Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Philp and Lord Barwell

Monday 27th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Barwell]

We are certainly absolutely committed to trying to get a greater proportion of the homes we need built on brownfield land. The White Paper sets out a huge range of different things that we will do to achieve that, but I will happily write to my hon. Friend about the details of the issue he raises.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I welcome the Minister’s commitment to new construction methods, but will he confirm to the House that the Government’s commitment to starter homes, which are designed to encourage home ownership, remains undiminished?

[Gavin Barwell]

Absolutely. Starter homes are an important part of the way in which the Government are going to try to help people to get into home ownership. There are a number of different schemes—[Interruption.] We are not proceeding with a statutory obligation because that reflects the view expressed to us by large numbers of people. Starter homes go alongside shared ownership and the Help to Buy scheme. None of these schemes existed when the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) was housing Minister and did nothing to reverse to the decline in home ownership.

Croydon Tram Incident

Debate between Chris Philp and Lord Barwell

Monday 14th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Barwell]

I am hugely grateful for, although not at all surprised by, the tone of the hon. Gentleman’s response. It is good to have the support of the Official Opposition for the work that we are undertaking. I have paid tribute to the agencies, but I would like, on a personal level, to thank the Mayor of London for the support that he has provided to Croydon Council and for the detailed briefing that he has ensured that I, as a constituency MP, have had at every stage of the process.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that we should not speculate about the causes of the accident. Three investigations are under way, and it is important that we give the professionals the time to do their work thoroughly. The victims of this terrible tragedy deserve the whole truth, and that will not be served by too much speculation at this stage. I want to reassure him on two points. First, the RAIB has been very clear that if anybody has any evidence—either specific to the accident that took place on Wednesday morning or, more generally, concerns about the operation of the system—it wants to hear that evidence, and I encourage anybody who has such evidence to put it forward. Secondly, the investigation will be very thorough.

The hon. Gentleman asked about automation, and lots of constituents have already raised that issue with me. Essentially, trams are buses on rails. Because they run part of their route on rails and part of it on roads, trams have to rely, at least for part of the route, on drivers driving according to the conditions in front of them. Therefore, trams cannot have the same kind of signalling systems as trains. However, there is a legitimate question about sections of the route where trams run on rails and are akin to trains, and I am sure that that will be one of the issues addressed in the investigation.

The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that the record of this system over the history of its operation shows that it has been extraordinarily safe. As and when the system reopens, people will obviously be looking for reassurance, but they can look at the safety record and have confidence in that regard. I also give him the assurance he was looking for that if recommendations are made during the course of the RAIB’s work, the Government will of course give them urgent and very careful consideration and make sure that all necessary steps are taken.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the track has now been repaired and that TfL is running test services today, so I anticipate a decision about when the service can reopen fairly imminently.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Communities across Croydon are certainly united in their grief and sympathy for the families of the seven victims. From attending remembrance services in Croydon South yesterday, I know that the hearts of people there have gone out to the families who suffered so tragically on Wednesday. I associate myself with the comments of the Minister and the shadow Minister in paying tribute to the emergency services, who responded so well in very difficult circumstances.

I want to tell the Minister that many of my constituents who also use the line, part of which runs along our constituency border, have contacted me in the past four or five days to say that they have felt in the past—not on Wednesday, but in general—that trains approaching the Sandilands junction from the tunnel to the south have been running at very rapid speeds. Will he confirm to the House that the investigations will cover that? I believe tram users would find it reassuring if there was an opportunity to install either a warning system or automated braking in other trams, as the shadow Minister said, as well as in the ones in Croydon, to prevent any repetition of this accident.

[Gavin Barwell]

Like my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour, the Remembrance Day services in Croydon at the weekend obviously took on a special poignancy, with people taking the opportunity to remember those who gave their lives in the past to protect our freedoms in this country, but also those who lost their lives in this tragic accident.

Like my hon. Friend, I have had people contact me with their concerns about the operation of the system over a period of time. I assure him that the investigation will look into those issues. As I said in answer to the shadow Minister, I do not think we should prejudge what needs to happen at this time. Clearly, the investigation will look into such issues, and the Government will take very seriously any recommendations from that investigation.

Neighbourhood Planning Bill (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Chris Philp and Lord Barwell

Committee Debate: 8th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 27th October 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

It continues to be a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. As I said in an evidence session, I completely accept the principle we just heard described: that planning departments are woefully under-resourced, which is a significant inhibitor to development and to planning consent being granted, and that the most appropriate way to remedy that under-resourcing is for applicants—the developers—to pay higher fees. I agree with the spirit of what has been said. This is a point I raised in the Housing and Planning Bill Committee in this very room a year ago and with both the current Housing and Planning Minister and his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis). I am completely on board with the principles being described. However, the two new clauses have some deficiencies.

New clause 10 simply says that where there is inadequate resource, a review must be conducted to set out the appropriate level of resource. Setting it out does not provide it. That is simply a statement that there is inadequate resource, so I do not think new clause 10 addresses the problem; it simply highlights the fact that the problem exists, which we all know already.

New clause 15 is very generally worded. It gives local authorities complete discretion to set their own fees. I have three concerns about it. First, there is no limit on how high the fees might go. I accept that the fees are currently too low, but as drafted the new clause would mean that some local authorities might set fees that are unreasonably high and in fact deter development. There is nothing in the new clause to address that concern. Secondly, there is nothing to ensure that the money raised by higher fees will be ring-fenced for the provision of additional planning services, nor, in a similar vein, to ensure that the existing level of service being provided by general taxation is maintained. There is nothing to ensure that the extra money raised leads to extra—that is to say, incremental—levels of resource in the planning department, which is what I want. Thirdly, the new clause does not place any performance obligations on the local authority planning department. It is essential that if a developer or applicant is paying higher fees, they receive improved performance in return—for example, a decision made within a certain period.

While I fully support the principles articulated by the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton, I am afraid to say that the details do not quite pass muster. I could not support a new clause unless it had those three things: reasonable fee levels, ring-fenced money to ensure incremental service provision and a link to performance. I am deeply sorry that I will not be able to support the new clause, despite the fact that I support its spirit.

I listened carefully to the Minister’s evidence and what he said about the coming White Paper. I very much hope to receive satisfaction when that White Paper is published—I hope in the near future. Should these measures not find their way into the White Paper, I will be an energetic and active advocate of those principles in due course. I would be happy to discuss this further with the Minister.

[Gavin Barwell]

Let me start by reiterating what I said during previous Committee discussions and in the evidence that my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South just referred to. The Secretary of State and I have heard the concerns of developers, local authorities, professional bodies and hon. Members about stretched resources of planning departments and the calls for an increase in planning fees. We absolutely accept that there is an issue here and we are looking closely at it. I want to ensure that planning departments have the resources to provide the service that applicants and communities as a whole deserve. However, for many of the reasons that my hon. Friend eloquently set out, I do not believe that new clauses 10 and 15 are the answer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

Could we not have a graded scale of enhanced fees, reflecting the size of different applications?

[Gavin Barwell]

There is already a grading of the fees, but the general presumption is that fees increase by a similar percentage. We could consider increasing some fees and not others for larger schemes, with the caveat that although developers with large applications pay very significant fees, the majority of people who pay fees are individual constituents wanting to put an extension on a domestic property.

The hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton and I may have different views on the issue, but it is worth pointing out that we already have the powers to achieve what new clause 15 proposes. The Secretary of State can already provide in regulations for local planning authorities to set their own fees, at least up to the level of cost recovery. I would be surprised if the Opposition believed that fees should go beyond full cost recovery. Earlier this year, we consulted on several proposals for the resourcing of planning departments; we shall publish our response shortly, as part of the White Paper.

Before I resume my seat, I should like to add one other caveat, which does not detract from the central importance of getting the resourcing right. This is about not just money but ensuring that sufficient people enter the profession. In the last year, we have provided the RTPI with funding for a bursary scheme for students undertaking postgraduate planning studies. I very much agreed with the hon. Member for City of Durham when she spoke passionately about the important contribution that planners make with regard to new settlements. Raising the profile and status of the profession and ensuring that planners are seen as not obstructing or stopping development but ensuring that we get the quantity and high quality of development that we need is important in getting enough people coming into the industry.

Money is an issue—I hope I have provided sufficient reassurance that the Government are looking at that—but we must ensure that we have the human resources as well as the financial resources. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause.

Neighbourhood Planning Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Chris Philp and Lord Barwell

Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 25th October 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Chris Philp]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Gavin Barwell]

I will give way once more; then I want to look at the specific example of flooding, talk about the consultation document and discuss the amendments.

[Chris Philp]

I have a genuine question on which I should be grateful for the Minister’s thoughts. If we proceed as per the clause as drafted, and the applicant has to agree in writing to the pre-commencement conditions, what if the applicant—the developer—unreasonably refuses to agree to any of the pre-commencement conditions, in order to frustrate them? What would happen in that circumstance?

[Gavin Barwell]

I am sure that my hon. Friend never asks anything but genuine questions. The answer is very clear. In those circumstances, the local authority would be able to refuse permission for the development. If the pre-commencement condition that the applicant sought to resist was an entirely legitimate one of the kind we have already discussed, and if the applicant appealed, the Planning Inspectorate would turn down their appeal.

[Chris Philp]

Just to be clear, any condition that a local authority feels strongly about has to be imposed as part of the main planning condition. It has to accept that anything that it does not put into the main planning condition, it cannot subsequently impose.

[Gavin Barwell]

Pre-commencement conditions must be agreed with the applicant. If the applicant is not willing to agree to a legitimate condition, without which the authority does not feel the application would be acceptable, the application should be refused. The authority absolutely has the right to refuse such an application. I put it on record that I expect the Planning Inspectorate to back up the decisions of local councils when it judges that such a condition is perfectly reasonable to make a development acceptable. I hope that any developer silly enough to play those games will quickly learn that lesson through the appeals process.

What we want is good practice; my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton made that point powerfully. We want applicants and councils to sit down together and work out what legitimate pre-commencement issues are. We have no problem at all with such issues being used for pre-commencement conditions, but we want to stop them being abused.

The hon. Member for City of Durham used the instructive example of flooding. The test seems to me to be one of reasonableness. She used the phrase “There may not be evidence”. Local authorities are in difficult circumstances if there is no evidence to back up what they seek to do. However, if there is evidence of genuine concerns, that is clearly a legitimate and material planning consideration.

Neighbourhood Planning Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Chris Philp and Lord Barwell

Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 20th October 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Gavin Barwell]

The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly legitimate point. In relation to the first three amendments, I hope I have given clear reassurances that the necessary protection is there. In relation to new clause 1, the arguments about thresholds for elections will go on for all kinds of different elections. On balance, I do not see any reason to apply a test that is different from elsewhere in relation to the particular referendums we are discussing. In practice, thus far, the issue has not arisen, but we can certainly keep matters under review.

[Chris Philp]

Given what the Minister just said about referendums for local plans, will he consider amending the Bill to make provision for such referendums? That would certainly have my support.

[Gavin Barwell]

Given my personal circumstances, I wonder whether I have too much of a personal interest in such matters. There is an issue, in that we would probably argue that in relation to most local council policies, councils have a democratic mandate from their elections. The same could be argued of parish councils with regard to neighbourhood plans, but neighbourhood plans can also be proposed by neighbourhood forums, which do not have that democratic mandate. That is probably why referendums are needed. I was trying to tease out the shadow Minister on why the Opposition were making such a suggestion here but not for local plans.

I hope I have provided reassurance on the first three amendments. On new clause 1, I do not see the need to treat the referendums we are discussing differently from others. With that, I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw the amendment.