Gareth Thomas
Main Page: Gareth Thomas (Labour (Co-op) - Harrow West)Housing and Planning Bill (Fifteenth sitting)
Gareth Thomas Excerpts(8 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Chair
I remind the Committee that we are considering the following:
New clause 19—Granting of planning permission: change of use to residential use—
“After section 58 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, insert—
‘58A Granting of planning permission: change of use to residential use
(1) Before planning permission is granted under section 58(1) for change of use of a building to residential use as dwellinghouses, the body considering granting planning permission must consider the impact of noise and other factors from buildings which have been in continuous and unchanged use for at least a year in the vicinity which would affect the amenity and enjoyment of the residents of the dwellinghouses.
(2) Where planning permission is granted under section 58(1) for change of use of a building to residential use as dwellinghouses, the permission must include conditions imposed on the persons granted planning permission in respect of the building changing use to—
(a) eliminate noise between the hours of 10pm and 6am from neighbouring buildings which have been in continuous and unchanged use for at least a year before the permission is given; and
(b) counteract any other impact seriously impairing the amenity and enjoyment of the residents and prospective residents of the dwellinghouses arising from neighbouring buildings which have been in continuous and unchanged use for at least a year before the permission is given.’”
This new Clause would ensure that residents of buildings converted to residential use are protected from factors, particularly noise, affecting their amenity and enjoyment. Such measures shall be the responsibility of the agent of the change of the permission.
New clause 20—Permitted development: change of use to residential use—
“Where the Secretary of State, in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 59, 60, 61, 74 or 333(7) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, makes a General Permitted Development in respect of change of use to residential use as dwellinghouses, the change must first be subject to prior approval in respect of the impact of the amenity and enjoyment of the prospective residents of the dwellinghouses arising from neighbouring buildings which have been in continuous and unchanged use for at least a year before.”
This new Clause would ensure that residents of buildings converted to residential use are protected from factors, particularly noise, affecting their amenity and enjoyment when buildings are converted to residential by virtue of a General Permitted Development order. Such measures shall be the responsibility of the agent of the change of the permission.
When we broke for lunch we were discussing clause 104 stand part, albeit with an injunction to focus on new clauses 19 and 20, having had a reasonably full debate on the clause previously. Mr Thomas was on his feet.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful for the opportunity to resume where I left off, Mr Gray. I hope that Conservative Members, particularly the hon. Member for South Norfolk, have had a good lunch and continue to look forward with enthusiasm to the Minister’s response to the new clauses, not least out of concern for and interest in jazz at small venues, but also out of more general interest in the concerns of small music venues that may be at risk.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
Mr Gray, for the record I feel I should point out that I have had no lunch at all. The time I had allocated for lunch was taken up with that vote we have just had and I just managed to eat a banana on the way up here.
Mr Thomas
The hon. Gentleman has, I am sure, secured the sympathy of the whole Committee. Anyone reading the extracts from Hansard of this section of the debate will be instantly sympathetic.
As well as paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham for the way she introduced this debate, I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dagher), who has championed the new clauses and worked with a number of organisations within the music industry concerned about the impact of planning legislation on music venues. It is in part through his work, as well as the work of the industry itself, that the idea of trying to write into legislation the principle of an agent for change concept being established in planning law has come to fruition. The industry points to a number of examples where this principle is already written into law. I am told it has been particularly successful in Melbourne in Victoria, Australia, and I think it is well worth looking at in the British context, not least given the sharp decline in music venues in London.
On Thursday evening we will all go back and Government Members will celebrate the fact that the legislation has got through its Committee stage and that they have successfully resisted any temptation to engage with the Bill in a critical way. They might want to go out on the town to celebrate, and look for a music venue. Perhaps the hon. Member for Peterborough will want to go out to see an ABBA tribute band—he has the look of someone who likes that type of music—
The Chair
Order. Before lunch we had a reasonably expansive debate on this subject. I remind the Committee that we are discussing two new clauses which discuss the way in which offices may or may not be converted into dwellinghouses and the effect that may have on the music industry. That is not an opportunity for an extensive discussion about the music industry and the various kinds of music we might enjoy. We have to focus entirely on the two new clauses, leaving aside wider discussion of the music industry.
Mr Thomas
I am extremely grateful to you, Mr Gray, for your guidance, which further confirms my view that a knighthood should be pressing for you.
My point is simply that there are many forms of music outwith those that attract large crowds that are performed in small music venues; those venues are under threat and we should do more to protect them. New clauses 19 and 20 wold give us the opportunity to make some progress in offering that kind of protection. The Minister for Housing and Planning is perhaps a fan of Duran Duran, again not necessarily a band that would perform—
The Chair
Order. In the event that the two new clauses became part of the Bill, it would then of course become possible to encourage all kinds of music and all kinds of other things that might create noise. This is not an opportunity for those kinds of discussion. We must focus our attentions entirely on the text of new clauses 19 and 20.
Mr Thomas
Again, Mr Gray, I welcome that guidance.
The particular benefit of new clause 19 is to place on anyone who wants to convert offices to other buildings in an area with a music venue nearby the duty to make clear the potential impact of the noise from that music venue. It is in that spirit that new clauses 19 and 20 are tabled—to bring the agent for change principle into UK law. They are entirely sensible provisions, and with that I urge the Committee to support new clauses 19 and 20.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I will be brief. I want simply to point out that one of the key problems with the Government’s extension of the permitted development rights is that they allow change to happen without consideration of local economic impacts.
We know that the cumulative loss of employment space as a consequence of permitted developments rights is a significant concern across London. We also know that there are no safeguards on the quality or the suitability of development. That is illustrated by the potential loss of music venues, which play an important cultural and community role in the locations in which they are situated. This is yet another example of the ways in which the Government are seeking to achieve short-term progress at the expense of longer-term outcomes and the quality and character of our neighbourhoods. I therefore very much support the new clauses.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis)
The aim of new clauses 19 and 20 is effectively twofold: first, to ensure that, where planning permission is granted for change of use to a residential use, the new residents’ amenity is protected; and secondly, to require that the cost of any mitigation measures needed to protect residents’ amenity, particularly against noise generated, is borne by the developer. I believe that the new clauses are unnecessary. They will impose inflexible requirements on local authorities and others where there are already appropriate protections to address these issues. One of my hon. Friends made that point this morning in our extensive debate.
In fact, the national planning policy framework itself incorporates the agent of change principle. It makes clear that businesses that want to develop should not have unreasonable restrictions put on them because of nearby changes to land use. Our thriving city centres are successful because they contain a vibrant and diverse mix of uses. It is therefore inevitable that modern city centre living will be co-located alongside other commercial and, as we heard, leisure uses. That is what makes our cities such dynamic places to live, work and, indeed, play.
In the case of planning permission granted by local planning authorities, they must decide the applications in accordance with the local plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Consideration of amenity impacts such as noise and disturbance is already a well established part of decision making, and the NPPF is a material consideration. National planning policy already establishes the principle that local authorities should approve applications for change of use from commercial to residential where there is an identified need for additional housing in that area—one thing that I hope we all agree on is the need for extra housing.
The framework also includes strong protections against pollution. It makes it clear that the planning system should prevent new and existing development from being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of pollution, including noise. The effects, including cumulative effects of pollution on health, the natural environment or general amenity, and the potential sensitivity of the area or proposed development to adverse effects from pollution, should be taken into account. In addition, planning decisions should aim to avoid noise which gives rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development.
The framework goes further by making it clear that existing businesses that want to develop in continuance of their business should not have unreasonable restrictions put on them because of changes in nearby land use since they were established. The planning guidance supporting the framework is clear that the potential effect of the location of a new residential development close to an existing business that gives rise to noise should be carefully considered. The guidance underlines planning’s contribution to avoiding future complaints and risks to local businesses from resulting enforcement action. To avoid such situations, local councils are encouraged to consider appropriate mitigation, including designing the new development to reduce the impact of noise in the local environment and optimising the sound insulation provided by the building envelope.
I am keen to look further at this matter. I have been working with my hon. Friend the Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy, who is arranging for me to sit down and meet some of the music organisations that were mentioned this morning. If a business is working and a nearby building converts to residential housing, that is a good thing; we want more housing. It would be entirely wrong of the people who moved into the residential housing to complain about the business that existed before the residential housing was there. When I was the Minister with responsibility for pubs, I came across examples of residents who complained about a pub that had been there for 150 years two weeks after moving in next door. We need to ensure that those businesses are protected.
In December 2014, we made amendments to the planning guidance to underline planning’s contribution to protecting music venues, but I am interested in looking further at that issue. As I said, my hon. Friend the Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy has arranged for me to meet with those organisations shortly.
Mr Thomas
The Minister has virtually answered my question. I was going to ask whether he would meet with a delegation, and he has said that he will. Will he commit telling us before Report stage whether he is minded to do anything else in planning law to help the music industry, which is worried about the future of some venues?
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Gentleman is right that I will meet with those organisations. My hon. Friend the Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy, who has responsibility for the creative arts, has arranged for me to sit down and meet with them. If we were to do anything in the Bill, I would make Members aware of that before Report stage. The new clauses are not needed because the planning powers are already there; we just have to make sure they are properly used, but I will talk to the industry about that before we go forward.
With that caveat, the approach set out in the Bill provides flexibility and enables local planning authorities to protect new residents’ amenity, particularly from the impact of noise, while ensuring that we protect established businesses from disruption to their operations. Local authorities, when they look at such situations and organisations, look at what is said in this House. The debate we have had today will very much inform their decisions.
On new clause 20, permitted development rights for change of use play an important role in the planning system. They provide flexibility, reduce bureaucracy and allow the best use to be made of existing buildings. In 2014-15, they provided 8,000 much needed new homes, particularly in our capital city. In introducing permitted development rights, the Secretary of State can make provision for local authorities to approve measures relating to the impact on local amenity, including from noise, where development is permitted for a change of use.
The hon. Member for City of Durham touched on the article 4 situation. I gently say to her that she should challenge local authorities that say it is difficult to use, because there is no evidence to back that up claim. The article 4 process is straightforward and simple. Local authorities should look at other authorities that have used it so they can use it appropriately and correctly. More broadly, if there are genuine concerns about the impact of permitted development rights on new residents’ amenity, including noise impacts, local councils have the ability to bring forward an article 4 direction. Article 4, in and of itself, does not prevent development; it requires the planning application to be considered before a building can be converted. It is an immensely powerful tool for local authorities to use. They just need to ensure they are using it appropriately and in a focused way.
The licensing process also provides an adjudication mechanism between local residents and licensed premises by which practical measures can be introduced to control and mitigate noise. Statutory guidance advises that licensing authorities should be aware of the need to avoid inappropriate or disproportionate measures that could deter events that are valuable to the community. We can all think of events in our own constituencies, such as live music, that bring the community together and are a valuable source of community spirit. I do not consider the new clauses necessary and I invite the hon. Lady to withdraw them.
Brandon Lewis
I wholeheartedly agree that, where statutory delivery vehicles such as urban development corporations or new town development corporations are created, high-quality, sustainable place making should be absolutely at the heart of what they do. As we are having a clause stand part debate, let me pick up on the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough, who made a very good point about the inflammatory nature of some of the remarks of the TCPA. They were not only inflammatory, but ill-advised, and they discredited that organisation. I do not intend to give it the credibility of commenting on the remarks any further.
The hon. Member for City of Durham and I worked together in the previous Parliament, cross party, to get the urban development corporations set up. I thanked her colleagues at the time—the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds)—for their work in taking that forward and for showing how we can work together. We all want Ebbsfleet to develop appropriately. The establishment of the Ebbsfleet development corporation highlighted that the process itself needed updating, especially in the light of the more familiar practice of consultation. At the time, I said to our friends in the other place that we would come forward with this legislation as soon as we could to rectify the situation. That is where we are coming from.
In a more general sense in response to some of the comments we have heard this afternoon, while agreeing with the ethos of wanting high-quality development and communities to be delivered, we can see the difference between where the Opposition and the Government stand. For example, because of the way in which the proposal is drafted, it could slow down development in and of itself, as well as not providing good-quality outcomes. That is because it so focused on a process of having to tick the boxes for A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H in order to qualify. We will find developers ticking those boxes rather than looking at what the right outcome is and working with the local community. I have some understanding of and sympathy with Opposition Members, who are very determined to ensure that they are planning well for people. The difference between us is that I believe that planning should be done by local people for local people and that it should not be done to them. We have to be very clear that we trust local people. I will comment on that in a moment.
Brandon Lewis
I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the national planning policy framework. It is only 50 pages long, and I am sure that it will entertain him this evening. I suggest that he looks at how local plans work, how neighbourhood plans work, and at consultation more generally. Even the corporations will come from local areas. On garden cities, towns and settlements and new settlements more generally, I am very keen, as are the Government, to work with various developers, but they will come from the area. There will not be the top-down, failed approach of the past.
Sustainable development in itself is hardwired into the planning system. It is absolutely central to the national planning policy framework, and rightly so. The framework provides a clear view of what sustainable development means in practice. It is explicit that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to achieving sustainable development, and that three pillars are key: the environment, society and the economy. They are mutually dependent and cannot and should not be pursued in isolation. We do not need a separate, statutory, tick-box requirement around sustainable development that applies only in a case where an urban development corporation or new town development corporation has been created. It would be quite unhelpful and distorting to have a separate definition of sustainable development outlined that applies only to them.
Nor do I think that we should limit local flexibility. Where local areas decide that an urban development corporation or new town development corporation is the best way to deliver regeneration or, indeed, a new town or settlement, rather than ticking their way through that long list of objectives, they should have the freedom to create strong, sustainable communities in a way that best reflects their local circumstances. It is they who best know their local needs, not us sitting here in Whitehall.
Great place making in and of itself is secured not through detailed central prescription, but through good, strong, clear and transparent local leadership. That applies whether or not the development is led by an urban development corporation, such as in Ebbsfleet. A master plan has been worked through for Ebbsfleet that makes it very clear that the ambition is to see the development of garden city principles. I saw that just yesterday when I went to announce the new Didcot garden town development, which is looking for innovation as well as good-quality development.
We see that where settlements are being developed in areas right around our country, from Northamptonshire right the way through to the south-west and Hampshire. Indeed, we only have to look at the well known example of north-west Bicester, where 6,000-odd high-quality homes are being developed to zero-carbon standards. That is being done without central prescription, highlighting that local areas can be trusted to do the right thing and get the right quality for their local community. The local authority itself or the local development corporation when it is set up can deliver that, and should be empowered to do so without those strictures being put on them by central Government. I hope that that provides the hon. Lady with sufficient confidence to withdraw her amendment.
Mr Thomas
I am minded to support the Government amendments, particularly as it is the hon. Gentleman moving them rather than the Minister for Housing and Planning, but will he set out why he thinks they are needed? Compulsory purchase powers have existed for a long time, and I am not aware of a huge problem in terms of access in order to survey land. Why is it a problem now?
Mr Jones
I do not know what my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has done to upset the hon. Gentleman. The reason we are introducing the provisions is to put all authorities on a level playing field when undertaking or exercising the right to compulsory purchase. At the moment, the rights that we are discussing can be exercised by local authorities, the Homes and Communities Agency and urban development corporations, but there are organisations, such as NHS trusts and Natural England, and certain Ministers within the Government, who do not have the same powers, so we have sought to extend them to ensure that the situation is consistent.
Peter Dowd
I think that what I am about to say is a little counter-intuitive, but I suspect that it is based on the principle of more haste, less speed, in relation to this matter. May I say for the record that I am a Shostakovich man and not a Duran Duran man?
This clause raises more questions than it answers, and that is more about what is in it than what is not in it. Many organisations are perplexed at the lost opportunity in relation to CPOs. I think that many rural communities will be concerned, and I will come on to that point later.
One organisation that has concerns is the Country Land and Business Association. It wrote a document in 2012—it may have been updated, but I do not think it has been—called “Fair Play”. The association, which comprises 34,000 members, owns and manages half the rural land in England and Wales; there are 250 different types of businesses involved with it and they have concerns about CPOs and the process in general. They are right, because they tend to be on the receiving end of CPOs, whether from the utilities, local authorities or public bodies in the form of schools or hospitals and so on. Of course, they also have concerns about private development on their land, and compulsory purchase arising from that.
Developments in and legislation on compulsory purchase have been incredibly piecemeal over the past century and that is the context in which this debate is set. That has happened not just under Conservative Governments or Labour Governments, but under every Government. Whether the major change in development is progressive or not—I will not get into that argument—and whether it is centralising or localising, it is important for the Minister to consider some of those issues.
The CLA talked about a
“significant impact on people, their lives and their aspirations”
and I want to touch on rural areas. HS2 is a particular concern for them. It is an example where CPOs are seen as a blunt, aggressive and overbearing instrument of “state oppression”.
In light of what is a significant—groundbreaking, if the Committee will excuse the pun on house building—change to the law, there are issues of duty of care, which are addressed to some extent in the amendments. If the provisions are the way forward for planning and a longer- term economic plan, whether that plan is A, B or C, and are setting the scene for planning for growth, they must also take into account the economic impact on those who are directly and indirectly affected by CPOs.
The issues that arise include asking, what about a statutory code of practice on CPOs? What about an independent person to oversee the process? That is the counter-intuitive bit. It seems that that would take longer than the current arrangement, but many organisations take the view that such a process, with the elements of independence and a code of practice, would speed the process up. That is something that should be considered carefully because we all accept that we must get on with house building.
Blight is another issue. A classic example that has affected many Members is HS2. Statutory blight kicks in only once a scheme has been confirmed and safeguarded in the planning process. Something needs to be done about that. If the Government are taking a central role in major infrastructure projects, they should ensure that central protection is in place for small businesses, farmers, rural enterprises and the like. It is crucial that if the dead hand of Whitehall is to be involved in the process—vicariously, I accept, via the Minister to someone else—there should be protections.
I wanted to touch on a historical issue, the so-called Crichel Down affair, which I suspect many Conservative Members are well aware of. I do not raise it to cause any concern to the Minister: Sir Thomas Dugdale had to resign over the matter, which involved the sale of agricultural land to the military, and then back for agricultural use, and caused trauma to the people involved. I raise it because the Crichel Down guidelines arising from it must be considered carefully. They are, effectively, voluntary, and we need to tighten them up and possibly put them on a statutory basis, instead of extending a century’s piecemeal creep of CPOs. The Minister might want to consider that, otherwise it is a lost opportunity to protect, psychologically and financially, people who are affected by significantly different proposals in the planning process. It is important that that point is picked up.
Another issue we must pick up on is the reconsideration of lost payments. Forcing a sale—some call it legal sequestration; call it what you will—demands a transparent process that exudes fairness. A possible payment over and over the value of land may be important where uncompensated losses are concerned. The key is that that arguably saves time, with all the haggling that goes on in relation to land values, so it is something that could be considered. Other issues to consider include a tight advance payment process, timing notices, the amount of land required, interest on payments, and the water industry serving notice to enter land without prior negotiation, which rubs people up the wrong way.
The Government have an opportunity to give careful consideration to the issues related to CPO, and to be slightly bolder in taking the matter forward. That would be to the benefit of everyone, and it would be in the long-tried British tradition of being fair and reasonable in the process. In that regard, we need protections that assure landowners—small or large—that the Government only use land that they need, rather than land that they want.
The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham helpfully clarify the important need for action in relation to CPOs, where the empty home blights not just the homeowner but the whole area. When we compensate, we should expect those who own the property to co-operate with the compulsory purchase as soon as is practically possible.
Finally, the Country Land and Business Association gives some heart-rending examples of people affected by CPOs that are not carried out right, fairly and reasonably:
“A Welsh sheep farmer, who had a substantial proportion of his holding acquired, had to rent additional land on which to graze his stock. His agent submitted and agreed the farmer’s claim with the district valuer and vigorously chased the acquirer for payment. Four years of non-payment followed with spurious excuses such as ‘the girl who writes the cheques is on holiday’. The acquirer also claimed to have lost the paperwork submitted by the claimant. The saga ended tragically when the bank foreclosed on him and he took his own life.”
The responsibility of the Committee is to ensure that fairness and reasonabless—the British way—prevails, especially when people’s property is being taken away. We also need to do that as expeditiously as possible, and we have the opportunity to do so. I ask the Minister to give careful consideration to my points.
The Chair
Order. Before I call the next speaker, it is perhaps worth pointing out that I have been fairly relaxed about allowing people to cover the whole subject of compulsory purchase and I therefore suggest that we do not have stand part debate later.
Mr Thomas
I am grateful to you, Mr Gray, for allowing me to catch your eye.
In April 2015 a series of Conservative MPs came to the constituency of Harrow West to support unsuccessfully their candidate. As they were leaving, some of them may well have paused for a cup of coffee at Harrow-on-the-Hill station—there is a very nice coffee shop there. Just around the corner, however, stands the former post office site, lying empty, as it has done for some 10 years. Why do I raise that? It is partly to begin to make clear the reason for my support for amendments 282 and 283. Both my hon. Friends have explained the need to accelerate situations in which a planning application or development has stalled and local authorities or developers might want access to information about the value of a site, what is on it and how it might be developed in future.
In the context of the former Harrow post office site, there is an additional complication. It is located next to the Metropolitan railway line. Indeed, it is very close to Harrow-on-the-Hill station, which suffers from the lack of a lift, making access extremely difficult. There has long been talk of a new access point through the former Harrow post office site to the Harrow-on-the-Hill station platforms. With the benefit of amendment 282, it might be easier for local planning officers, developers and even Transport for London surveyors to access the former post office site to examine what potential it might have for new access and a new position for the main parts of Harrow-on-the-Hill station.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Has he not just given a brilliant example of what we are discussing? Having better compulsory purchase powers would enable local authorities to unlock a necessary development for his constituents of the sort that we have all been talking about.
Mr Thomas
That is generous of my hon. Friend. It is a particular concern of my constituents, given the huge cuts to Transport for London grant, which might mean that access programmes that exist for other stations are cut, putting even further away the prospect of better access at Harrow-on-the-Hill station. If there were a way to secure some planning gain from the development at the Harrow post office site that might be invested in better access and it might be another route to achieving the objective that my constituents have had for a long time now, under both Mayors of London, which is to make Harrow-on-the-Hill a fully accessible station. I hope that the Minister will be particularly attracted to amendment 282. In that spirit, I support my hon. Friend’s amendment.
Mr Jones
In replying to the hon. Member for City of Durham and Opposition Members, it may be helpful if I start by clarifying the purpose of clause 111. It does not confer any compulsory purchase powers on acquiring authorities; it merely allows acquiring authorities to enter land for survey or valuation purposes in connection with a proposal to acquire land. The intention behind the hon. Lady’s amendments therefore could not be delivered through the clause. In any case, the amendments are unnecessary. Local authorities already have the powers to acquire land by compulsion in the circumstances that the hon. Lady mentioned, provided there is a compelling case in the public interest and they have a deliverable scheme.
Also, to set the record straight, there are not currently 600,000 long-term empty properties. If the hon. Lady checks back and looks at the figures, 600,000 was the number of long-term empty properties under the last Labour Government. Under the guidance of my party in coalition and now in Government on our own, we have the lowest level of long-term vacant properties on record: 206,000. There is still significantly more to do, but we have put significant provisions in place to reduce the number of vacant properties, and the figures show that those provisions are working.
Mr Thomas
I am grateful to have caught your eye, Mr Gray. I rise in the context of one or two cases in which Hansard reports of proceedings have been used to help a judge to understand the motives behind measures, thus allowing them to make a judgment on a case before them. I also wish to ask the Minister a number of questions about this clause. When he introduced clauses 111 to 117, he described how several parts of government do not have the same opportunities as others to access, enter and survey land. If I remember his response to my intervention correctly, he referenced NHS trusts in particular, as well as one or two Departments. I wonder whether the situation is the same specifically with regard to clause 112, because it seems a little odd to include in the Bill a clause that authorises the use of force to enter and survey land. Will he set out examples of when NHS trusts or Departments have wanted or felt that they needed to use force, but had to back off because there is no provision in law to allow that, meaning that they either had not to go down the compulsory purchase order route, or had to find some other way of getting the information that they needed?
It would also be helpful if the Minister gave some examples of what is meant by “to use force”. Are we talking about guns or wire cutters? It would be helpful if he could give examples of local authorities that have said to him, “We need the ability to use force to enter and survey land because otherwise we won’t be able to go ahead with a whole series of compulsory purchase orders that have been set out.”
I worry that subsection (2) involves, once again, the word “reasonably” being written into law. That word that has all sorts of connotations for different people. The clause might create a lot of case law, so this is an opportunity for the Minister to set out his definition of “reasonably necessary” and therefore to limit the possibility of misunderstandings in court when a warrant is being challenged by a potential developer. I ask my questions in the spirit of gentle inquiry and look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Mr Jones
We would expect most acquiring authorities exercising their compulsory purchase rights to reach agreement with owners and occupiers about entry to their land. Warrants are only for those cases when entry is refused or is likely to be refused. It is impossible to predict how many warrants will be sought, as that will depend on the number of compulsory purchase proposals that come forward, the number of affected owners and occupiers, and their reaction to each particular proposal. Just to give the hon. Gentleman some reassurance, however, clause 112 makes it absolutely clear that while the warrant authorises the use of force, a justice of the peace, when deciding whether to issue a warrant, must be satisfied that the use of force is reasonable in the particular case, and the force that may be authorised is limited to what is reasonably necessary. In addition, all evidence in proceedings must be given under oath and the warrant must specify the number of times that entry will be allowed.
Mr Thomas
The Minister has helpfully detailed the context in which a warrant might be issued and specified that he expects that the vast majority of efforts to enter and survey land will not require a warrant in the first place. However, to come back to the nub of my earlier comments, why is the power necessary? Have the Minister’s civil servants had to field a series of requests from local authorities or developers for these powers?
Mr Jones
I have set out that the warrants will be used only when the landowner has an adverse reaction to a request to enter and survey or value land. It is clear that many acquiring authorities and landowners will come to arrangements themselves, but the case the hon. Gentleman mentioned of his own railway station is a prime example of when a scheme was being put forward but the landowner completely refused to allow the acquiring authority the right to come on to the land to survey and value it. I expect that he would want some sort of mechanism whereby that acquiring authority would be able to enter the land.
Mr Thomas
Does the Minister have fracking in mind? He shakes his head and looks pained—I recognise that that is a sensitive subject for Conservative Members—but does he envisage a warrant requiring the use of force being needed if protesters had barricaded themselves in, or if the person who owned the land did not want someone who had been given fracking consent to survey what may or may not be underneath the ground?
Mr Jones
The hon. Gentleman has come up with many conspiracy theories during our scrutiny of the Bill and I suspect that this may well be another one. I have set out the reasoning behind clause 112 in detail and hope that hon. Members will agree to it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 112, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 113 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 114
Enhanced authorisation procedures etc. for certain surveys
Amendments made: 251, in clause 114, page 54, line 11, after “surveys” insert “or values”.
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 246.
Amendment 252, in clause 114, page 54, line 15, after “survey” insert “or valuation”.
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 246.
Amendment 253, in clause 114, page 54, line 17, after “survey” insert “or valuation”.
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 246.
Amendment 254, in clause 114, page 54, line 32, after “survey” insert “or valuation”.
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 246.
Amendment 255, in clause 114, page 54, line 33, after “survey” insert “or valuation”.
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 246.
Amendment 256, in clause 114, page 54, line 40, after “survey” insert “or valuation”.—(Mr Marcus Jones.)
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 246.
The Chair
Before we move on, I would like to comment on a small matter of protocol. On several occasions today, members of staff have come into the Strangers Gallery and handed documents and other things to members of the Committee. That is not in order—you may not do that. If you want to get something from members of staff, go outside into the corridor and do it there, if that is agreeable.
Clause 114, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 115 and 116 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 117
Right to enter and survey Crown land
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Thomas
In the spirit of my contribution on clause 112, I want to ask some questions about clause 117. Why do we require a clause on the right to enter and survey Crown land? I struggle to understand why a warrant authorising the use of force might be necessary to enter and survey Crown land, so I would welcome the Minister’s setting out an example of why that might be necessary.
I also struggle to understand why somebody who is, presumably, employed by the Queen might be at risk of committing an offence under clause 116 in relation to entering and surveying Crown land. Why on earth do we need to include Crown land under the Bill? One assumes that, as a general rule, Her Majesty and those who exercise control of her lands would work with Government Departments and developers to allow them to enter and survey land. Even if those employed by Her Majesty did not co-operate, I struggle to understand why we would want to take action against staff employed to look after Crown land, or why the Minister thinks that a warrant authorising the use of force is necessary. Will the Minister set out in particular whether this measure covers Crown Estate land? Has he had any consultations with the Crown Estate itself about how clauses 111 to 116 apply to Crown Estate land under the terms of clause 117?
Mr Jones
I will respond quickly to the hon. Gentleman’s questions. Clause 117 explains that the new power of entry will be available in relation to Crown land—any land in which there is a Crown or a duchy interest, for example—but the permission of the appropriate Crown authority must be obtained first. That ensures that there is appropriate protection for Crown land. The measure is based on existing precedent. For instance, the power of entry set out in sections 53 and 54 of the Planning Act 2008 involves a similar provision in respect of Crown land.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 117 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 118 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 119
Confirmation by inspector