order will be binding against an incoming accountable person, while the outgoing accountable person remains liable for any contraventions under the order and any debts that may have been incurred prior to the transfer of ownership.

A swathe of Government amendments—Nos. 11, 12, 16 to 28, 31 and 32, 36, 40, 61, 63 and 70—are consequential amendments that make changes relating to special measures due to the provisions now appearing in new schedule 1. Amendments 33 to 35 provide for changes to provisions to ensure that special measures operate effectively for commonhold, high-risk buildings. Together, these amendments and new provisions will ensure that a special measures intervention will operate effectively across buildings, regardless of tenure.

Amendments 14 and 15 are, again, minor technical changes to the process of registration of high-risk buildings. Amendment 14 simply clarifies the meaning of registration, while amendment 15 makes it clear that the building safety regulator has the powers to update the register of high-risk buildings beyond the initial registration application. The amendment will therefore make sure that the register is kept up to date and is fit for purpose. Amendments 29 and 30 are on the protection from forfeiture and amend clause 122. They amend it so that leaseholders can be assured that they have the same protections against forfeiture of a lease as those that already exist in relation to the service charge. They are consequential amendments that ensure that statutory protections against forfeiture apply to relevant leases where there is a requirement to pay a building safety charge. We want the same procedural rights to apply to the building safety charge regime as apply to the service charge. The amendment extends service charge protections for leaseholders who default on payments or challenge the reasonableness of a charge to the building safety charge.

Finally, the Government have tabled another small batch of minor or technical amendments that are either consequential to other changes or correct clauses in the Bill. Four technical amendments are consequential to amendment 1, which I introduced earlier, relating to the new homes ombudsman. Amendments 59 and 62 remove the regulation-making power to add the description of “developer” for the purposes of the new homes ombudsman provisions from the scope of the general provision about powers to make regulations. This is because new clause 20, in respect of the regulations, means that we can ensure that Scottish and Welsh Ministers, as well as the Secretary of State, have bespoke powers. Amendments 66 and 67 adjust the territorial extent of the provisions about the new homes ombudsman scheme now that that the scheme will operate across Great Britain, and territorial extent issues are also dealt with in new schedule 2, which contains a consequential amendment related to the new homes ombudsman. [Interruption.]

Finally, I heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who has not yet risen—

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

rose—

[Christopher Pincher]

He has risen—I am doing your work for you, Mr Deputy Speaker—and I will give way to him.

[Bob Stewart]

I thank my very good friend for being so nice to me—decent of him. In sum, all these special measures are devices to ensure that, once people are identified as culpable to fix the problem, they are pinged and have to do it. Is that correct?

[Christopher Pincher]

My right hon. and gallant Friend, as ever, is on or near the money. The point of the changes is to make sure that the accountable person is indeed accountable, so they do what it says on the tin.

Amendment 13 makes it clear in the Bill that an accountable person who allows occupation of a single residential unit or more in part of a higher risk building, as defined in clause 62, without a relevant completion certificate has committed a summary offence, and the guilty person is liable for conviction up to a maximum summary term. Amendment 60 allows regulations made under clause 71 to be subject to the affirmative procedure. Clause 71 sets out the parameters of the part of the building for which an accountable person is responsible. Amendment 64 provides that the consequential amendments in schedule 5 relating to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967—an Act we all know well—and the Freedom of Information Act 2000 extend to all of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Amendment 68 provides that clause 127 is automatically commenced two months after Royal Assent.

The amendments, while hardly scintillating, will help to improve the Bill and make it ready for scrutiny by our colleagues in the other place. I trust that my hon. Friends and Opposition Members have listened closely, with care and attention, have absorbed all the points I have made, and that they will support the amendments.

Town and Country Planning

Debate between Bob Stewart and Christopher Pincher

Wednesday 30th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Christopher Pincher]

I am grateful for this wide-ranging and interesting debate and to the hon. Members on both sides who have contributed to it. I hope that I shall be able to cover most of the points raised during my remarks, but I am always happy to discuss the points that colleagues wish to raise beyond the Chamber.

In June, the Prime Minister announced the most radical reforms to our planning system since the second world war, making it easier to build better homes where people want to live. These regulations that we are debating tonight are important levers in our ambitions to build, build, build as we recover from the economic effects of covid-19. They encourage developers and property owners to see the opportunities that already exist to increase housing delivery by the more imaginative use of existing buildings. That includes building in airspace or demolishing and rebuilding vacant buildings.

During these difficult times, we want to ensure that the construction industry continues to increase the delivery of the new homes that our country so sorely needs. We cannot sit back, as the Opposition seem so fond of doing, and just wait. We have to be fiercely proactive in helping communities and developers to bring forward these much needed new homes through carefully controlled permitted development rights. Removing red tape from the application process will encourage developers to step up and build out, providing a real boost for the construction industry while also delivering new homes in our existing towns and cities.

The three statutory instruments being considered today introduced new permitted development rights to allow the upward extension of buildings, creating new homes and extra living space, and they came into force in August. They also allow for the demolition and rebuild of vacant commercial, light industrial and residential buildings, enabling decaying properties to be redeveloped for a new generation of good-quality housing. This builds on our national planning policy to boost housing density and make effective use of existing land and buildings without the need to use and build on greenfield sites. We encourage these moves toward gentle densification.

[Bob Stewart]

I am really worried that in my constituency, lessening red tape also lessens approval from the local community, and it is very important that we do not lose the approval of the local community.

[Christopher Pincher]

Through the prior approval process, communities and local authorities will have rights to say yes or to say no, and I shall say more about that. Existing permitted development rights for the change of use to residential properties already make an important contribution to housing delivery, helping us meet our ambitious plans for 300,000 new homes per year, but we have no intention of reneging on that ambitious commitment. That is why, in June, we introduced rights to allow an additional two storeys to be added to free- standing residential blocks of flats, and in July we extended that to allow for two storeys to be added to a range of existing buildings in both commercial and residential use to create new homes.

It should be remembered that landlords, including registered providers and local authorities, are able to use that right to add additional homes to their existing blocks, making it easier to increase the supply of affordable housing as well as market-rate homes. That will unlock over 8,000 new homes—not 800 but 8,000—every year. Eight thousand new dream homes for their residents, every one of which Labour is planning to oppose. By speeding up and simplifying the planning process, the permitted development rights will green-light schemes that might not otherwise come forward.

However, we must all acknowledge that not all existing buildings will be suitable for conversion, and so, to make it easier to reuse sites occupied by redundant and vacant buildings, we have introduced the new permitted development right to allow such buildings to be demolished and rebuilt as residential blocks of flats within the existing footprint, and to make better use of the site. The right also allows an additional two storeys to be added to the height of the original building. That right will support regeneration by delivering additional homes and redeveloping vacant, unused and unloved brownfield sites, which blight local communities. New homes, new opportunities, new dreams—hopes that will be dashed if Labour votes against these measures tonight.

Defence Reforms

Debate between Bob Stewart and Christopher Pincher

Thursday 17th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Christopher Pincher]

In that, as in most cases, the Government are very wise.

I am pleased to be able to speak in the debate. I shall ask three brief questions. The first question, to the House, is this: do we need to restructure our armed forces? We had not had a review for many years. Given the military deficit that the Labour Government left the current one, if Labour were still in power—heaven forefend—it would have had to have one.

The second question is whether we need to rebalance the armed forces in favour of the reserves. Broadly speaking, that is the right thing to do. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay because in this post-cold war asymmetrical world he referred to, it is not appropriate to have an overwhelming number of regular forces. It is more appropriate to have a flexible reserve-based force. Our allies are doing that. In 1990, our Territorial Army was more than twice the size than the proposed Reserve Army, so I do not think that having approximately 30,000 reservists out of a total of 120,000 in our armed forces is inappropriate.

There have been many reforms and there has been opposition to them. There was opposition to “Options for Change” a generation ago, and to the Keith Speed reforms in 1980. There was opposition to the changes in 1959, and I am sure there was opposition to Edward Cardwell’s reforms in 1872. The question is not so much whether reform is wrong, but whether the Ministry of Defence has got this reform right. Broadly speaking, I think it has. The question we are asking ourselves is can we recruit enough people into the reserve to match the draw-down of our regular forces at a time of falling joblessness and increased career alternatives for young people? The answer is yes, if we get it right.

[Bob Stewart]

The regiments will have gone by 2015, and on any optimistic assumption the reservist plan will not be complete until 2018. There is a three-year gap.

[Christopher Pincher]

Gap planning is the trial and tribulation of any organisation. Businesses all around the country have to deal with gap planning, particularly when people who are in the reserves need to go on deployment or training. The issue for many such firms—I used to be involved in an organisation that had a lot of reservists going on deployment—is not so much planning for 40 days away, because that is something that can, to a greater or lesser extent, be planned for; the challenge is ensuring that there is somebody to step temporarily into the reservist’s role, that the handover is done effectively, the person is able to discharge their other responsibilities while stepping into that role, and, when the reservist returns, that the handover back is smooth. Making sure that those sorts of challenges are dealt with is one way for companies big and small to be confident about recruiting and retaining reservists. That is particularly important for firms whose bread and butter is deploying their resources at their clients’ sites. They have to consider what their clients might think of their staff leaving and coming back for periods of time.

The key message for the Minister, who is knowledgeable about these matters and is committed to our armed forces, is to ensure that big and small businesses recognise the advantages of having reservists on their books. Most firms put great store in training and skill capability. They need to know that the MOD, the Army, the Air Force and the Navy will train the reservists on their books, giving them the skills that their firms want, need and can use. As my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) said in a very good speech, it is incumbent on the MOD to work with the Federation of Small Businesses, the CBI and local chambers of commerce to ensure that businesses know the value of the training that reservists will receive, so they are more likely to want to recruit and retain them. If we do that, we can move further and faster towards the objective the Minister hopes to achieve, and this change in the deployment of our resources will be successful.

Civil Aviation Bill

Debate between Bob Stewart and Christopher Pincher

Monday 30th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Christopher Pincher]

I am grateful for that intervention. The hon. Gentleman clearly intends to carry on for Luton South where Lorraine Chase left off; we have brought forward this Bill, and we have heard what the Secretary of State had to say.

I welcome the Bill, which is timely, because we all know that aviation is an industry that is as important to Britain as it is maligned. It is important because it employs 1 million people throughout the country, sustains a tourist industry employing 2.6 million people and generates about £9 billion of Treasury receipts every year, plus all the Treasury receipts that it generates by making our economy work more effectively and better.

There is no doubt in the minds of operators that they want better regulation. We want regulation that puts passengers first. We want regulation that ensures that security in the age of the terrorist with trainers is sharpened and honed. We want to ensure that transparency at the Department for Transport, at the CAA, among operators and at airlines is the best that it can be. However, we do not want regulation that loads unnecessary bureaucracy on to airport operators or that drives up costs that are of no benefit to the travelling public or to operators that simply want to make a fair buck by doing better and more efficient business.

Birmingham is the airport in my neck of the woods. It has one runway and carries 8.6 million people a year. It could double its capacity without changing its infrastructure in any way. It has a plan to extend its runway so that it can carry bigger planes with more passengers, more fuel and more baggage for longer distances, as far as the far east. That could extend its carriage capacity by up to 27 million passengers a year. At that point, it would begin to compete with airports such as Gatwick.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Presumably, the high-speed link from London will work in reverse and people will be able to get up to Birmingham and increase the airport’s capacity, making it a south-east England airport.

[Christopher Pincher]

My hon. Friend is trying to draw me into the trap of discussing High Speed 2. Birmingham airport carries only 40% of the passengers in its catchment area, so it could extend capacity without picking up passengers from the south-east or elsewhere.

The operators are concerned—the hon. Member for Bolton West touched on this—about changes that might allow the CAA to increase costs by a third on undesignated airports such as Birmingham. In designated airports such as Heathrow and Gatwick, those costs can easily be passed on to airlines. In undesignated airports, they cannot. That places a burden on those airports as they develop their plans of expansion and as they try to build the regional economy, such as that of the west midlands.

It is striking that Britain, with a population of 60 million, has only one formal hub airport, whereas Germany, with a population of more than 80 million, has five hub airports and plans to expand that to six. It seems that the Germans recognise the importance of aviation in building their regional economies. I hope that we will do the same. As we take the Bill through Parliament, as the Secretary of State and Ministers consider it and as it goes through the Public Bill Committee, we must ensure that the clauses do not disadvantage regional airports, which can be so important in building our regional economies.

I will make two more points, thanks to the injury time that has been granted to me. The first relates to environmental protections and reports. We all agree about the importance of demonstrating the effects that aviation can have on carbon emissions and about ensuring that proper environmental reporting is built into the Bill. I ask those on the Treasury Bench to ensure that the information that they wish airports to develop and deliver is not already available through the Department of Energy and Climate Change or reports that are produced by the Department for Transport. We do not want to overburden airports or demand that they duplicate information that is produced already.

My final point relates to the levy, which has already been touched on. Operators are worried that demanding 10% in penalty clauses because of events that are outside their control can place a significant burden on the airport. They say, and I agree with them, that when there are extreme weather conditions or when planes are grounded, the decision on safety is also made by the airlines. Should the airlines not, therefore, also be responsible for carrying some of the penalty clause that is imposed? If that is not appropriate or possible because airlines can choose whether to take slots and can go elsewhere—it is much more difficult for airports to move—is it not possible to reduce or abolish the penalty, so that we do not place undue burdens on our airports?

My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) said that we are a trading nation. Of course, we are an island trading nation. Aviation is therefore all the more important to our competitiveness in Europe. It provides the quickest and best connections to markets for our goods and services. I hope that when the Government further consider the Bill and when it goes through the Public Bill Committee, we will place front and centre the importance of balancing and regionalising our economy, and ensure that aviation plays a part in that. We must protect and promote our regional airports. I look forward to the Minister, in winding up, saying that we will.