Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Greg Smith Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 8th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

I want to start by addressing the many positives in this Bill that will make a significant difference going forward. I particularly welcome the ending of the zoning proposals in the original planning reforms put forward in 2020 to support the presumption for brownfield development and to support the improved enforcement of planning controls and the attempts to tackle land-banking. I also congratulate the Government on making a centrepiece of this legislation democratic engagement and involving local communities. However, it is also my argument today—and I will certainly be pursuing this with other Members who have spoken in the debate as the Bill progresses through Committee and Report—that we must further strengthen the community involvement in and democratic under- pinning of our planning system. On that point, there have been swathes of development across my constituency over many years, placing a great burden on parish and town councils, whose representatives do the job for the love of their communities and neighbourhoods without renumeration; the Government must therefore acknowledge the strain that mega-development—huge planning proposals coming through—places on councils.

In the brief time that I have for my speech, I want to highlight a couple of areas of concern that must be acknowledged and polished in this Bill. The first of them is understanding the geography of an area. Much of the south of Buckinghamshire is designated as an AONB, so when targets are put on the whole county there is only place the build-out can happen, which is largely across my constituency and that of my constituency neighbour my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler). The Bill must tackle that issue, although I should also say that I support those Members who have said in the debate that targets should be advisory, not mandatory; if we are to have true local control and democratic consent to development, local communities must decide what is right for them.

Secondly, we must focus more on the loss of agricultural land. The Environment Act 2021 put a duty on the Government to consider environmental concerns in every part of policy making. We should have a similar provision to protect agricultural land for food security. Too much agricultural land in my constituency is being lost—not just to houses and the great destroyer that is HS2, which of course I oppose, but to solar farms and so much more. That will have an impact on our food security.

I also ask my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing to give us greater clarity on where the Government currently stand on the Oxford to Cambridge arc. We have seen great words written in the press about the Secretary of State’s flushing gesture when asked about the Oxford to Cambridge arc, but it would be good to have certainty that the once-held ambition for 1 million homes across the arc, many of which would have landed in my constituency, has indeed been dropped.

I share the concerns of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) about clauses 83 and 84, which need to go. We must also fundamentally challenge the way in which developers are allowed to fund the very reports that inspectors and planning officers work on.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Second sitting)

Greg Smith Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st June 2022 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Greg Smith, you have half a minute for a question and half a minute for an answer.

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

Q Thank you, Sir Mark. A big theme we are talking about today is localism in the Bill. Many a council over recent decades has been elected on a promise to stop overdevelopment, only to then preside over massive development. The common excuse is Government targets. Should there be a nationally set house building number, or should it be left entirely to local areas to decide what is needed?

[The Chair]

Who do you want to answer that?

[Greg Smith]

Let’s go to Councillor Jamieson, who is chairman of the Local Government Association.

Cllr Jamieson: I represent localism, and I think it is all about localism. The Government need to be very clear about their objectives. Setting national targets and then blaming councils when houses are built and forced through on appeal by the Planning Inspectorate is slightly disingenuous.

[The Chair]

Order. I am afraid that that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions in this afternoon’s sitting. On behalf of the Committee, I thank our witnesses for their evidence. The Committee will meet again at 11.30 am on Thursday in this room to hear further oral evidence. Thank you all for attending.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Third sitting)

Greg Smith Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate - 3rd sitting
Thursday 23rd June 2022 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I call Greg Smith.

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

Q Thank you, Mrs Murray. Good afternoon to our witnesses. I work with a lot of parish councils across my constituency, which is predominantly rural. More often than not, parish councils come to me when there are issues with contentious planning applications and other development-led problems. One of the things that I see on a daily basis is almost a level of burnout among parish councillors, including last year losing an active, prominent chairman of the parish council—he had retired and wanted to give something back to his community, only to find that he was working longer hours on parish matters than he had been in the full-time job he had just retired from. Given that the Bill will place greater pressure on parishes—on neighbourhood planning and other matters—without creating another tier of professional politician, how can we rebalance the asks that are put on our parish and town councils? Jonathan, that is probably a question for you predominantly.

Jonathan Owen: Well, that is a $60 billion question. That is an issue for parish councillors.

I have a few reflections. First, we need to promote their work more effectively, publicising what they can do and understanding their potential. Parish and town councils can deliver exciting and good things for their communities. They are not just a place to go and sit for a boring meeting; they are about getting out there to help communities. I think that was the experience of the pandemic, actually: a lot of parish councils rolled up their sleeves, as they often do, and made things happen. I remember that my previous chair, Ken Browse from Devon, who was a small parish councillor, used to get his tractor out and dig out the ditches when there was flooding in Devon. It is about trying to use that potential of councillors, rather than getting them borne down, as you say, under a sort of semi-professional thing. That is not what they are there for: they are there to represent their local constituents and do their bit to make their local places much better.

We would like to see some real promotion of parish councils. It is ironic that over the past year they have probably had much more of a national profile because of the Jackie Weaver affair, but I think national Government should be investing significant money in promoting the potential of parish councils and why people should get involved. The National Association of Local Councils has its Make a Change campaign going at the moment, which is trying to encourage more people to get involved and stand for election. We are putting out a lot of material and, I think it would be fair to say, getting a lot of interest. The average age of a parish councillor is something like 61. We would like to see that much reduced, and we would like to see people from different backgrounds getting involved. As with all things, it needs to be marketed and promoted.

The second point I would make is that principal authorities get something like £18 million from Government to support the work of the Local Government Association and build the capacity and competence of councillors. We are really grateful to the LGA, which we are able to work with in some limited areas to access some of that funding, but our sector and our 100,000 councillors need some support from Government too, to make sure they are able to deliver the things that are required in a sensible way. I think that that investment in councillors as local leaders and place shapers, making a difference for their communities, would help tackle burnout.

Tony Burton: If burnout is an issue in town and county councils—which I can well acknowledge—imagine what it is like when you are dealing with an entirely volunteer network. We do not have a National Association of Local Councils; we do not have a parish clerk or a town clerk; we do not have an infrastructure organisation; we do not have an email address; we do not have an office; and we do not have a place to meet. When a neighbourhood forum is set up, it is set up from nothing, and it requires volunteers like us to put forward networks for London. London is unique in having a network that provides a bit of mutual support.

There are two points I would emphasise to make the life of being a civic volunteer something that you really want to do, and where you don’t burn out. One is to remove as many of the obstacles we spend much of our time fighting against as possible. We are not naive—of course life is going to be difficult—but there are pointless, and sometimes gratuitous, obstructions being put in the way of volunteers trying to do the right thing in their area. We have a range of evidence for that in relation to neighbourhood planning in London or from the research we have done. We do not have the time to go into it here, but it is available to the Committee if it wishes to look at it. The second is to put booster rockets under the support programme, which we have touched on already as being the single most important intervention—far more important than the Bill—so that it can be effectively delivered, ensuring that neighbourhood planning is one of the tools available to communities to take back more influence over planning.

[Greg Smith]

Q That is very helpful. As parishes, town councils and volunteer networks—particularly in London—look to the future on the presumption that this Bill will become law, given the relatively low percentage of areas that have an active neighbourhood plan, how prepared are parish councils and town councils for taking on the work that is going to come down the line. In the case of London, how robust do you think the London boroughs can be?

I ask that through the lens of having been a London councillor for 12 years, before moving to the countryside and later having the privilege of being elected to the House of Commons. Thinking through some of the geography, the London borough I sat on was smaller geographically than some of the parishes in my constituency now. While I totally salute the efforts of volunteer networks across the capital, do we think that the geography in some parts of London, particularly inner-London boroughs, lends itself to those boroughs still having that primacy?

Tony Burton: I hear what you are saying, and I am sure the populations of those boroughs and parishes are dramatically different. We need only point to the “city of villages” and Ebenezer Howard. The neighbourhoods of London are defined much more tightly than the boroughs, and many London neigh-bourhoods cross borough boundaries. One example is Crystal Palace, which is a very identifiable community, yet it crosses five London boroughs. It has been almost impossible to establish an effective boundary through the neighbourhood planning process, but that does not mean Crystal Palace is not Crystal Palace.

Crystal Palace identifies with itself, as do all the other neighbourhoods in London. We think there is significant scope below the borough level. There is an open question, which goes beyond the scope of the Bill, as to whether London might have too many boroughs, and the way they share services at the moment would suggest they acknowledge that—they share chief executives, legal services and all the rest of it.

London is an example of where there is still a need. There is the question of whether areas are willing to take on those responsibilities, linked to the issues of support, the attitude of professionals and politicians within the boroughs and the question of where this is going. What happens after they produce a neighbourhood plan? We would like to see the evolution anticipated by the Localism Act 2011 of neighbourhood forums evolving into the urban equivalent of a town or parish council, of which we have only one in London at Queen’s Park, which has a particular history. There are opportunities in this Bill to help the process mature and to create more sustainable models that might start with a neighbourhood forum producing a neighbourhood plan before growing into a much more all-encompassing, community-led form of governance.

Jonathan Owen: It would be great if we could make it easier to set up local structures that are equivalent to parish and town councils. I would love to change the name to “community councils,” which would help to dissociate the sector from the connotations of the word “parish” and enable them better to reflect urban communities. Slimming down some of the legislation would make it easier to set that up. We would have community councillors and a community co-ordinator, otherwise known as a clerk. The clerks do a brilliant job, but they are often community co-ordinators. We obviously support the work Tony mentioned.

There has been a degree of uncertainty about neighbourhood planning over the past few years, and some people have been concerned that it is overlooked on appeal. The measures in the Bill might well help with that, and it is important to reboot and refresh the support package.

Finally, it would be good if we could boost the infrastructure levy for areas with neighbourhood plans. We are keen to work with the Government on driving greater numbers of parish and town councils to do neighbourhood plans. We share with our councils the things that have been done in so many places to tackle climate change and to promote health and wellbeing as part of the neighbourhood planning process.

[Greg Smith]

Q I have a very quick last question, as I am aware another colleague wants to come in. Given that parish and town councils know their communities better than any other tier of government, who should set the level of housing need—or housing targets, to use a controversial phrase—for house building development? Should it be national Government, planning authorities or parish and town councils, or whatever is created in London below the borough level?

Jonathan Owen: Tony, do you want to go first?

Tony Burton: There are two issues here. The first is the numbers, and I do not think it can be done by just adding up all the local levels, because the nature of the housing market is such that you need a blend of strategic and local insight. It is about how we make sure the discussions and negotiations that take place mean there is an effective blend.

There are particular opportunities to strengthen the identification of particular needs that would not otherwise be met, whether they be house sizes and types; questions around affordability and rent; or the provision of alternative tenures—community land trusts and others. There is plenty of evidence now that neighbourhood plans are providing a much more refined insight into what is needed in areas, which can then carry appropriate weight through not just planning decisions but housing decisions. That would ensure that whatever the total number, a higher proportion are meeting the needs that are being expressed and are not just being used for investment or other less publicly useful purposes.

Jonathan Owen: It has to be an interplay between the various levels. We need to change the culture around planning to get different tiers talking and engaging with each other. That often does not happen at the moment, and it would be really good to see better engagement between the various tiers coming out of this Bill. The experience of neighbourhood planning is people being engaged and consulted, and having an effective input. They understand the pressures for local housing and the need to meet the needs of their local residents and their young people. I am a glass half full man and it would be great to see better dialogue and interplay between the various tiers to deliver what we all need, which is more local housing.

Tony Burton: Briefly, the evidence is that neighbourhood plans are delivering more housing locally than would otherwise be the case if it was left to local councils.

[The Chair]

The final question is from Rachael Maskell.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Fourth sitting)

Greg Smith Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd June 2022 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Thank you. I call Greg Smith.

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

Q Thank you, Mr Bone. I have asked this question of a number of the witnesses. There has been a controversy in recent years on the assessment of housing need for an area and who should decide what the housing need is for an area when it comes to the development of neighbourhood plans, local plans and so on. Where do you think is the most appropriate level for housing need to be assessed to put into local plans? Should it be national Government? Should it be principal planning authorities? Should it be—as in the West Midlands, which you are the Mayor of—mayoral areas? Or should it be at a lower tier?

Andy Street: Thank you for that question, because this process is pretty bust; it is lovely that the Housing Minister is in the room for this debate. The answer to the question of where is that I have no difficulty with it being assessed by the upper tier planning authority—so, in our case, the met authorities. But I do not think that that is really the problem. The problem is that something systemic is incredibly wrong. We followed up the detail of this using Coventry as the case study, where the system of assessment through the Office for National Statistics has churned a number that is clearly nonsense. It shows that the growth of housing needs in Coventry will be more than 30% over 10 years. In the rest of the West Midlands, the average is about 11%, so you think, “This isn’t right” and you follow the story through. We have had a number of incredibly helpful and very honest conversations with the ONS, which has acknowledged in a letter to me that the number is wrong and is getting more wrong, as the assumptions that it made are not playing out over time. But when the wrongness—if that is not poor English—of the number is revealed, there is nothing in the current system that forces the local authority to review its plan, so there is a huge misstep in the process between that calculation and the actions that are then taken.

I have not raised this issue with the current Housing Minister, but I had lengthy correspondence with the previous Housing Minister. I believe it is an area of huge potential improvement, but the system is clearly broken, and I would be very happy to furnish members of the Committee with all the detail on Coventry, which was such an obvious outlier. Let us be clear that the consequence is that the city council is pursuing a policy that it has to pursue because of the numbers—I do not doubt the council’s internal working—and it is digging up the green belt around Coventry on the basis of spurious calculations.

[Greg Smith]

Q I am very grateful for that answer, which I recognise from my own constituency and the wider county that it sits in. On the basis that the system is broken, the Bill would seem like the obvious legislative vehicle to fix it. I am trying to tease back to my original question, which was about who should decide and using what data. What would be your best suggestion? I appreciate that there will be no magic bullet, but what would be your best solution for deciding a new system of determination?

Andy Street: I have no difficulty with the ONS, which is clearly the most objective, calculating the numbers—there is no question about that. I have no difficulty with the city council then being guided by that number, but the point in the middle is that there has to be a way that that can be challenged. There has to be a way to know whether it is on target and then it has to be reviewed, and the council has to have an obligation to review its plan if the numbers are wrong. It is not about who does the calculation; it is about the consequences of that calculation and feeding it through the next stages.

[Greg Smith]

Q I appreciate that the use of the word “target” is controversial in this debate, but would there be benefit in making any figure that is calculated by the ONS and propagated by central Government locked in as advisory, as opposed to a set-in-stone number?

Andy Street: I still do not think that hits the point. The point is: whether it is fixed or a target, if the number can be challenged and proven to be wrong, what is going to happen? I can see where your logic is going—if it is only advisory, a council has more room for manoeuvre—but I think there is something even more fundamental, which is that there has to be a way of testing that number and then making sure that, if it is acknowledged by the ONS not to be accurate, it can be reviewed.

[Greg Smith]

That is very helpful. Thank you.

[The Chair]

We have unfortunately almost run out of time. I was tempted to see whether the Housing Minister wanted to come back and chat to our witness, but he seems to be pointing to the fact that time is up. Or does he want to use the remaining minute?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I call Greg Smith.

[Greg Smith]

Q Before I ask my question, I should say this: it is not an interest to declare, but I should say for transparency that when I was a councillor in Fulham, Mr Boys Smith was one of my ward residents and he is known to me.

Nicholas Boys Smith: Many years ago.

[Greg Smith]

It was many moons ago, but I thought I should put that on the record for transparency.

We have been looking at what the Bill is seeking to do in terms of protecting heritage and identifying that which makes a place within the planning system. For rural communities, one of the defining characteristics, certainly of every village that I represent, is the farmland and the food production that goes on in that village. It is the farmers who maintain the hedgerows, the beauty of the place, and so on. Therefore, can I explore with you, in the spirit of protections for heritage, place, and identity for a locality, how much, in a rural setting food, production and agriculture should equally be protected or at least considered as part of the planning process? Perhaps we could start with Lizzie.

Lizzie Glithero-West: I am just pondering that for a moment. Your question is on the balance of the production of food versus land being taken out of production—is that the nature of the question?

[Greg Smith]

Q That is certainly part of it. To clarify, it is equally the case that a lot of rural communities would not look the way they do if it were not for farmers maintaining the hedgerows, looking after the land and maintaining the footpaths that people use for leisure. If you are going to identify the characteristic and heritage of a place, as well as the physical architecture, in a rural community, it must surely equally apply to that which makes the countryside happen—if I can boil it down to its lowest common denominator. My question is, to what extent, on top of architectural heritage and so on, should that equally be considered in the planning process?

Lizzie Glithero-West: I feel I am perhaps leaning into a discussion about the Environment Act, but it is absolutely a part of levelling up. As archaeologists, we do not see a dichotomy between the natural environment and the historic environment. In fact, none of our landscape is purely natural in that sense. Hedgerows and features in the landscape—often scheduled ancient monuments—can provide homes for biodiversity. The two need to be thought about together. It is actually really fundamental in the roll-outs of the Agriculture Act and the Environment Act. Heritage is a pillar at the heart of the 25-year strategy and it is so important that it remains so, hence some of our concerns around the Environment Act.

We absolutely believe in public value for public goods. As some of those public goods would be around the preservation of heritage, which then goes on to support rural communities and biodiversity, it is all part of character of place to be able to use those assets; they are at the heart of place both in the town and in the rural landscape. A lot of the measures we are talking about today contribute to that.

We would like to have seen more in the Environment Act. We were concerned about some of the definitions, and that heritage was removed from some of those protections. The future farming regime and how farmers are paid for public goods will be fundamental to the point you raised—that although those features in the landscape and these places often might not be seen as valuable for food production, they are incredibly important for rural tourism, local communities, biodiversity and heritage.

[Greg Smith]

Q Thank you. I appreciate that answer. Before I bring in the others, I appreciate that there will be crossover with the Environment Act and the Agriculture Act. However, I am looking at this very much through the lens of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, and planning reform. Mr Boys Smith, you were indicating that you would like to come in.

Nicholas Boys Smith: Yes. I can come in with passion and, perhaps, too much aplomb. One of the most consistent, heartfelt and distressing pleas that I have heard, that the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission has heard and that is shown in evidence more widely is that people feel that new housing is done at them, not with them, and that it is of everywhere, not of “here”. That theme emerges in every piece of research I have done or read, even if it is expressed differently.

At one of the very first co-design workshops I ran, a marvellous lady from the West Indies—I forget which island—said that she wanted places with a heart and places that could not just be anywhere. You hear the same thing in the Cotswolds, Buckinghamshire or York. It comes up time and again. We know from neuroscience that people need and want that sense of place—a place that is their home in the world. It is unquestionably the fact that we are not currently providing that. That is something that is particularly heartfelt in your type of community, Mr Smith.

Why is that? There are several reasons. One is that although our policy on design quality and on the nature of developments we create is often quite aspirational and sounds nice, it is not cutting through in reality. If you look at the houses and the types of place we create, they are pretty similar from Cumbria to the Cotswolds—to take two random places beginning with c—or from Berkshire to Buckinghamshire, or wherever. They are very standard typologies, done with very similar highways rules.

We were doing a design code for a housing association that wanted to do houses that fitted in with rural communities. The highways rules and expectations for parking and for splay circles—things that sound technical and boring—meant that they could not. We desperately need to empower people’s preferences—it is right to do this; the NPPF has already made some good moves—for the types of places that they pay a premium to live in, so they must value them. The best way to achieve that is to stop banning the types of village centre that we have essentially banned. That does not quite answer your agriculture question directly, but it does indirectly.

If we are able to stop villages growing carcinogenically, by which I mean you have a village centre and then sprawl being—rude word—into fields around, we could perhaps allow a secondary village centre, which is perhaps more nature-similar and linked, and accept that perhaps some of the houses or flats in the village or town centre have fewer cars and are a little bit tighter together. Lots of the types of traditional village or small town street, you just could not build, although it is getting easier now. Until recently you could not build at all, but thanks to recent changes, it is getting easier.

We need to allow a visualised expression of local character to more axiomatically set local standards and expectations, as defined by local people—not by me or you or the council, although it might have a role. That becomes absolutely essential and it will allow us—again, you can see the premium in the numbers—to develop at slightly higher densities. I call it gentle density, which, again, people will pay a premium for. It does not need to be spewing out into field after field. If we can, we should create a type of walkable, attractive, gentle density, and the focus on design codes linked to the NPPF and the new national model design code in the Bill makes that more possible. It will not solve all the challenges, because they will be existential and go on forever, but it is the best and most credible route.

[Greg Smith]

Thank you. Adrian, do you have a view on this?

Adrian Dobson: Just to reiterate the point about density. Higher densities can be acceptable. If they are designed in the right way, that is very valuable. The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 has served us quite well in many ways, although criticisms of it could be made. We have some slight concerns about over-centralisation. The concept of local plans and local design codes, where good designers can respond to that local context, is one of the traditional strengths of the UK planning system.

Nicholas Boys Smith: Can I constructively, in a good and friendly fashion, disagree with that point? Is that allowed? I don’t want to be out of order.

[The Chair]

We encourage you!

Nicholas Boys Smith: It is constructive and friendly, Adrian; it is not meant to be unfriendly. I agree with the principle of what you say, but I think the reality is different. If you do a comparative analysis of the power and strength of our local plans compared with equivalent documents in other countries, our local plans are incredibly weak. They are policy documents that are verbalised and in practice allow you to do almost anything most of the time. Let me paint a picture. In Sweden, in much of America and in parts of France, and in different ways in Holland or Denmark, it is much easier for someone almost to pick a house out of a catalogue provided by a much wider range of providers, rather than being reliant on a small number of house builders who produce far too high a proportion of our homes.

We are living in a—am I under parliamentary privilege? I don’t know. I am not sure whether I am allowed to say “cartel”. We are certainly living under a massively overly concentrated market, because the local plan has not managed to set regulatory clarity. A lack of regulatory clarity, although associated with nationalised development rights, is a major barrier to entry, and it is exactly how it is operated. I agree with what you say in principle, Adrian, but sadly not in practice. I hope that was okay, Mr Bone—sorry.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I am going to call Greg Smith, but I will put the witnesses on notice that, at the end, I will give you the opportunity to change the course of history by telling the Committee what it should be doing.

[Greg Smith]

Q I am going to throw something of a curveball, because it is the sort of question that I am hopeful the think-tank world might have a view on. Throughout a lot of the evidence that we have heard during previous sessions on this Bill Committee—Alex, you talked about the south-east housing crisis in one of your answers—we have this presumption that building is the only answer to the question. From my constituency casework and from prodding around the issue, I have a theory that we do not really have a very good grasp on the gap between supply and demand, particularly in London and the south-east, where house prices are so much higher.

As we are looking at a Bill that essentially enables greater house building in our neighbourhood planning, can you offer a view on whether factors such as stamp duty, particularly at the punitively high rate that George Osborne imposed as Chancellor on the top end of the market, have had a disproportionate effect on movement within the housing stock we already have in this country? If people are not moving up to the very top tier of housing—the very large family homes and so on—there is a domino effect all the way down to the bottom of the market for people who are trying to get into starter homes and one or two-bedroom flats. Do you know of any assessment, either by your own think-tanks or across the think-tank world, that could answer that question? Just how big, in reality, is the gap between supply and demand? What other factors within the state’s control could we look at to take those barriers away?

Alex Morton: We are doing a paper called “The case for house building”, which may not be to your taste; it will argue that, unfortunately, supply is an unavoidable part of any solution. It is frustrating that many other factors, such as interest rates, immigration and stamp duty, are contributing to the housing crisis, but the unavoidable reality is that supply affects price—there is no market in which supply does not have an impact on price. Throughout most of human history, the average cost of a house has been close to the build cost. If you really want to be technical, it is the capitalised future stream of rental income—house prices sometimes get out of line because there are asset price bubbles—but if you work out the rental stream of the average property over 30 years, it should be close to the build cost. Anything above that is fundamentally caused by an imbalance between supply and demand.

Ian Mulheirn has very eloquently made the case that we should not focus only on supply. I totally agree, but I think there is sometimes a desire to wish away the problem. Having said that, I empathise quite a lot with politicians, because it is annoying that other issues are contributing. I would argue that immigration is probably the quickest and shortest lever you could pull; I am thinking of the Chesham and Amersham by-election, for example, in which a party that strongly supports more immigration and more refugees was somehow arguing that there could be no building in any kind of southern constituency.

However, that does not get us away from the fact that for a long time we have not built enough houses for the people who are already here. We can see that in levels of homelessness and overcrowding, particularly for people at the bottom of the market who are really suffering and cannot have families. It is just unconscionable not to do something about that. So yes, cut stamp duty; yes, reduce immigration; but unfortunately there is just a big backlog. We will have a report out soon on this.

[Greg Smith]

Q Just to clarify the question that I am trying to get to the bottom of, my point is not that there will not ultimately be a gap between supply and demand; it is about the effect of factors such as stamp duty on supply. How much are the barriers to movement in the housing market dampening supply?

Alex Morton: We have done a couple of papers on this. There is a clear link between the number of transactions and the speed at which house builders can build out, as I think you have been hearing from other witnesses. The number of people who are prepared to buy new build is relatively constant; Help to Buy has shifted that, but absent Help to Buy, it is a relatively constant number. If transactions increase, so will the number of houses built. I can send you our paper “Stamping Down”, in which we talked about how reducing stamp duty would boost transaction levels. For me, part of the problem is that even if we get housing up to 300,000 for some years, we should be doing that along with other measures—we might then be able to start taking our foot off the pedal in about 10 years’ time. The backlog is so large that we should do all these things. Worrying too much about the exact mix is almost dancing on the head of a pin. We need to reduce demand and increase supply now, and then in five or 10 years, having done those things, we can review where we have got to.

Will Tanner: I agree with quite a lot of what Alex has just said; I think it is about both supply and demand. I take a lot of Ian Mulheirn’s arguments, particularly about the role of interest rates, but I agree with Alex that we have not built enough homes for a very, very long time. We did a report called “Stamping out a bad tax”—another variation on the word “stamp”—that looked at abolishing stamp duty because, as a transaction tax, it has distorted effects within the market, in exactly the way you describe. There are ways of paying for that through second-home taxes and taxes on enveloped dwellings and the like. It is possible to do that in a fiscally neutral way, but it would be wrong for me to suggest that that will solve the housing crisis in one fell swoop. Ultimately, we need to do a number of different things. Over the last 10 years or so it has been easier for politicians to do demand-side changes to the housing market than to do supply-side changes, and that has led to some of the backlog that Alex talks of.

I would argue that some of the things in this Bill, particularly around compulsory purchase, land assembly, spatial planning and the role of development corporations, potentially unlock considerable amounts of supply. That is why this Bill is an important addition to the housing and planning system—it potentially fixes some of the roadblocks to supply over a number of years.

[The Chair]

Q I am going to go to the final question. Alex, what is the one thing that this Committee could do to improve things?

Alex Morton: I think we have covered most things that I had down. The one element that we have not touched on is the goal of streamlining planning and local plans. Perhaps more should be being pushed down than up. By that I mean I would that rather local plans were a series of site allocation policies and strategic policies around transport, and then local people should have a greater say on what happens on those sites, whether through neighbourhood plans or the neighbourhood priority statements that the Government are already trying to do. There is an argument that if development is happening in your community, and you can shape how it looks and what infrastructure and other benefits come with it, you are more likely to be in favour of it, or at least not hostile.

Therefore, rather than trying to have a system that says, “Let’s strip out all the local plan policies”—which I think is absolutely necessary, and the Government are absolutely right to proceed, because local plans take far too long and are out of touch by the time they are finished—you could create processes around how we get on sites, particularly larger sites, where they have been allocated, and how we engage with the community as part of that local planning process, so that, at the end of it, you have a local plan with a list of sites and some overlapping strategic policies, and then local people get to choose things like design or what benefits come with it. That would be a good way to square the circle around streamlining, without running to this argument that you are centralising and taking powers away. I don’t think the Government is trying to do that; I think they are genuinely trying to fix the housing crisis, but I understand why MPs are saying that, and I think that could be an alternative way, as the Bill develops, to get there.

Will Tanner: The area where I think the Committee could make a real difference is around the levelling-up missions and the overarching framework around the Bill. I am not sure the Minister will necessarily thank me for saying this, but I think the reporting requirements and the architecture around the levelling-up missions could be strengthened considerably in two primary ways.

First, we have seen through the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Climate Change Committee the importance and strength of an independent body to hold the Government to account for delivering against its own targets, and I think the levelling-up missions would benefit from that level of scrutiny and accountability. At the moment there is a bit of a risk of the Government setting out its own interpretation of progress rather than us having an independent view. Bluntly, the Government should welcome that as a way of ensuring that the whole of Government is driving towards the same end. There is a bit of a risk at the moment that the Department for Levelling Up becomes the sole vehicle for driving levelling-up policy.

In a second but similar way, I think there is a missed opportunity in terms of not aligning that reporting framework against a Treasury set of fiscal events. Ultimately, levelling up is so interdependent with tax and spend policy that if the Treasury is reporting at different times, particularly around changing tax measures or making large public spending decisions through the spending review, there is the risk that levelling up falls through the cracks of the way the Government makes major decisions, rather than being completely aligned as a whole of Government mission, as I understand both the Prime Minister and the entirety of Government believe it to be. That would be my systemic change.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Greg Smith Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 12th July 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Tim Farron]

This is an important amendment, as is the one in the name of the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet. I will not go into a great amount of detail on this matter as we talked in earlier debates about the motivation for devolution. Who is it for? I am hoping to be persuaded otherwise, but my suspicion is that the legislation is mostly about trying to make local government a more efficient agency. What we really ought to be talking about is developing and delivering greater levels of power and control to local communities. Who is the Bill for? Who are development plans for? Is this even devolution, or is it just a form of delegation—tidying up the process to help Whitehall?

Plans have to mean something. One of the reasons I suspect some authorities do not have the plans that they should have, or that their plans are not as up to date as they ought to be, is that there is a lack of confidence in them. As we said earlier, there is a belief among communities that: “We may set out our priorities, but they will be overridden because they are in conflict with national policy, or the Government simply will not stand with us as a local community if we seek to enforce zero-carbon homes, to maximise the number of affordable homes being built or to ensure that infrastructure is provided for developments before they are made.”

There will be some who say, “If you give local communities the ultimate power over development plans, things won’t happen at all.” I think that is baloney. The evidence is that that is not true. If we give communities the ability to specify and enforce their priorities—for example, for the huge majority of homes being built to be affordable and zero-carbon, and to have the infrastructure provided for them in advance—we will find that those communities are much more likely to be willing to play ball in the first place. It is the opposite of nimbyism. I can name sites in Coniston, Hawkshead and Grasmere where people have fought to get hold of sites to provide affordable homes, because they were given agency. They were in the national park, where there was more power as a consequence.

That is why this question is important. Do we want to see the Bill as being about empowering local government, and therefore national Government having to step back and genuinely trust communities? Or are the Government going to simply see the Bill as an opportunity to exert more control, just in a slightly more efficient way? If the Government refuse amendments at least of this sort, then we will know that the Bill is not about devolution, but delegation, and that it is not for the communities or for levelling up, but for the convenience of Whitehall.

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

I will not take up much of the Committee’s time on this issue, because we have already explored many of the key points that go to the nub of why these two amendments—57, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet, which I have been happy to sign and support; and 86, in the name of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich—are so essential.

I spoke on Second Reading to say that the Bill was fundamentally good, but that it needed some considerable polishing. This section of the Bill is one of those elements that, in my opinion, just has to change. None of the points I am going to make will come as any surprise to the Minister, given that, up to four days ago, he was my Whip—he has heard it all before. I do not doubt the cartwheels of delight across Nuneaton when the Minister, having been relieved of whipping me, found himself on the Bill Committee, where there are indeed a number of amendments that I have supported or tabled myself.

This group of amendments goes to the heart of whether we are serious about localism and the principles of subsidiary, or whether the default position is still “Whitehall knows best.” There are countless examples of developments across my constituency—this is before I even get on to High Speed 2—where the local council has said no, parish councils and town councils have said no, and the case against them has stacked up with the local plan, be it in the former Wycombe district or the former Aylesbury Vale district. They have even contravened the NPPF.

However, by the time those developments have got to the inspector, the rubber stamp has come down in the opposite direction. As the shadow Minister said, it is already a problem, and I fear that the clause will seek only to bake and lock into the legislation the ability—no matter the cause or the reason and no matter how strongly a community, neighbourhood, parish, town, borough or metropolitan authority feels—of Whitehall to come down and impose a different will on those neighbourhoods and communities.

I give the example of the village of Ickford in my constituency, which is to the very west of Buckinghamshire on the border with Oxfordshire. Every single person in that village knew that that land currently under development floods—not once in a blue moon, but four or five times every autumn and winter. The people who back on to that land know that it floods, because it floods their back gardens, too. The people who drive through that village know that it floods, because the roads flood when that field floods. Locally, that development from Deanfield Homes was turned down because, among other reasons, the land floods. By the time the inspector got his hands on it, it was approved with a peculiar statement that the development had a chance of flooding once every 100 years. Within days of that judgment being passed—guess what? The land had indeed flooded. I know, because I stood in it, and the water lapped up to the top of my Wellington boots.

I give that as an example of why local control and decision making must have primacy in planning, because local people, local councils, local parishes and towns—or whatever tier of local government—actually know what happens in their own back yard. They understand it. They see and feel and breathe and touch the problems that any proposed developments could come across. Therefore, as we look to the summer recess and to coming back in September to finish the Bill’s passage through Committee before it gets to Report, I really urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the real implications of baking into the Bill the position that national planning policy can overrule local people’s decision making.

If we are serious about making the Bill truly about localism, we need to seriously amend clause 83. As the great Ronald Reagan once said:

“There is no limit to the amount of good you can do if you don’t care who gets the credit.”

I really do not mind which amendment is chosen, because fundamentally they do the same thing, but I urge the Minister please to reflect on this serious, fundamental point that underpins the Bill and to see if we can find a better way of ensuring that it is local decisions that are made, and not with national overriding.

[Rachael Maskell]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Buckingham, and I agree wholeheartedly with his comments. Ultimately the clause comes with an air of arrogance from the Government. I am not looking at the Minister on that as I appreciate he is new in post, but it says to a community, “We, as Government, know best.” I think back to a few years ago, when many of us were involved in the debate about fracking, which was being imposed on our communities. We fought back on those measures. Fracking would clearly have impacted on the environmental and climate situation we are facing. That was a fight from within communities to protect themselves. The communities knew best about the impact that would have.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Does the Member who tabled amendment 57 wish to move it formally?

[Greg Smith]

I have heard the assurances that the Minister has given but agree with some of the reticence of the shadow Minister, so I urge my hon. Friend to consider these points very carefully over the summer. I will not press amendment 57 to a vote right now, but I underline the importance of getting this right for the whole Bill and its meaning.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I beg to move amendment 98, in clause 83, page 91, line 30, at end insert—

“, subject to subsection (5D).

(5D) But any conflict must be resolved in favour of the development plan in an area if—

(a) if, in relation to it, regulations under section 16 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 have been made to provide for the town and country planning function and the highways function and any functions exercisable under the Environment Act 2021 of a county council or a district council that is exercisable in relation to an area which is within a county combined authority area to be exercisable by the CCA in relation to the CCA’s area,

(b) if, in relation to it, regulations under section 17 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 have been made to provide for at least one function of another public body that is exercisable in relation to an area which is within a county combined authority area to be exercisable by the CCA in relation to the CCA’s area,

(c) it has a joint spatial development strategy, or

(d) it is in Greater London.”

This amendment would place limits on the primacy of national development management policies over the development plan where a Combined County Authority had been handed planning, highways, environmental powers and at least one function of another public body under a devolution deal, in areas covered by a joint spatial development strategy and in Greater London.

This is a probing amendment. Given that the Government have just declined to accept amendments 83 and 57, and reconfirmed their intention to have national development management policies override local development plans in the event of any conflict between them at the point of determination, amendment 98 is designed simply to try to elicit from the Government whether they will consider allowing any specific exemptions to that general principle.

The amendment would do so by specifying that any conflict between an NDMP and a local development plan at the point of determination must be resolved in favour of the latter in an area where a combined county authority has had key powers transferred to it under a devolution deal, where a joint spatial development strategy has been agreed, or in Greater London. The idea is that an exemption from the primacy of national policy in the form of NDMPs would be the reward, so to speak, for agreeing a devolution deal with the full panoply of powers available or for engaging in strategic planning by putting a spatial development strategy in place—or, it should be said, for taking part in a new joint spatial development strategy across authority boundaries.

Let me explain my reasoning further by using the example of an area where an SDS or a joint SDS might be taken forward. As the Minister will know, once a spatial development strategy is in place, it provides for a strategic framework for the development plan or plans, which should in theory supersede or take primacy over NDMPs that the Government might happen to bring forward.

While we remain of the view that no local development plan should be made subordinate to national planning policies in the form of NDMPs, if the Government are determined to ensure that they are—it sounded that way from the Minister’s comments in the previous debate—we believe that they should at least consider exempting from that centralising approach areas that have proactively taken on greater powers, including powers to plan strategically, so that they can use them to the full to reflect local priorities and innovate, having regard to national policy but not being unduly constrained by it.

On that basis, I hope that the Minister will give our amendment due consideration.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Nineteeth sitting)

Greg Smith Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 6th September 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Rachael Maskell]

I have been reassured by the Minister that this will form part of the wider consultation process in the next stage. We will look at that with interest. Clearly, we will want to follow this through in later stages, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 58, in schedule 11, page 287, line 33, at end insert—

“(1A) A charging schedule may—

(a) require a developer to pay their full IL liability for a development before being permitted to commence work on that development,

(b) require infrastructure funded by IL associated with a development to be built before work on that development may commence.”

This amendment would enable Infrastructure Levy charging authorities to require a developer to pay their full IL liability, or for infrastructure funded by IL associated with a development to be built, before development may commence.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 161, in schedule 11, page 299, line 35, at end insert—

“(2A) IL regulations must specify that payment of IL must take place within a reasonable period of implementation of a development or phase of development or in accordance with any instalment policy adopted by the charging authority.”

This amendment would seek to ensure that infrastructure levy payments were made following implementation of development (or following the implementation of phases or instalments where permitted by the charging authority).

[Greg Smith]

I will not detain the Committee for long. The amendment very much speaks for itself. It enables a charging schedule to require that, where an infrastructure levy is required, it be paid up front, or, where the infrastructure levy requires the developer to build something out themselves, that the infrastructure they are building—the GP surgery, school, road, or whatever it might be—be built first. It is a straightforward amendment. Having heard so many colleagues speak in the House or around the place, the great frustration that I have seen in my constituency, and that I have heard from others, is that, when in particular big housing developments or huge industrial parks are built, the infrastructure comes far too late.

I congratulate the Government, and welcome their presumption that infrastructure should come first. Through the amendment, which for clarity I will not press to a Division today, I urge them, as the Bill progresses to Report stage, to really think about locking their own desire and stated policy for infrastructure to be built first into the Bill. I warned that I will not press the amendment to a Division because, having lived through the glorious summer recess leadership election, we have heard a lot of talk and commitments about planning policy and the things that are in the Bill and which the Committee is talking about. I suspect that on Report it will be a wholly different Bill from the one that we have been debating over the past few months in Committee. The point that I wish to push is that the amendment marries up with what the Government have stated that they want to do, and I appeal to Ministers to find a way of incorporating the spirit of the amendment into the Bill on Report.

[Matthew Pennycook]

When speaking to the first group of amendments to this part of the Bill, I outlined in great detail why the decision to make GDV the metric for the new levy is likely to result in applicants making their IL payments at the end, rather than the beginning of the development process. As I argued when making the case for charging authorities to have a choice when it comes to adopting the new levy or retaining the present system, if a levy with GDV as its metric is made mandatory, the final IL liability will almost certainly not be known and become due until near the point where a development is completed. Given the problems inherent in attempting to design a levy system that enables interim payments or payments on account, that convinces sufficient local authorities to borrow against future levy receipts with all the risk that entails, or that overcomes the problems that will arise from paying for infrastructure on one site with levy contributions extracted from others, the most likely outcome is a situation where the infrastructure required to support development will not be in place when it is needed, as the hon. Member for Buckingham has just outlined. That is deeply problematic because, as I said earlier, we think it will mean fewer overall approvals, more unsustainable development when it does occur and greater local opposition.

Amendment 161 seeks to address that issue by specifying in proposed new section 204R on levy collection that the payment of IL must take place within a reasonable period of a development or phase of development commencing or in accordance with any instalment policy adopted by the charging authority. In doing so, it simply aims to avoid additional delays to the provision of infrastructure that will be necessary to support development and the resulting pressure that that would place on existing local infrastructure.

Amendment 58 in the name of the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and others similarly seeks to revise the Bill so that IL payments are made earlier than is currently proposed by the Government. We support the principle, for the reasons I have outlined. However, in enabling charging authorities to require developers to pay either their full IL liability or sufficient amounts of it to enable a development to be built before development commences, that amendment goes much further than currently provided for by either CIL or section 106 agreements, which are typically paid prior to implementation of a development or phases. Because it is not mandatory for planning permissions to be implemented, we are slightly concerned that amendment 58 could lead to a situation where IL contributions are paid and infrastructure provided on development that is not subsequently completed. Mandating the payment of IL before development commences would also impact on developer cash flow and viability, particularly in cases of phased developments, which could have the consequence of reducing IL rates and thus the overall level of affordable housing and infrastructure contributions provided.

Lastly, the problems inherent in a levy based on the metric of GDV—in terms of multiple valuations having to be undertaken at different stages in the development process, with the final liability not being known until years after the application was submitted—would be magnified were a provision to be introduced mandating the payment of IL before any development commences. For those reasons, and with all due respect to the hon. Member for Buckingham—I agree with him on the principle—we believe that amendment 161, which merely requires IL payments to be made within a reasonable period of a development or phase of development commencing, is the more proportionate response to a problem that is clearly recognised across the Committee. I hope the Minister will give serious consideration to accepting our amendment so we can ensure that, if the levy is introduced, it allows for the infrastructure required to support development to be in place when it is needed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

As we have discussed a number of times during the debate, the matter to which the hon. Gentleman refers will be set out in regulations. Clearly, that needs to be considered, because we need to ensure that there is a mechanism whereby payments are required to be made earlier in the development. That mechanism will be there and we can make that happen.

In due course, as I have said, we will consult on how the levy might be collected and paid. For example, we intend to explore whether a substantial proportion of the levy should be paid prior to the completion of the development or a phase of it. That plays into what the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich mentioned. It would give charging authorities confidence that they will secure funds before the development is sold on. I hope that my reassurances that the Bill already provides powers to achieve the objectives laid out in the amendments in this group will mean that at this point my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham is able to withdraw his amendment and that the hon. Gentleman feels able not to move amendment 161.

[Greg Smith]

As I indicated earlier, I am happy to do so. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gareth Johnson.)

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Twentieth sitting)

Greg Smith Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 8th September 2022 Public Bill Committees

We see this happening more and more—density, then crowding out—when these accommodations are made for green space. Building high-rise, high-density accommodation goes against what we know is good for communities. The only way it can be viable, returning to that issue, is through high-value accommodation; we are talking about luxury apartments that no one in my city can afford. We will end up with 2,500 units—which my families will not be living in, so their housing situation will not be solved—in order to create a green space. By recognising the need for green space, we would not have to build high-density housing on that location, but would be able to take it elsewhere, while also prioritising the development of that brownfield space.

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I join you in welcoming the Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam, to his place on the Front Bench. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for York Central; I recognise the point she made about green lungs in urban environments, and about parkland and green spaces being in towns and cities up and down the land.

Listening to her comments, I remembered my own time in local government some moons ago, in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. We gave planning permission to one of Europe’s largest regeneration projects on brownfield land, crossing the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, around Earl’s Court and West Kensington. That development had multiple parks and lots of green space locked into its design, and into the planning permissions that were granted. It was, in fact, the incoming Labour council in 2014 that undid all of that and turned it over. While I have not been there in some time, I think I am right in saying that Earl’s Court still sits in rubble, as opposed to housing and beautiful green parks.

I will speak principally to amendment 59, which is tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), to which I too have put my name. It goes to the nub of the concerns that many Members across the House have about planning reform and the way we should go forward. There is a debate about where we should build; should we build on brownfield, or should we build on green space—green belt, greenfield, agricultural land and so on? When I look at my constituency, covering 335 square miles of north Buckinghamshire, 90% of that land is agricultural land. We have seen substantial development over the last 20 or 30 years. Some villages that started off small are now almost unrecognisable because of the vast housing estates that have been built, and which continue to be built on greenfield land around them. I think of villages such as Haddenham—close to my home village, for total transparency—where, yet again, another huge acreage of agricultural land is being built on for homes right now. Buckinghamshire Council, a good Conservative-run council, has a clear vision to build the housing the county needs through the light densification of some of the towns in Buckinghamshire.

However, what amendment 59 principally talks to is the need to incentivise developers to consider brownfield sites when they look at where to build the homes needed in Buckinghamshire and the rest of the country, and that they are not disincentivised because it is so much easier for them to build on greenfield, where they do not have the decontamination costs and all the other expensive costs of developing out brownfield sites. We can use the infrastructure levy to do that. If there is a sliding scale that says to developers that we can create that incentive through the taxation system and the infrastructure levy and potentially make these things cost-neutral, we can take the challenges of decontamination and other costs associated with brownfield land out of the equation for them. In that way, they will pay less infrastructure levy for building out on brownfield sites than they would for destroying the great British countryside.

It is not a perfect solution by any stretch of the imagination, because we still need the money for the roads, the GP surgeries, the schools and everything else the infrastructure levy is there to provide. However, unless we can create a system that really does come good on the Government’s welcome and solid commitment to building on brownfield first, I fear—and I had another developer in my inbox yesterday wanting to build out on a partially greenfield site in Waddesdon in my constituency—that all we will see is planning applications come in for greenfield development, and the brownfield first policy will not be realised.

I therefore urge the Minster to consider how we can use the infrastructure levy, in the spirit of amendment 59, to ensure that there are not financial penalties on developers for developing on brownfield land, so that we make that brownfield first policy come true. In that way, we can give local authorities that have lost a considerable chunk of greenfield and agricultural land in recent years—food security is important to all of us, and it is a pretty simple proposition that the more agriculture land we lose, the less food we can grow—the tools and powers as planning authorities to say that certain proposals are not what they need right now. In some areas, the proposals might be fine and might be what they want but, to use Buckinghamshire as an example, we could put in the differential rate enabled by this amendment to protect our greenfield and agricultural land and to drive development of the homes, commercial units and businesses we need on to the brownfield sites that exist predominantly in towns, and in some villages, in Buckinghamshire.

I urge the Government to look at the spirit of the amendment and to incorporate it into what will undoubtedly, after the leadership election, be quite a different Bill by the time it emerges on Report, to see whether we can make these proposals a reality.

[Matthew Pennycook]

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Central on amendment 168. She rightly speaks about the importance of green space in urban areas and about how we can increase the rate of it, if anything, when it comes to individual planning applications.

I will speak primarily to amendment 59, because I think it is worth putting the following on the record. I understand the point that the hon. Member for Buckingham is making, but my reading of the Bill is that the framework established in part 4 already allows charging authorities to set different IL rates according to existing and proposed uses, and those could include different rates for greenfield and brownfield sites. So the means to resolve the issue he is driving are already in the Bill, and Buckinghamshire Council will be able to set different rates on brownfield and greenfield sites if the Bill is given Royal Assent.

Our concern is that, by seeking to make mandatory a sliding scale of charges relating to land type or existing typologies by site, amendment 59 could result in reduced infrastructure contributions and lower levels of affordable housing in areas where development mainly or exclusively takes place on brownfield land, because it would prevent charging authorities from setting rates that are effective and suitable for their area and that consider local circumstances. For example, a mandatory sliding scale of charges, as proposed in the amendment, could result in the expectation that a charging authority whose development sites are entirely or mainly on brownfield land would set low IL rates to incentivise development in that area and disincentivise development in other areas with fewer brownfield sites.

Furthermore, brownfield development in higher-value areas will almost certainly generate sufficient values to support higher levels of contributions than would be possible on greenfield sites. As such, a mandatory sliding scale of charges would mean the loss of developer contributions that could viably have been delivered on brownfield sites, with no assurance that this would be offset by a higher level of contributions on greenfield land. Labour firmly believes in the principle of brownfield first, as do the Government, and that is absolutely right. However, we feel strongly that the setting of different IL rates for different land types should ultimately be determined by individual charging authorities taking account of local circumstances, rather than by the method proposed in amendment 59.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Twenty Fifth sitting)

Greg Smith Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th October 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I am not entirely convinced, so I will go away and think about it, but I will not divide the Committee on the new clause today. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 12

Duty to have regard to impacts on UK agriculture, agricultural land and domestic food production

“(1) A relevant authority must, when making policy, have regard to any potential impacts of that policy on the resilience of UK agriculture, agricultural land and domestic food production, and seeking to minimise any adverse such impacts so far as is reasonably practicable.

(2) In this section, a ‘relevant authority’ means—

(a) a Minister of the Crown;

(b) a relevant planning authority (under the meaning in section 81).

(3) In order to comply with the duty under this section, the relevant authority must have regard to—

(a) any impacts the proposal may have on agricultural production in the UK;

(b) any impacts the proposal may have on the area of land available for agricultural production in the UK, including in particular the area of grade 1 and 2 land available for production;

(c) any impacts on the genetic diversity of domestic livestock populations;

(d) the impact on farming in areas of natural constraints including land above the moorland line;

(e) the ability of agricultural producers in the UK to operate competitive businesses;

(f) any impacts on food security; and

(g) any other factor which appears relevant to the relevant authority.

(4) Nothing in subsection (1) requires a relevant authority to do anything (or refrain from doing anything) if doing it (or refraining from doing it) would be in any other way disproportionate to the impact on UK agriculture, agricultural land and domestic food production.

(5) This section does not apply to policy so far as relating to—

(a) the armed forces, defence or national security, or

(b) taxation, spending or the allocation of resources within government;

(c) Wales;

(d) Scotland; or

(e) Northern Ireland.”—(Greg Smith.)

This new clause requires Ministers of the Crown and planning authorities (with a broad definition) to take account of the impact their policies are likely to have on the resilience of the agricultural sector, agricultural land and domestic food production.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 13—Statements about Bills which may impact on UK agriculture, agricultural land or domestic food production—

“(1) This section applies where a Minister of the Crown in charge of a Bill in either House of Parliament is of the view that the Bill as introduced into that House contains provision which, if enacted, could have an impact on UK agriculture, agricultural land or domestic food production.

(2) The Minister must, before Second Reading of the Bill in the House in question, make a statement under subsection (3) or (4).

(3) A statement under this subsection is a statement to the effect that in the Minister’s view the Bill will not have an adverse impact on UK agriculture, agricultural land or domestic food production.

(4) A statement under this subsection is a statement to the effect that—

(a) the Minister is unable to make a statement under subsection (3), but

(b) His Majesty’s Government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill.

(5) A statement under this section must be in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister considers appropriate.”

This new clause requires a Minister of the Crown to make a statement when a Bill is introduced which is likely to have an impact on UK agriculture, agricultural land or domestic food production.

[Greg Smith]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. While I have no actual technical or financial interests to declare, for the sake of transparency, as we are going to talk about agriculture, I declare that my wife’s family are farmers. Conveniently and coincidentally, they are located in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk, who is sat next to me.

Some 90% of my constituency’s 335 square miles is agricultural land. Day in, day out, we see massive competing demands on that land, from the Agriculture Act 2020, with the environmental land management scheme and demands on farmers for rewilding and various other uses that take land out of agricultural use, to the thousands of acres of solar farm developments being brought forward, the housing demands, and state-sponsored infrastructure projects such as, in my constituency’s case, 19 miles of High Speed 2. As a result, when it comes to food security, we have seen our self-sufficiency declining over recent decades. We currently sit somewhere around 60%.

Within the national planning policy framework, there is a presumption to protect the most versatile and productive agricultural land, but I am certain that we in Buckinghamshire are not alone in seeing planning applications approved on said land, be those for housing, solar farms or other projects that I have listed. In the spirit of new clauses 12 and 13, in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), it is high time we locked into the planning system a legal requirement for planning authorities—indeed, any public authority that considers these matters—to take food security into account when determining those applications.

I think that would take us to a place that is far stronger than the current NPPF presumptions that we see being overlooked and not enforced up and down the country. It would get us to a position that is good for our farmers, where they are not losing hundreds, if not thousands, of acres of their land and can get about their business—the way they make their money—growing crops or raising cattle, sheep or other livestock. It would improve our food security at a time of global pressures, which I need not take up the Committee’s time describing, not least the appalling war in Ukraine. It would also give the countryside back its very definition—that it is there primarily for food production. It is there for farmers to work the land to produce the food that we need as a nation.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech; there will be much sympathy for his argument in South Suffolk, where his family reside on a beautiful farm. Was he reassured by suggestions in one newspaper that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is looking at the classification of new solar? At the moment, we are using farmland that could still be productive; we should, potentially, be tightening those rules.

[Greg Smith]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; I am reassured that the Government are moving to a place where productive farmland will not necessarily be used for solar in future. However, as it stands, we are trapped in a position where it has become very attractive for land to be taken over for solar use. We see the glossy planning consultants’ documents that show sheep grazing underneath the solar panel. That is all very well in year one, when there is still some grass underneath the glass, metal and plastic that form those solar panels, but when a field has been covered so comprehensively in those materials, the grass will not grow, and it becomes very difficult to graze a sheep underneath those panels in year two and beyond. We should call out and challenge the assumption that those planning consultants make when it comes to solar farms in particular.

New clauses 12 and 13 are not specifically about solar, housing, infrastructure or whatever; they are about taking the principles and precedent in the Environment Act 2021, which places a duty on planning authorities to take into account environmental concerns such as biodiversity gain, and extending them to include a requirement to take our nation’s food security as seriously as we take environmental concerns, energy security and national security.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham for his introduction to the new clauses and for the work he is doing on this important policy area. We absolutely accept the challenge that he puts to us. He made strong points about the importance of balancing competing demands, all of which are important in isolation and need to be thought through and integrated as best as possible, while recognising that it is sometimes not possible to do everything. The point of Government, both local and national, is to try to ensure that that balance is struck in the best possible way.

I hesitate to go too much into an agricultural discussion, although the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale was keen to move into that space, but I acknowledge the points that have been made. It is critical that we continue to have food security in the United Kingdom, that consumers have access to good quality, healthy and sustainable food and that domestic producers have a viable business in the long run. Although I do not want to trade figures, the figures I have in front of me state that we produce about 60% of what we eat, and we produce roughly 70% to 75% of what we can produce in this country. Given the problem of dates, times and the like, I recognise that those things move around, although they seem to have been relatively static over the last 20 years. Therefore—to my hon. Friend’s point—the question is whether the planning system needs further content and signals so that it is clear that these things can be weighed up more clearly.

At the current time, things are going on elsewhere in Government, particularly around the Agriculture Act, which my hon. Friend referenced. The Act commits the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to encourage the production of food by producers in England and for that production to be done in an environmentally sustainable way. Also in the Agriculture Act is a legal obligation to produce an assessment of food security once every three years. I hope that goes some way towards reassuring my hon. Friend, although I acknowledge that he is also interested specifically in the planning element.

This might be one of the statements that I make regularly over the next few minutes or so, but I am happy to talk to my hon. Friend in more detail about the underlying intent and calls behind his new clause. However, at the current time, I ask him to withdraw it in lieu of further discussions and debate outside after our sitting.

[Greg Smith]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s commitment to keep the conversation going. This is a subject, as right hon. and hon. Members can perhaps understand, that I get very passionate about. I could have a debate on agriculture for as many hours as the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale could. Our farmers produce the best food in the world, and we have to find the right balance to ensure that they have the land on which to produce it. In the spirit of carrying on the conversation before the Bill reports, I will not push the new clause to a vote, but I urge the Government to keep listening and talking to protect our world-class, best-in-class British farmers. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 14

Prohibition of mandatory targets and abolition of five-year land supply rule

“(1) Any housebuilding target for local planning authorities in—

(a) the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF),

(b) regulations made under any enactment, or

(c) any planning policy document

may only be advisory and not mandatory.

(2) Accordingly, such targets should not be taken into account in determining planning applications.

(3) The NPPF must not impose an obligation on local planning authorities to ensure that sufficient housing development sites are available over five years or any other given period.”—(Greg Smith.)

This new clause requires a revised NPPF within six months to provide that housing targets are advisory not mandatory and that the five-year housing land supply rule will no longer apply.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Greg Smith]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 15—Requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework—

“(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is in accordance with subsections (2) to (6).

(2) The NPPF must not contain a presumption in favour of sustainable development including where there are no relevant development plan policies, or such policies are out-of-date.

(3) The NPPF must provide for the right for persons to object to individual planning applications.

(4) The NPPF must provide that the Planning Inspectorate may only recommend that local plans not be adopted if—

(a) the consequences of that local plan would be detrimental to the objectives of such plans, and

(b) that local plan is markedly and verifiably atypical in comparison to other such plans.

(5) The NPPF must permit local planning authorities to impose bans on greenfield development in their areas, other than in exceptional circumstances, where—

(a) greenfield areas make a marked contribution to the local economy through leisure or tourism, and

(b) where sufficient brownfield land is likely to be available to meet housing needs identified in neighbourhood and local plans.

(6) The NPPF must include specific measures designed to support the creation of additional retirement homes, sheltered accommodation for the elderly and facilities for care homes.

(7) This section comes into force at the end of the period of six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed.”

This new clause requires a revised NPPF within six months to provide that, among other things, there should be no presumption of sustainable development.

[Greg Smith]

This should be relatively straightforward, given the commitments that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made in the leadership election during the summer. I believe that she described her approach as ending the Soviet-style, top-down housing targets that exist in the United Kingdom at the moment.

New clause 14, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), gets to the nub of the matter by getting rid of mandatory targets and leaving local areas free to decide what housing development, commercial development, infrastructure and so on they need. It also gets rid of something that has been an aberration in the planning system for far too long. I have talked to local government colleagues up and down the land, and the five-year land supply rules have got in the way of many areas deciding exactly what is right for them and of their ability to be dynamic.

The new clause gets to the nub of these issues. I hope that the Government can listen and that we can move forward by adding to the Bill either this new clause or whatever the Government wish to bring forward to meet the Prime Minister’s commitments over the summer.

[Lee Rowley]

Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham for tabling the new clauses and for articulating the rationale and reasoning for them. I think he and everybody else present would accept the principle that these would be significant changes, whatever people’s views about some of the important points he highlighted, such as the five-year housing land supply rules, local plans and the NPPF. The appropriate balance needs to be struck in each case, and those debates could detain the Committee for many hours, with extremely strongly held views in many places. Each of us will have—as I do and as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet, who is not on the Committee, do—individual recollections and experiences of the implications of the NPPF, the five-year housing land supply rules and other things for their constituencies and more broadly.

I recognise and acknowledge the significant underlying element of change that is proposed in the new clauses, the significant move away from the current approach, and the balance that needs to be struck. I also acknowledge that, as part of the leadership campaign, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a series of statements over the summer about looking again at this area and bringing forward new proposals. However, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham will be content on this occasion to emphasise the point in his speech, which was that we should either look at the new clauses or bring forward additional proposals. I hope we can bring forward proposals in due course that he will have the opportunity to comment on, so I ask him to withdraw the new clause, pending further discussions in advance of the Bill coming back at a later stage.

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for those commitments. The statements made over the summer were very clear, and I look forward to working with the Government on their proposals or to put new clause 14 into the Bill on Report.

New clause 15 goes to the heart of localism and the same issue that new clause 14 talks about: the ability of local communities, rather than Whitehall, to decide. Given the commitment that the Minister made, I am equally content that we continue the conversation, which we will come back to on Report. For the time being, I am content not to press new clause 15.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn

New Clause 16

Character test: determination of applications

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Greg Smith]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 37—Prohibition on development for prescribed persons—

“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations prohibit a person of a prescribed description from carrying out development of land in England (or a prescribed description of such development).

(2) The descriptions of persons which may be prescribed include in particular persons who—

(a) have been found to be in breach of planning control on a development undertaken by them, and

(b) that breach has not been rectified.

(3) A prohibition under the regulations applies despite planning permission (or any prescribed description of planning permission) having been granted.”

[Greg Smith]

New clause 16 is relatively straightforward. It addresses an issue that arose from talking to Conservative and other councillors up and down the country in areas where rogue development—build now and seek to apologise or get retrospective planning permission later—has caused significant issues. The new clause would give the planning authorities the ability to take into account an applicant’s character, such as whether they have previous form on rogue or illegal development, when considering any fresh applications. It is relatively straightforward and aims to give our planning authorities more ability to protect their communities from rogue development.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Mark. New clause 37 in my name and that of my hon. Friends, is, like new clause 16, a simple amendment. I will not devote too much time to making the case for it.

We all agree that it is essential that the integrity of the planning system is upheld, not only to ensure that unauthorised development cannot blight local communities, but to maintain public trust and confidence in the planning decision-making process. When considering chapter 5 of the Bill, we had a number of debates about how planning enforcement might be improved as well as better resourced. A number of members of the Committee, including my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields, have spoken at length about the impact that rogue developers can have on communities across the country.

New clause 37 seeks to probe the Government on a specific issue of concern. As the hon. Member for Buckingham has just made clear, at present it appears that it is entirely permissible for an individual developer to consistently breach planning control, with the only risk being that they face enforcement action in respect of that specific breach. We believe that it is right that enforcement of planning law and regulation is based on the principle of proportionality and that when it comes to cases of alleged unauthorised development, local authorities have discretion to determine how the breach can be remedied. However, we also believe there is a strong case for changing the law so that certain categories of proscribed persons, in particular those who breach planning control and make no efforts to rectify those breaches, can be prohibited from carrying out development of any kind.

New clause 37 would allow that sanction to be applied to those who persistently offend when it comes to contraventions of planning law and regulation. Its objective is the same as new clause 16, on a character test and the prior record of an applicant. Adopting new clause 37, or a version of it, would reduce the burden on local authorities that are attempting to deal with the minority of rogue developers of this kind, and would also strengthen the integrity of the system overall. I hope the Government will give it serious consideration.

[Lee Rowley]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for their new clauses. I am extremely sympathetic to some of the concerns. I agree with the hon. Member that ensuring the integrity of the planning system is paramount. We will all have examples from across the country of where development does not occur in the way that is sanctioned, or before it is sanctioned, and then an attempt is made to gain planning permission retrospectively by those who are not necessarily following either the letter or the spirit of the rules as set down. It is extremely frustrating.

By the same token, we have to tread extraordinarily carefully here. There are a set of principles, which my hon. Friend and the hon. Member acknowledged in their speeches—that the planning system is based on a specific application, which should be judged accordingly on its merits. It is challenging to bring forward a form of character test within those principles, although I recognise that there is an issue here that many communities up and down the land are seeing.

As those who have debated it for longer than I have will know, the Bill already includes a significant package of measures that will help tackle persistent abuses of the system. Those will speed up the enforcement process, restrict the circumstances in which an appeal can be lodged, increase fines for non-compliance and discourage intentional unauthorised developments that rely on a slow enforcement timescale. The Government acknowledge some of the concerns and are trying to find appropriate levers with which to approach them.

While offering a commitment to continue to talk about this issue, although wanting to be being clear that it is extremely difficult in terms of legislation, as my hon. Friend and the hon. Member acknowledged, the Government are not minded to accept the new clauses. I therefore ask both Members not to press them.

[Greg Smith]

I welcome the commitment my hon. Friend has just made to carrying on the conversation. I accept the complexity, in a system that looks at individual cases, of bringing in a more universal test. However, there are other areas of life where people—for example, those with particular criminal records—are barred from doing certain activities—particularly where children are involved. If we could extend the principle and precedent whereby somebody who has form with rogue development—that is, turn up, build now and apologise later—which blights communities up and down the land, is barred through legislation that is practical and that does not undermine the planning system, I am up for carrying on that conversation. If not through the exact wording of this new clause, then perhaps by another means, we could find a happy solution that protects our communities from those who, I am sorry to say, continue to blight them by building out schemes that they do not have planning permission for.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the Minister for that response. I agree that we have to tread very carefully in this area; the principles that we have all spoken about, in terms of planning system proportionality and judgment on individual applications, are important. The Minister was not on the Committee at the time, but the Opposition broadly supported the measures outlined in chapter 5 of part 3, which strengthened enforcement. I welcome his commitment to continue the discussion outside the Committee, but I hope he gives the issue some serious thought.

I accept what the Minister said about the difficulties, particularly in terms of a character test, but at the same time it does not seem beyond the talents in this Committee Room—I will put it that way—to come up with a system that proscribes certain categories of person. Even if it was a threshold of a certain number of planning breaches in the past, beyond which someone cannot bring forward applications, there must be some way of doing it. A minority of rogue developers are causing havoc for communities and lots of work for planning departments in local authorities. We think the Government should give further thought to making progress on the issue.

[Greg Smith]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 17

Community right of appeal

“(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 78 (right to appeal against planning decisions and failure to take such decisions) insert—

‘78ZA Community right of appeal

(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision—

(a) enabling communities to appeal against a decision to grant planning permission or permission in principle for a development, and

(b) about such appeals.

(2) The regulations may require a certain number or proportion of residents of a local area to record objection against a decision for such an appeal to proceed.

(3) The regulations may, in particular, make provision the upholding of such appeals and the revocation of permission if—

(a) the development is inconsistent with a relevant neighbourhood plan, or

(b) due process has not been followed in relation to the planning application.

(4) The first regulations under this section must be laid before Parliament before the end of the period of six months beginning on the day on which this section comes into force.’” —(Greg Smith.)

This new clause would introduce a community right of appeal against the granting of planning permission.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Greg Smith]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This new clause gets to the heart of a frustration for many communities, be it Maids Moreton in my constituency, Ickford or many others. Planning permission is granted—or conceivably in some places not granted—but the community is opposed to the application. Conversely, the community wants it, but it is not given permission. We know that, as it stands at the moment, there is little power for communities to challenge that, short of the judicial review process. We all know how much judicial reviews can cost and how unlikely they are, in many cases, to succeed, because they are dependent on technical legal requirements, as opposed to the wider planning law environment.

The new clause would bring in a community right of appeal. It would mean that a community that felt particularly hard done by as a result of a decision of a planning authority, rather than being forced down the route of judicial review at great—often unaffordable—expense, could lodge an appeal, just as a developer can who is not content with the way that their application has been determined. This is about fairness—about giving those on both sides of the debate the same right of appeal. It is a point of principle that I hope the Government will listen to, and I hope that they find a way of getting this measure into the Bill.

[Rachael Maskell]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Mark. I add my support for these measures, because it is incredibly important that power be given back to people in communities. On many occasions, I have seen developers across York move into a space and determine the future of a community without engaging it, even if only in a consultative way. Occasionally, the community may be lucky enough to meet the partners cursorily, yet those developers will derive serious profit from the land. Also, what they place on the land will have huge implications for local housing prices and economic opportunities for the community, but the community is completely disregarded.

That feeds into a wider agenda around people identifying with their place. Across society, we are wrestling with that issue, and with people having a franchise in place. People are feeling more and more disconnected from their locality. It is crucial that we find a way, across communities, to rebalance people’s right to steer through a mechanism. In debate on my earlier amendments, I talked about deliberative democracy. The community should absolutely be involved in processes before they get to a certain point. It is far better to prevent an incident than to try to recover once it has happened. It is important to find a way to give people franchise over their community, particularly when we contrast the harm that could be done with the profit that developing companies and landowners will reap. This huge extraction economy, as I have been calling it, is playing off the localism that people want in their vicinity, and causing a lot of stress and tension, because while it benefit others, it causes the community harm. A community right of appeal will start to tilt the balance back towards local people, which is absolutely essential.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments. We may have another discussion about deliberative democracy when we debate another amendment in a few minutes’ time.

I am a great advocate of local communities having as much involvement in these discussions as possible. It is a shame when councils—I experienced this in North East Derbyshire a number of years ago—do not emphasise the discussion at the appropriate point, and people do not feel as involved as they need to if they are to understand what happens later in the process. I hope that local councils take opportunities to be as broad and open in their discussions as possible. I am also a big fan of neighbourhood plans, because they give communities the opportunity to be more involved in discussion. There are parts of the system that can be used at the moment, though I respect and acknowledge the challenge of involving local communities in it. I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw the new clause.

[Greg Smith]

I absolutely hear what my hon. Friend says about due process for landowners who wish to develop their land. I am not in any way, shape or form seeking to take any of that away through the new clause; it is quite right that landowners or developers should have the due process set out, and a clear path to appeal if they feel that they have not been treated fairly.

What is missing is the other side of the equation, when something materially affects a village, town or neighbourhood. Some months ago, when speaking to an amendment, I gave the example of the way flooding is dealt with in the planning process. In the village of Ickford in my constituency, every villager knew that a piece of land flooded not just a little, but a lot, but that was completely ignored throughout the planning process and when it got to the Planning Inspectorate. The community could see the problem—they knew and felt it; they had puddles lapping up to the top of their welly boots regularly—but was left with a choice of going to judicial review or nothing. That community right of appeal did not exist. They could see, feel and breathe the issues. This was the place they call home, but that knowledge could not be put into any meaningful challenge that would not cost the village £1 million.

I am happy to withdraw the new clause for the time being, but I really urge my hon. Friend to look at how we can restore fairness, so that when a place feels that the planning system has worked against it, it can lodge a good, well-thought-through challenge that that does not go into the unaffordable realms of judicial review. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 18

Start of development for planning purposes

“(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 56(4) (time when development begun) leave out paragraphs (aa) to (c)

(3) In section 92(2)(b) (outline planning permission) for ‘two years’ substitute ‘one year.”—(Greg Smith.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Greg Smith]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 20—Revocation and modification of planning permission for unbuilt development by Secretary of State—

“(1) Section 100 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (revocation and modification of planning permission or permission in principle by the Secretary of State) is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (1) insert—

‘(1A) In this section, “expedient” includes circumstances in which—

(a) a development for which planning permission has been granted is unbuilt and appears likely to remain unbuilt, and

(b) in the opinion of the Secretary of State it is in the public interest to revoke or modify that planning permission.’.”

New clause 21—Council tax to be payable on undeveloped sites for which planning permission granted—

“(1) The Local Government Finance Act 1992 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).

(2) In section 3 (meaning of ‘dwelling’ for Council Tax purposes), after subsection (3) insert—

‘(3A) A hereditament which—

(a) is all or part of a new or proposed new building the terms of planning permission for which required the building to already be completed, and

(b) which otherwise would be a dwelling for the purposes of this Part is a dwelling for the purposes of this Part.’

(3) In section (4) (dwellings chargeable to council tax), at the end insert—

‘(5) But a dwelling under section 3(3A) may not be an exempt dwelling.’

(4) Schedule 4A of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (non-domestic rating: new building (completion days)) is amended in accordance with subsections (5) to (7).

(5) In paragraph 1(1), after ‘months’ insert—

‘or the terms of planning permission require the building to be completed within three months,’

(6) At the end of paragraph 2(2) insert—

‘or, if it is sooner, the day on which the terms of planning permission required the building to be completed.’

(7) After paragraph 4(1) insert—

‘(1A) But a person may not appeal under sub-paragraph (1) if the terms of planning permission required the building to be completed on or before the completion day.’.”

[Greg Smith]

There is clearly a game afoot, whereby many developers up and down the land acquire planning permission, but do not build out what they have received planning permission for. I stand to be corrected, but I believe that around a million homes that have planning permission are not being built out. New clause 18 would shut down some of the loopholes that are exploited; for example, if a trench is dug, or a single pipe is laid, or something very superficial to the development is started, that can satisfy the planning authorities that the development has started, even though not a single brick may follow, or certainly not in the timeframe the community expects.

Particularly pertinent is the ability under new clause 20 for a planning authority to revoke or modify planning permission where the development has not been built, or started. The community is expecting 10, 50, 1,000 houses or whatever, but the developer is simply playing a game, in order to increase the land value for resale later, or because they want to sit on the permission and distort property values in the a particular area, or for some other reason.

In our planning system, there should be an presumption that once a developer has been granted planning permission, they need to build the development. There will always be reasons why a development might not start immediately—force majeure or whatever—and we need to be conscious of that, but if a developer has been given planning permission, they should build or face a penalty. New clause 21 goes that little bit further: it would make council tax payable on sites that have been granted planning permission. That would give the developer a financial incentive, shall we say, to get on with the development, because if they are attracting council tax on each new home given planning permission, that will quickly rack up, certainly in many parts of the country, to many thousands of pounds per housing unit per year.

The new clauses are designed to get the planning system to work as it is meant to do. It is about ensuring that planning permission means something. When it is granted, communities that have consented to it should see the product—the homes and the commercial developments—that they want.

[Tim Farron]

These interesting new clauses highlight two issues about which I am particularly concerned—issues to which the hon. Gentleman alluded. They are very helpful new clauses, and I am grateful to him for tabling them. He is right that, over the past decade, roughly a million properties granted planning permission have not been built. That tells us something. When the Government consider growth and the need for new developments, they think they just need to loosen planning regulations. Well, the answer to that is that 1 million new homes have obtained planning permission but have not been built. Let us focus on making sure that those developments get delivered, rather than on reducing the regulations, because that tends to lead to the wrong sort of homes in the wrong sort of places.

Another issue affects tens of thousands—but not a million—houses. It is when developments begin but are not completed. That may be for a range of reasons, such as genuine business failure. It may also be due to a disreputable developer; we have seen plenty of those. I think of one in my constituency, a serial bankrupt, and it seems obvious to me that in their case, we are talking about a deliberate business tactic. Developments are either completely or partially abandoned. That is a waste of time and money, and it creates eyesores for communities, when the development could have provided nice, decent homes for people to live in.

Would the Government consider going further than the new clauses suggest and applying existing legislation, namely empty dwelling management orders? They allow local authorities to commandeer empty properties after a period. It should be noted, however, that the period is seven years, which is far too long, but we should be able to commandeer developments that were begun but not completed for public use and public good. I can think of one house in the Kendal Parks area of Kendal that has been uncompleted for 20 years. It is an eyesore, and damaging to the local community. It could be a decent home for someone. I can also think of a whole development in Burton-in-Kendal that has been poorly managed and has fallen out of the hands of one set of owners into those of another. The ability of local authorities to commandeer properties for the public good would be of huge benefit, not just to my community but to every Committee member’s community.

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale for his comments, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham for tabling the new clauses.

I accept that this is another area of policy that is difficult and challenging and that a balance needs to be struck. I completely understand the concerns that have been raised. In order not to detain the Committee, and without offering any guarantees, I would be keen to continue the conversation outside the realms of the Committee to consider and reflect on the points made by those who have spoken. I am happy to discuss that in advance of further stages of the Bill, should my hon. Friend be content to do that.

[Greg Smith]

I welcome that commitment. I stand ready to carry on the conversation; therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Greg Smith]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This new clause is in a similar vein to many of the others that I have tabled, although it looks at the controls for planning enforcement and essentially abolishes the time limits so that where rogue development or development carried out without planning permission takes place, especially in protected landscapes, it can no longer be timed out by a lack of enforcement action. I accept that planning enforcement is not a statutory service on local authorities, which are often overstretched. Removing the time limit would ensure that those who have done wrong by a community and developed that which they should not have, or have developed in a manner that is not commensurate with their planning permission, can still face the appropriate planning enforcement beyond the current statutory time limits.

[Lee Rowley]

I share my hon. Friend’s desire to ensure that important landscapes are protected from breaches of planning control. We would need to consider the time limit by which that occurs, and whether an open-ended time limit is the most appropriate way. While I understand the underlying principle and point that my hon. Friend makes, there is a challenge in leaving something so completely open ended, as it could come back in many years’ or decades’ time, however unlikely that may be.

As my hon. Friend will know from sitting on this Committee longer than me, the Bill already increases the time limits for some breaches of planning control from four years to 10 years. We hope that is a positive direction of travel that demonstrates the Government’s willingness to look at this area and make changes where appropriate, but in this instance, I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw the clause. I am happy discuss it further—although it is very difficult to see how an open-ended timeframe can be obtained. I hope that he can see in other parts of the Bill the Government’s intent to look at that where we can and where it is proportionate to do so.

[Greg Smith]

I very much welcome the Minister’s words. I accept that, with a totally open-ended time limit, the new clause is imperfect. I am happy to negotiate and find a happy medium that sets a more realistic and reasonable timeframe, so that planning enforcement does not just fall off the metaphorical cliff edge and communities are not left wanting. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 23

Report on measures to incentivise brownfield development over greenfield development

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 60 days of the day on which this Act is passed, establish a review of the merits of measures to financially incentivise brownfield development over greenfield development.

(2) The review must, in particular, consider the impact of—

(a) introducing a greenfield plot tax to provide dedicated funding streams for brownfield development,

(b) setting a uniform zero-rating of VAT for development on brownfield sites,

(c) applying standard VAT to development on greenfield sites,

(d) applying variable measures to ensure that increases in land values attributable to the granting of planning permission for development are used in support of communities local to those developments, and

(e) allowing a high degree of variation in the Infrastructure Levy to enable communities to value the loss of greenfield land depending on local circumstances.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the findings of this review before Parliament no later than one year after this Act comes into force.” —(Greg Smith.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the merits of measures that would financially incentivise brownfield development over greenfield development and to report the findings to Parliament.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Greg Smith]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

There have been so many Committee sittings in which I have said very few words, but it seems that this afternoon is my time in the limelight. [Interruption.] It is probably best that I did not hear the heckles from the Opposition Benches.

The new clause comes back to some of the earlier amendments that we have debated in this Committee that looked at the practical steps that could be taken to incentivise brownfield development over greenfield development. The Government are to be commended and congratulated on the move to a brownfield-first development approach. There is a reality that underpins that. It remains the case that for a developer, it is often grossly more expensive to develop a brownfield site than a greenfield one. That is most commonly because of the decontamination costs of former industrial land, which may have had petrol or oil tanks underneath it. We have to accept that the cost differential is, at times, extreme.

Just as the Committee has debated amendments proposing different rates of infrastructure levy for brownfield and greenfield sites, so this new clause would compel the Government to look seriously at financially incentivising the development of brownfield sites over greenfield ones. Subsection (2) contains some suggestions—I urge my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench not to consider this an exhaustive list—around VAT and a greenfield plot tax. They are ways to say to developers that we want and need them to develop brownfield sites rather than taking yet more of the Great British countryside and greenfield sites; and that the Government will put the public’s money where their mouth is by providing these incentives. In many other walks of life, the Government offer incentives to do the right thing environmentally. We need to say to developers, “In the tax and planning systems, we will make it advantageous for you to go for brownfield sites first.” I believe that is what the public want, and I hope we can get it into the Bill.

[Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I want to give the Committee a change of scenery for five minutes, before I let somebody else speak. I will not develop these points; I will just add a thought that the Minister might wish to take away and consider in further conversations.

The Bill will, I hope, create numerous mechanisms and levers to incentivise local areas to bring forward brownfield sites, not least development corporations, combined authorities and the investment zones that have been the subject of much conversation. I should declare an interest, because I am the leader of a local authority and I am involved in a devolution conversation in the east midlands. At a regional level, we have been given funding to bring forward brownfield sites for development, and we are considering how we might use that funding locally to achieve this goal. Perhaps the Minister might consider whether some of the levers, funds and opportunities that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham has proposed would sit better at a devolved, local level within one of the mechanisms created by the Bill, rather than in the Bill itself.

[Dehenna Davison]

It is a pleasure to speak to this amendment from my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham. We have done some great work on it together, and I hope we can continue in that spirit. Members will know that the Government strongly encourage the use of brownfield land over greenfield, and in national policy there is an expectation that local planning policies and decisions will give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land to meet our communities’ housing needs and other identified needs.

My hon. Friend was right to highlight the cost differential that developers face. We are investing significant funding to support brownfield development, including in some of the schemes that he has mentioned. I will rattle through them one more time for the Committee’s benefit. There is the £550 million brownfield housing fund and the £180 million brownfield land release fund 2, which builds on the success of the £75 million first brownfield land release fund. In addition, later this year we aim to launch the £1.5 billion brownfield, infrastructure and land fund, which will unlock sites around the country.

We are particularly sympathetic to this cause, which is why we are setting out a range of new measures and powers in the Bill to support brownfield development. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield is right to talk about local empowerment—something that I know he is a real champion of in his other role, at local government level. We are keen that the Bill in its entirety will empower local leaders to regenerate towns and cities through a range of provisions, including new locally led and locally accountable development corporations, which my hon. Friend mentioned, and support for land assembly and regeneration through enhanced compulsory purchase powers.

My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham mentioned the infrastructure levy introduced in the Bill. It provides a framework in which, where increases in land value are higher—as is often the case with greenfield development—higher rates can be set. This mechanism would allow differential charging rates to be set by local planning authorities for different types of development, so that more could be levied on greenfield land as compared with brownfield land to incentivise development on that brownfield land.

We will also continue to work on wider planning proposals that will give the public an opportunity to shape our future national planning policy, and in relation to which the Government have committed to consult the public.

On that basis—because we are already taking such strong steps to encourage brownfield development and have a commitment to review national policy—we do not feel that the new clause is necessary, so I kindly ask my hon. Friend to withdraw it today.

[Greg Smith]

I very much welcome the Minister’s commitments. She is absolutely right in outlining the various schemes to support brownfield development. I guess the thought I will leave her with is the reflection that, rightly, there is a lot of carrot in those schemes; where I do not think we have quite enough at the moment is the stick to dissuade people from greenfield development. We need to ensure a proper balance of incentivising, through grant funding or whatever it might be, development on the brownfield sites, and also something to actively dissuade developers from looking at the greenfield sites. If we can carry that conversation on through to Report, I am content to withdraw new clause 23 at this time. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 24

Report on measures to improve the efficiency of the housing market

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 60 days of the day on which this Act is passed, establish a review of the merits of measures to improve the efficiency of the housing market.

(2) The review must, in particular, consider the impact of—

(a) a stamp duty exemption to encourage elderly homeowners to downsize,

(b) an additional stamp duty surcharge on purchases by person not resident in the UK,

(c) a stamp duty surcharge on second home purchases,

(d) a reduction in the highest rates of stamp duty, and

(e) measures to promote an active market in long-term fixed rate mortgages to encourage lending to first time buyers.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the findings of this review before Parliament no later than one year after this Act comes into force.”—(Greg Smith.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the merits of measures to improve the efficiency of the housing market and to report the findings to Parliament.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Greg Smith]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This is one where we genuinely have to tread extraordinarily carefully. I fully understand the scope for new clause 24 to be misinterpreted, shall we say, as trying to demand that people move, leave larger homes, or whatever it might be. There is no intention whatever—let me place this on the record—to compel or demand that someone living in a large house move out of it, or do any such thing. But I think we have to acknowledge that there is some failure in the housing market that is leading to the demand for new homes to be built, whereas perhaps a pensioner couple whose children have flown the nest, who find themselves—just the two of them—living in a five-bedroom house somewhere and who actively want to move are finding themselves trapped.

That is because of higher rates of stamp duty, certainly in parts of the south-east, where five-bedroom houses can very easily be north of £1 million, and in London, where they can be north of £3 million, £4 million or £5 million. People find themselves trapped in a situation in which the tax system just works against their being able to downsize as they wish to. That then of course has a concertina effect through the entire housing market. The family who are able to buy the larger house cannot, because there is not the supply. And that goes all the way down to the first homes: the discount market homes, the part-buy, part-rent homes or, indeed, the social rent homes. They are just not available.

The new clause does not call for anything in particular. It essentially creates a duty on the Government to review those mechanisms that are causing market failure in the housing market and that are trapping people, particularly through the stamp duty system—I am explicitly referring to the higher end of the stamp duty rates—and preventing them from doing what they wish to do with their homes. I repeat from the start that this is not about saying to people who want to stay in larger houses that they must move out—it is absolutely their right and choice to stay if they wish—but about fixing the system so that those who do wish to go up or down the housing ladder can do so without penalty. That might reduce the need to build quite as much as we are in the United Kingdom.

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for tabling the new clause. I absolutely accept his points about discussing this matter sensitively and accepting the real challenges in parts of the housing market. I understand and acknowledge that challenge, which the Department grapples with daily and as much as the state can. It is vital to have an effective housing market and for people to have good-quality properties and roofs over their heads, irrespective of tenure. Most fundamentally, we Conservatives know that expanding home ownership is vital. Although it is starting to increase again as a proportion, a gap remains between the number of people who want to buy a house and the number of people who can.

We all have our own individual stories. In North East Derbyshire, the way that properties are distributed—that sounds like a very technical word for real people’s lives—does not necessarily align in all instances with people’s needs. In one town in my constituency, a significant amount of which was built in the ’60s, ’70s and ’80s, lots of people who purchased properties to bring up their families are struggling to find houses—bungalows in particular—to downsize to, now that their families have flown the nest. Many Members will have similar stories.

At the same time, my hon. Friend has considered the matter closely and will acknowledge that there is a question about whether we need to legislate in this area. I humbly suggest that we do not, but I recognise the intent behind the amendment. Over the course of my time in post, I will continue to do what I can to answer some of those questions, as will the Department, so I ask him to consider withdrawing the amendment.

[Greg Smith]

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s comments. To clarify, yes, we would be putting a clause into legislation, but we would not be legislating for the outcome. We would be legislating for a duty on his Department to publish a report—to properly kick the tyres, if I may put it like that—on the housing market failures that are leading to the demand for so many new housing units to be built.

Of course, I fully accept that tackling stamp duty is not within the competence of the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. Altering the rates to get the market moving more quickly would have to be pitched to His Majesty’s Treasury. With that in mind, I am content to withdraw the new clause, but I urge my hon. Friends the Ministers to consider this point as the Bill and the Department’s work on housing and planning move forward. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 25

Report on promoting development in already developed areas

“(1) The Secretary of State must prepare a report on possible measures to promote development in areas that are already developed.

(2) The report must consider measures to promote—

(a) the purchasing by housing associations of properties that—

(i) have been unoccupied for an extended period (with reference to the vacancy condition in section 152), or

(ii) are currently unfit for human habitation (with reference to requirements of the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018;

(b) novel means of providing increased affordable housing that is sustainable and accords with surrounding areas.

(3) The report must be laid before Parliament before the end of the period of six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed.”—(Greg Smith.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Greg Smith]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 26—Review of compulsory purchase powers—

“(1) The Secretary of State must undertake a review of whether the powers of compulsory purchase available to—

(a) local authorities, and

(b) the Secretary of State

are adequate to meet the objectives of this Act.

(2) In undertaking the review the Secretary of State must, in particular, consider—

(a) whether existing statutory time limits for compulsory purchase action are appropriate,

(b) other means of accelerating compulsory purchase action with particular reference to properties to which subsection (3) applies, and

(c) the adequacy of compulsory purchase powers in relation to properties to which subsection (3) applies.

(3) This subsection applies to—

(a) properties that have been unoccupied for a prolonged period (with reference to the vacancy condition in section 152), and

(b) buildings of local public importance such as hotels and high street properties.”

This new clause would require the Government to review powers of compulsory purchase and whether they are adequate to meet its levelling-up and regeneration objectives.

[Greg Smith]

New clauses 25 and 26 are quite important to free up for good use properties that may have fallen into disrepair or been unoccupied for a long time. I am sure that we could all name properties in our constituencies that we have canvassed for five elections running but nobody is ever behind the door. We put leaflets through the door, but the post reaches almost as high as the letterbox itself. Those are homes that I hope all Members, of whatever political persuasion, would acknowledge really should not be sat empty, but should have a family or whoever living in them. Of course, the wider public good is also served by not allowing properties to fall into disrepair and become eyesores or perhaps hotspots for disorderly behaviour, as people seek to take them over illegally.

New clause 25 does not contain specific legislative measures to deliver the outcomes we are seeking, but it creates a duty on DLUHC to report on how better to ensure that empty properties that have fallen into disrepair and are perhaps causing other public health hazards can be more easily brought back into the housing supply chain for social rent, for part rent, part buy, for discount market housing, or for whatever it might be.

New clause 26 is about ensuring that the compulsory purchase powers available to local authorities are suitable, if I may put it in those terms, to enable them not just to get those properties back into productive use and put a roof over human beings’ heads, but to ensure that local authorities that often bang their heads against a brick wall when it comes to certain compulsory purchase powers are freed up to make the right decisions for the communities they represent.

[Dehenna Davison]

I completely agree with the sentiment behind these new clauses. We can probably all think of examples in our constituencies of the sorts of vacant properties that my hon. Friend mentioned. Indeed, I was out in Eldon Lane with neighbourhood wardens, local police and local councillors—I think last week or the week before—looking at streets where most of the houses sit empty and can become hotbeds for antisocial behaviour and petty crime, so this is certainly something we want to tackle.

I agree with the benefits of promoting development in areas that are already developed, but I do not think that new clause 25 is necessary. We have already debated the Government’s national planning policy framework, which promotes the development of previously developed land and makes it clear that local plans should also include sufficient provision for affordable housing. I share the interest in novel ways of increasing the supply of affordable housing. The Government’s affordable housing guarantee scheme is a good example of this kind of innovation. The same is true of the proposal in the Bill to secure affordable housing contributions in future through a new streamlined mandatory and locally determined infrastructure levy.

My hon. Friend also made the case for housing associations to purchase homes that are empty or not currently fit for human habitation. I agree that this can play a valuable role in expanding the availability of affordable housing and improving the overall quality of our housing stock. Local authorities and other social housing providers can access funding to acquire empty homes on the market and bring them back into use through programmes such as the affordable homes programme and the rough sleeping accommodation programme.

Briefly, on new clause 26, I strongly share my hon. Friend’s desire to ensure that the compulsory purchase system is fit for purpose and can play its part in delivering our levelling-up agenda. My officials have worked incredibly closely with key stakeholders to review the current system and develop the package of measures in the Bill. We believe that these measures, supplemented by improved and updated guidance, will together ensure that local authorities have the powers they need to bring forward the regeneration of their high streets and town centres, and to deliver much needed housing and infrastructure. We also believe they will deliver a faster and more efficient compulsory purchase system and make compensation simpler and clearer. I have also asked the Law Commission to undertake a review and consolidation of the existing legislation on compulsory purchase and land compensation, which will begin shortly.

On that basis, I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that a statutory review is not necessary and ask him to withdraw the new clause.

[Greg Smith]

On the back of those commitments, I am happy to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 27

Deliberate damage to trees linked to development

“(1) Section 210 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (penalties for non-compliance with tree preservation order) is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (4) insert—

‘(4AA) Subsection (4AB) applies if—

(a) the court is considering for the purposes of sentencing the seriousness of an offence under this section, and

(b) the offence was committed for purposes connected to planning or development.

(4AB) The court—

(a) must treat the fact mentioned in subsection (1)(b) as an aggravating factor (that is to say, a factor that increases the seriousness of the offence), and

(b) must state in open court that the offence is so aggravated.’”—(Greg Smith.)

This new clause would make damage to trees or woodland in contravention of a tree preservation order an aggravated offence if it was committed for purposes connected to development or planning.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Greg Smith]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This new clause goes to the heart of an issue very close to my constituents, who have seen a great number of trees damaged—largely by the Government’s HS2 project, I have to say. It happens far too frequently in rural environments, but it is equally applicable to urban ones, where trees that are unacceptably damaged, often with preservation orders on them, are often the only green for some distance around. Very straightforwardly, this new clause in my name and the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet seeks to put in place measures that will clamp down harder on those who deliberately damage trees during development.

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for moving this new clause, and I am sympathetic to the issue that he and other Members have raised. The protection of trees and the environment is hugely important, and it is frustrating when others do not support that cause. The information I have is that the law already provides a substantial amount of leeway to seek appropriate financial redress from people who have been accused of damaging trees, should the contravention have been through the local council via a tree preservation order.

With that in mind—I may be misinterpreting my hon. Friend—I am keen to understand from my hon. Friend or his colleagues why they believe there is still a need to change the law. There is obviously a bit of a difference in views at the moment, so we should try to bottom that out. If we can find an issue to debate, I would be very happy to do so, but for the purpose of today, I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I appreciate what the Minister says, but I think there is still a gap in the law. It is not as strong as it possibly could be to clamp down on deliberate—we must underline the word deliberate—damage to trees as part of development. I am mindful of the Committee’s time, so I do not think going through the detail now would please many hon. Members. I am happy to meet the Minister to go through the detail, along with other colleagues whose names are on this new clause, in the hope of finding a satisfactory result for later stages of the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 28

Local planning authorities to be allowed to meet virtually

“(1) This section applies to any meeting of a planning committee of a local authority in England.

(2) A reference in any enactment to a meeting local authority is not limited to a meeting of persons all of whom, or any of whom, are present in the same place and any reference to a ‘place’ where a meeting is held, or to be held, includes reference to more than one place including electronic, digital or virtual locations such as internet locations, web addresses or conference call telephone numbers.

(3) For the purposes of any such enactment, a member of a local authority (a ‘member in remote attendance’) attends the meeting at any time if all of the conditions in subsection (4) are satisfied.

(4) Those conditions are that the member in remote attendance is able at that time—

(a) to hear, and where practicable see, and be so heard and, where practicable, be seen by, the other members in attendance,

(b) to hear, and where practicable see, and be so heard and, where practicable, be seen by, any members of the public entitled to attend the meeting in order to exercise a right to speak at the meeting, and

(c) to be so heard and, where practicable, be seen by any other members of the public attending the meeting.

(5) In this section any reference to a member, or a member of the public, attending a meeting includes that person attending by remote access.

(6) The provision made in this section applies notwithstanding any prohibition or other restriction contained in the standing orders or any other rules of the authority governing the meeting and any such prohibition or restriction has no effect.

(7) A local authority may make other standing orders and any other rules of the authority governing the meeting about remote attendance at meetings of that authority, which may include provision for—

(a) voting;

(b) member and public access to documents; and

(c) remote access of public and press to a local authority meeting to enable them to attend or participate in that meeting by electronic means, including by telephone conference, video conference, live webcasts, and live interactive streaming.

(8) In this section, ‘planning committee’ means any committee or sub-committee to which a local authority has arranged for the discharge of planning functions under section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972.”—(Greg Smith.)

This new clause would enable planning committees to meet virtually. It is based on the Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panel Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020, made under s78 of the Coronavirus Act 2020.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Greg Smith]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 69—Local authority planning committee meeting—

“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision relating to—

(a) requirements to hold local authority planning committee meetings;

(b) the times at or by which, periods within which, or frequency with which, local authority planning committee meetings are to be held;

(c) the places at which local authority planning committee meetings are to be held;

(d) the manner in which persons may attend, speak at, vote in, or otherwise participate in, local authority planning committee meetings;

(e) public admission and access to local authority planning committee meetings;

(f) the places at which, and manner in which, documents relating to local authority planning committee meetings are to be open to inspection by, or otherwise available to, members of the public.

(2) The provision which must be made by virtue of subsection (1)(d) includes in particular provision for persons to attend, speak at, vote in, or otherwise participate in, local authority planning committee meetings without all of the persons, or without any of the persons, being together in the same place.”

This new clause would allow local authorities to hold planning committee meetings and reach planning decisions virtually or in a hybrid form.

[Greg Smith]

With this clause I have a very simple proposition, although I state from the outset that I absolutely hate virtual meetings. We all tolerated them throughout the pandemic, but I believe that as humans we are inherently social and meeting together is a far better way of doing things. However, I have spoken to many members of local authorities in my own constituency and in other parts of the country—as well as many town and parish councils, although they are not planning authorities—that find it extraordinarily difficult to get a quorum, or to get together in a single place all voices who want to be heard. That is especially the case in rural communities. Somebody living in the village of Dadford in my constituency would be looking at a 50-minute drive to a planning meeting in Aylesbury, and I am sure that driving times in the constituency of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale are considerably longer than that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dehenna Davison]

As a millennial Minister who is used to swiping and not to turning pages, Members might expect me to say that I prefer virtual meetings, but actually I do not. In-person meetings and the social element are important, yet we saw the value of virtual meetings during the pandemic, at the time when we needed them most. Hon. Members will remember the powers granted through the Coronavirus Act 2020, which allowed local authorities flexibility on remote and hybrid meetings, in certain circumstances. They will also know that those regulations expired back in May 2021. Since that date, all council meetings have had to be in person. The new clauses lean into the terms of those previous provisions and seek to replicate them on a permanent basis, but only for planning committees. I heard the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield.

Looking beyond the circumstances of the pandemic, the Government considered that there may be benefits to permanent provisions for remote meetings, and that local councils may be keen to have the flexibility to use that provision as they see fit. I have been lobbied by a lot of my local parish councillors on the benefits that remote meetings can bring.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield highlighted, the Government conducted call for evidence last year to test the views of those who had participated in and experienced councils’ remote meetings to inform our decision on this matter. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, and the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale for their points on trust in local governance and local planning, which we all agree is paramount. Increasing participation is only ever a good thing.

The Department has considered the responses to the call for evidence and we have been weighing the benefits, which hon. Members have highlighted, against views that physical attendance remains important to deliver good governance and democratic accountability. I take on board the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield about the investment in the technology that a lot of local authorities had made, which must also be taken into account.

I genuinely thank my hon. Friends for tabling the new clause, but we need to first consider the call for evidence. We will issue our response, which will set out the Government’s intentions. I ask for a tiny bit more patience and for the new clause to be withdrawn.

[Greg Smith]

The self-styled millennial Minister makes the commitment. Asking for slightly more time seems reasonable to me. However, if we are to be true to localism, I would double-underline and highlight the need to ensure that local people are able to participate in proceedings. Just as we can still have a witness virtually at a Select Committee in this place, councils should have the discretion to use virtual proceedings, to maximise participation locally. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 29

Local authorities to be able to raise planning fees to cover costs including planners

“(1) Section 303 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (fees for planning applications etc.) is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (5) insert—

‘(5A) Regulations made by the Secretary of State under this section may provide for local planning authorities to vary fees or charges under this section payable to the local planning authority to cover the reasonable costs of their exercise of planning functions.

(5B) In subsection (5A), “reasonable costs” includes the employment of qualified planners.’”—(Greg Smith.)

This new clause would enable the Government to allow local planning authorities to vary planning fees and charges to cover their costs relating to planning, which could include the employment of qualified planners.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Greg Smith]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This new clause is pertinent to my local authority in Buckinghamshire, and I am sure that many local authorities up and down the land struggle with it. It is about the ability to vary fees and charges for planning so that local authorities can provide a good service to their residents.

My local authority, Buckinghamshire, borders London and, therefore, there is always a difficulty in recruiting, not just planning officers, but social workers or teachers or nurses, or whatever the public service role might be. When planning officers who are looking for work see jobs going in the London boroughs of Hillingdon or Harrow or, indeed, any of the London boroughs, they prefer to take the job with London weighting in those boroughs than apply to Buckinghamshire Council. That leaves Buckinghamshire in a position where it finds recruitment of planning officers very hard.

If local authorities had the ability to vary fees and charges so that they could pay a better rate for qualified planners and planning officers to provide all residents with an excellent service, we could get over some of the practical difficulties that stifle recruitment and that would ensure councils would be in a position where they could, if they wanted to, respond to all planning inquiries within however many days or hear all applications in good time. To do that, they need the ability to have a geographic variance to meet the costs of attracting the very best staff to and wanting to work in that place, rather than in a neighbouring area where there is a job that can pay more.

[Lee Rowley]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham for tabling the new clause.

I absolutely accept the validity of this discussion; it is an important one, and I am relatively sympathetic to the point that is being made. It is appropriate that we think through the balance between localism and centralism in this area, and my own personal instincts are that localism should take priority and precedence. So, if he is willing to withdraw this new clause, I am very happy to talk about this matter in more detail.

As I know my hon. Friend will know, we have already committed to increasing planning fees, as part of an earlier discussion. However, I am happy to talk about what he perceives as the need in this area over and above that, particularly given his own local circumstances.

[Greg Smith]

I very much welcome the Minister’s comments; I fully accept that planning fees are allowed to go up and I look forward to having a discussion with him about how some geographical areas, particularly those areas that border London and that compete with London weighting, need to have greater flexibility.

In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 30

Housing powers of the Mayor of London

“(1) Article 7 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 (direction that the Mayor is to be the local planning authority) is hereby revoked.

(2) Section 333D of the Great London Authority Act 1999 (duties of the Authority and local authorities) is amended as follows.

(3) At the end of subsection (2) (general conformity with the London housing strategy), insert—

‘, but any housebuilding target in the London housing strategy is advisory not mandatory and should not be taken into account in determining planning applications.’”— (Greg Smith.)

This new clause would remove the Mayor of London’s power to direct a London borough that the Mayor will be the local planning authority for a development, and clarify that any housebuilding target in the Mayor’s housing strategy is advisory only.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Greg Smith]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

We come to the end of this marathon run of new clauses. New clause 30 is one that could be a little bit prickly to navigate.

Without wanting to get into a debate about personalities who occupy the office of Mayor of London, the new clause seeks to test where the principle of localism actually sits, because across the London boroughs there are locally and democratically elected councils or directly elected mayors, and across the whole of the capital there is the Mayor of London. The councils and directly elected mayors, and the Mayor of London, have planning powers, which is an anomaly that has been thrown up and that causes political tension, when there is a Labour Mayor and a Conservative borough, or indeed when there is a Conservative Mayor and a Labour or Lib Dem borough. That tension is real; it exists.

My instinct is always that the most local area should be the one that makes the decision rather than the regional area or a pan-regional area. I accept that that is an ideological position of mine; it is how I believe decisions are best made. However, there is clearly a tension. I have talked to colleagues, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet—this new clause has also been tabled in her name—and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who has been very engaged in this debate as well, so I know that that tension exists.

It might not be my preference, but it might be the case that the most appropriate decision-making level in London is the regional level, which is the Mayor of London. I do not believe that it is, but that would be a legitimate answer. Alternatively, is it the London boroughs that have primacy when it comes to planning? If we are true to the principle of subsidiarity, it would be the London boroughs, but at the moment that tension exists. However, if we were to make the Mayor’s powers in relation to the boroughs advisory as opposed to compulsory, we would take that tension away.

I offer the new clause to the Committee as one that identifies a very tightly defined geographical problem that affects many Members’ constituencies and causes a lot of community upset, where a London borough’s planning authority is essentially over-ruled by a regional structure.

[Lee Rowley]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham for tabling the new clause. I will resist the opportunity to defend the current incumbent Mayor of London, as I am sure he would expect, although I know other members of Committee would disagree with me.

A number of us in this room share experience of local government in London; at least three of us here—I apologise if I have missed anyone—served simultaneously on different councils in London. I served on Westminster council for eight years, until 2014. Even when there was alignment between regional and local tiers in terms of party, I recall a number of disagreements about individual applications and the general principle of where the relevant powers should sit. We will probably not resolve that philosophical debate today, other than to say that I acknowledge the concerns of my right hon. and hon. Friends who have put their name to the new clause.

It is particularly important to acknowledge the difference between inner and outer London, and the difficulties of making sure that policies can apply to both areas equally. I think we should tread extremely carefully when considering whether to amend the strategic powers of the Mayor, even if I happen to disagree with much of what the current incumbent does. Although my hon. Friend for Buckingham has made known his strength of feeling about the matter, and that of other colleagues, I ask him to withdraw the new clause.

[Greg Smith]

I welcome the Minister’s comments, and as I acknowledged, it is a difficult issue to navigate. It almost reopens some of the devolution questions. It is an anomaly that many London colleagues, certainly on the Conservative Benches, feel and I welcome the Minister’s commitment to work with them and me. Like him, I was a London borough councillor just a little way up the river from him for 12 years, some moons ago, and felt the same pressures. If he is willing to work with London colleagues to find a satisfactory way through this, I am content to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 34

Local government capital investments: economic appraisal

“(1) This section applies to local government capital investments of a value of £2 million or more.

(2) Before making an investment to which this section applies, a local authority must—

(a) commission an economic appraisal of the investment, and

(b) publish the findings of that appraisal.”—(Rachael Maskell.)

This new clause would require local authorities to commission, and publish the findings of any capital investment of the value of £2 million or more.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Rachael Maskell]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

It is a pleasure to move the new clause and to give the hon. Member for Buckingham some respite. The new clause relates to fiscal responsibility in local government. Without proper viability being sought, local authorities can pay millions of pounds on projects and never reap the return. That is why the new clause relates to capital investments and economic appraisals, which should be undertaken and understood, but without a Green Book-style appraisal, local authorities can end up paying and developers and landowners gaining, with ultimately no reward and benefit to the local community. The new clause is designed to ensure that the finances on any project are transparent and for the benefit of local people. It would ensure that there is gain for all and not ultimate loss, not least given that we are talking about the use of public resources. That is why the new clause is important.

The case study to which I want to refer particularly is that of the York Central site. The cost of bringing that site forward is now believed to be £200 million of public funding. As that project moves forward, more and more is being demanded from public sources to fund it, and yet the local authority may never see a return on that investment. City of York’s infrastructure investment was planned to be around £35 million, but it has now been given an estimated debt cost of £57 million based on April interest rates, which will clearly be significantly higher now.

The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has also put in £77 million and it is believed that more than £50 million will have to come through the Mayor’s budget once it is approved and in place—we are expecting that to be in 2024. In a briefing, councillors were told that the council would need to put in £85 million and debt costs to fill the gap, but we could now be talking about nearer £100 million rather than the £35 million once rejected. As a result, it is necessary to weigh up the viability of the site not for the developers, as set out, but for the local authority. It is that check that is not required for such a project today, but it is really important, not least because local authorities simply do not have the necessary margins and, as a result, have to cut back on vital services to fund such capital projects.

My amendment therefore calls for prudence. On sites where any capital investment over the value of £2 million is made, there must be an economic appraisal commissioned and then published assessing the financial viability of the site to the authority. York Central has been developed for housing, so it will not reap the opportunities that a larger business owner could bring in nor those to do with council tax, as most of the properties being developed will be for investment, not for local residents to live in. They will either be empty units, leading to a cost to our city, or will be turned into Airbnbs, a matter that I will turn to later. Of course, Airbnb falls under the thresholds of flipping the property, not paying council tax and not paying business rates either, so the local authority loses millions of pounds as Airbnbs dodge the system.

At a time of significant austerity in local government, it is crucial that more scrutiny is given to the costs it has to expend on sites. My amendment simply calls for proper governance over finances and, at a time when the whole nation is looking at how Governments at all levels are more prudent with the spending of their money, it is right to bring forward such a measure to ensure that public money is spent in a way that will see its return and will be for the benefit of the people, not the developers and landowners who ultimately gain from such development.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Twenty Sixth sitting)

Greg Smith Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 20th October 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Rachael Maskell]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 47 raises quite a niche issue, but none the less an important one. The post office is long gone; the village shop has closed; the pub is now holiday lets. Some may not realise that the Church of England is currently looking to dispose of 356 churches. They were paid for and built by parishes and are now under threat. They are the very last community space, sucked out by the secularisation of society. The need for financial prudence over community value and a spiritual space within a community has never been more apparent. Having met with the Save the Parish campaign, I believe that these spaces are too important to just go to the market. Instead, parish churches and associated glebe land should be designated as land of community value.

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

I am curious as to why the hon. Lady is defining this as narrowly as parish churches. For example, a church in my constituency was never a parish church—it was attached to a mental health facility that has long closed—but it is just as architecturally beautiful and as much a piece of heritage as the nearby parish churches. There are many similar chapels out there; in many cases they were attached to hospitals or military facilities. They also add community value and need saving. Will the hon. Lady expand her scope to include those premises?

[Rachael Maskell]

I am incredibly grateful to the hon. Member for Buckingham for raising that issue. He is absolutely right; we need to look at the broadest possible scope. This particular issue has been raised within the Church of England, but he is right—there are many places of worship that should be marked as community assets.

When those assets are disposed of, communities should have a right to access them and bid for them, as we have discussed during previous stages of the Bill, rather than them going straight to market sale. That leaves communities devoid of any assets whatsoever. It is so important for communities to have the option to maintain an asset and use it for multiple purposes, including as a place of worship or as a place to serve the community.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Greg Smith Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 13th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s intervention, because I know he has done significant work on this issue. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced future funding from fines handed out to polluting water companies being invested in schemes for the benefit of our natural environment. I know he did a lot of work on that issue.

On the infrastructure levy, water and waste water networks are covered by the broad definition of infrastructure, so the answer to my right hon. Friend’s question on that issue is yes. On statutory consultees, the Secretary of State can make changes to the list of statutory consultees through secondary legislation, and we will consult on whether to make water companies statutory consultees, and if so, how best to do that.

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

Before the last intervention the Minister mentioned improving communities. I am grateful for the time she has spent with me in the last few weeks discussing this Bill, but will she give some clarity on amendment 2, on including childcare provision within the infrastructure definitions? Conversations with her outside this place indicate that she feels it would be included, but can she give me and the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), in whose name the amendment stands, the reassurance that childcare provision would be included?

[Lucy Frazer]

My hon. Friend is a strong advocate for his area; I have dealt with him in a number of Departments, and he stands up for his community on every issue. I am grateful for the work he has done to make sure the Bill overall comes out in a good place, and I know he has also spoken to my colleagues on a number of issues.

On the amendment on childcare, I should emphasise that there is a list of what constitutes infrastructure for the infrastructure levy, and it is a non-exhaustive list, so it will be possible for other items to be included. It is drafted purposefully to give local authorities wide powers to apply the levy to infrastructure that is important and needed in their local area. It contains illustrative examples of what might be included as infrastructure, but in any event the levy will be able to be spent on childcare facilities such as nurseries and pre-schools, as these fall under the definition of

“schools and other educational facilities”

already included in the list.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell]

I rise to speak to new clauses 104 to 109 and amendments 93, 95 and 96, which were tabled in my name. New clause 107 was tabled in my name and that of Members across the House, including my new hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon). I thank the Government for listening in Committee and introducing new clause 119, but it is simply not enough and time is not on our side. New clause 107 would address the very challenges that communities such as mine face. I feel very emotional about this because I deal with cases day after day in which I see people turfed out of their home and turfed out of our city because people come in, extract that housing and extract wealth for their own profit and gain when people simply do not have anywhere to live. The Government’s new clause 119 will not resolve that issue.

My new clause 107 would enable local authorities to take the path that is right for them. If we are talking about levelling up and devolution, I struggle to understand why the Government need another consultation on this issue. They have already had a consultation, to which 4,000 people responded. It is clear to me that another consultation would delay action. In fact, the Secretary of State has said that the consultation would last until the summer. If that is the case, we will see another 6,409 homes flipped over into short-term holiday lets. A community such as mine cannot take any more. We already have 2,118 short-term holiday lets. We know where they are because they are advertised on websites, and we know the problems that they cause.

My new clause would enable local authorities to make the determinations that are necessary to license a scheme and control what is happening in housing development. I cannot see why any hon. Members would not support more powers for their local authority to take control of a local situation that no national solution will be able to resolve. Through that à la carte approach, local authorities could advance the means that they need to address the specifics of what is happening across rural, coastal and urban communities. Short-term lets have clearly taken hold in places across the world, especially in Europe, and particular measures have been put in to bring control to that market.

My new clause would enable local authorities to create control zones to determine that there should be no further growth in short-term holiday lets, to ensure that a licence was in place or to limit the number of such lets in an area. It would not restrain any local authority. An authority might want to grow its short-term holiday let environment, who knows? The new clause would certainly enable those people who are overridden by short-term holiday lets to get back control and make sure that housing went to the very people who needed it. Unfortunately, the Government have not supported that approach and want to talk further about it.

I am going to try another tack. I have tried a private Member’s Bill, spent six months in Committee, talked to seven different Ministers and sat through 27 Committee sittings. It feels like I have given six months of my life solidly to this. Would the Minister consider York to be a pilot for a licensing scheme so that we can put in the measures that will make a difference to my community and my constituents can at last have a house to live in?

[Greg Smith]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). I served on the Bill Committee too. While many Members will think of politics in 2022 for other reasons, for me it will forever be the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill year. Given the size of the amendment paper in front of us, and the scale of issues that Members have, it is vital to get this Bill right to shape all our communities. Fundamentally, the Bill—or certainly its planning clauses—is about competing demands on land use. Until yesterday, I had my own amendment on the amendment paper on food security, but when I look through some of the amendments —new clause 73, new clause 101, new clause 123—many still speak to the importance of ensuring that we get the balance right when it comes to the competing demands for land.

I represent a rural and farming community of 335 square miles of rural north Buckinghamshire, where 90% of the landmass of the constituency is agricultural land. We are seeing solar farm applications coming about time and again and massive growth in house building and commercial property, but we have to think about food security, because if all this land is taken away for energy, housing and industrial units, there will not be any land left on which to grow food.

I am grateful to the Minister and all her predecessors over the past six months for engaging on this matter and for coming up with a proposal. It is why I was happy to withdraw my own amendments to ensure that the new NPPF for the first time ever explicitly referenced food security as a material concern within the planning process. I fear that is where the new clauses I mentioned a moment ago do not go far enough, because they just talk about the green belt, as opposed to open countryside and land used for food production.

For the last few moments of my speech, I will speak to amendment 2 and urge the Minister, when she replies to the debate, to perhaps clear up some of the earlier confusion, because I see no reason whatever why the infrastructure levy cannot be used to fund childcare and childcare facilities. If we are building housing estates and family homes—two, three, four, five-bed properties—funnily enough, not every child from the families who occupy those homes will be of school age. There will be a crying need for childcare and early years provision. Clearly the buildings that are not attached to schools will be an important part of that. I am not saying that the state should take over all childcare, but some ability—

[David Simmonds]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Greg Smith]

I would be delighted to.

[David Simmonds]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, if we reference the 2019 Department for Education guidance that covers his point, it is completely explicit that early years is within the remit of section 106? Perhaps it would helpful if the Minister could be clear, as he asked, that the legislation owned by other Departments remains in place under this Bill.

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and agree entirely that those regulations make it clear. It is a shame that the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), is not in her place, because she was a councillor with me in 2006 in Hammersmith and Fulham, where I, then charged with the community safety brief, used section 106 money in part to fund additional police officers in the town centres of that borough. There is precedent out there that we can use funds such as the predecessor to the infrastructure levy, to fund some level of revenue services. That is why I urge the Minister, when she sums up, to acknowledge that we can do that and be true localists, so that communities that determine that childcare provision is important are enabled to make those deals as part of their infrastructure levies.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Margaret Greenwood is the last Member with four minutes, and then we will move to a three-minute limit.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Greg Smith Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 17th October 2023 Commons Chamber

I urge all parties to do a little more thinking about how we level up areas and to ask why it is that so many people wish to visit huge amounts of private sector housing investment in places that are levelled up, while starving the rest of the country of it, when it is often the motor of the levelling up that they seek.

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), who as ever spoke with sense and clarity. I have been heavily involved with this Bill throughout its passage, not least when sitting on the Bill Committee for six months. The Bill has been materially improved as we have gone through the process. I am not saying that it is all the way there yet, but it has been materially improved along the way. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the time she has given me and right hon. and hon. Friends over recent days and weeks to engage on the substance of the Bill.

I start with Lords amendment 239 and the Government amendments in lieu that will remove the restrictions that have perversely persisted in the childcare system and local government for some time. I will not rehearse the arguments that were well made in the House last night in a general debate led by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) about the supply and demand challenges in childcare, but I genuinely believe that the Government amendments in lieu will make a big difference to the provision of childcare, which presents challenges in many of our communities.

I want briefly to add my voice to the debate about Lords amendment 22 on the challenging question of virtual meetings in local government. I have said before and I maintain my position that I hate virtual meetings. I cannot stand them and would always much rather meet someone in person. However, the Bill talks much about local decision making, devolution and letting people decide, and there is overwhelming demand—the evidence from the National Association of Local Councils shows that some 90% of town and parish councils want the ability to hold virtual meetings in some way to expand the ability of people to participate—so it is beyond me why we cannot in some way permit such local decision making to take place.

[Helen Morgan]

The hon. Member is making a very good point, and I agree with him entirely. It is really important to expand the range of people who have access to becoming a local councillor. People are not paid to be a full-time councillor, so they need to be given lots of opportunities to get to meetings and participate fully. Does he agree that this is a really important point about expanding representation?

[Greg Smith]

I do agree with the fundamental principle of expanding accessibility and the ability for people to take part in local government, particularly those heroes who are completely unpaid and unremunerated for the many hours they put in to town and parish councils around the country. Like the hon. Lady, I represent an entirely rural constituency, where parishes are often quite big. To look back to my own local government days in my 20s, I was a councillor in a London borough that was smaller, at 6.1 square miles, than every parish in the 335 square miles I am lucky enough to represent today. We have to look at the distances, even within a parish, that some people have to endure to go to a planning meeting or to get their voice heard on the very local issues that their town or parish council is determining. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to reflect on whether there is a way the Government can meet local demand for allowing, at least in part, some virtual access to local democracy.

The bulk of the Bill is about planning reform, and the lion’s share of the amendments we are considering relates to planning reform. It is a Bill that will affect every community across our entire United Kingdom, and the lens through which I look at a number of the amendments is to ask: do these amendments support, do nothing to, or hinder the so-called December compromise? That is the compromise that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agreed with me and a number of right hon. and hon. Friends last December, not least my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely).

I shall start with Lords amendment 6 on the question of rural proofing. I absolutely and totally support locking into the Bill the concept of rural proofing, but there are a number of points I would ask the Minister to reflect on while making this particular commitment. Of course, anybody can say that they are going to “have regard to” anything at all. When I find myself in the supermarket with my children, I could have regard to their demand to put only chocolate, crisps and ice cream into the trolley. It does not mean that I am necessarily going to follow through on that, in my view, unreasonable demand. Much of the legislation we pass in this place can be judged upon, and under a legal challenge it is not unknown for the judiciary to look back at what was said at the Dispatch Box. I would therefore find it incredibly helpful if the Minister, in summing up, expanded a little on how the Government see that rural proofing. What are the defining principles of the rural proofing that the amendments in lieu of Lords amendment 6 talk about?

Inextricably linked to that has to be the content of the new national planning policy framework. It is a frustration that we are unable to see the final text of the NPPF until after the Bill achieves Royal Assent, not least because there are a lot of points that some of us fought hard for in the earlier stages of our consideration of the Bill that we were promised would be in the new NPPF and that will help to define this question of rural proofing. In particular, I was pleased to secure an amendment to the NPPF through the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) that explicitly changes the old language around

“best and most versatile agricultural land”

to the very tightly defined and binary question of land used in food production. That is because “best and most versatile” was always a lawyers’ paradise—a subjective test that could be argued to the nth degree. Changing the wording to protections for land used in food production makes it binary: it either is or is not. That will give clarity to planning authorities up and down the land when considering applications within our rural communities. I fear that food security is playing second fiddle to energy security when we see the vast swathes of solar applications and, likewise, the level of commercial and housing planning applications on agricultural land —on land used for food production. I include in that category 3b land, which is what most of my constituency is. It still manages to produce 10-tonne-a-hectare wheat yields, to graze cattle and sheep, and to produce the food we all like to eat.

The point I am getting to is that it is incumbent on the Government to recognise within rural proofing that rural needs to remain rural. Without farming—without agriculture, without farmers—there is no rural, because it is the farmers who maintain the landscape: it is the farmers who cut the hedges and keep our countryside as beautiful as it is. If we do not have that, there will be knock-on consequences on everything else that happens in the countryside, not least on the backbone of many rural economies: tourism. If it is not beautiful and it has all become solar farms, housing or commercial warehouses, we will not have the tourism offer either. I therefore encourage the Minister, when summing up, to reassure the House that in respect of the amendments in lieu of Lords amendment 6, rural proofing really does mean keeping the rural rural.

Turning to Lords amendment 44, I have considerable concern that when so much of the December compromise was about vesting local decisions in the hands of local authorities—in the hands of local people, where I believe decisions on planning matters absolutely should be taken, whether on housing need, commercial development or developments to do with energy security—the national development management policies are explicitly listed in the Bill as having primacy over those local decision-making mechanisms. I welcome the amendment in lieu that the Government have tabled to extend consultation to some degree; my initial preference was that the full parliamentary scrutiny lock that the Lords suggested would have been the preferable measure.

I ask the Minister and the wider Government to find a way of absolutely ensuring that when we say that local decision making is paramount, we really mean it and that there are not those get-out clauses that sometimes a statutory consultation simply cannot answer. Otherwise, we will set a dangerous precedent where people put in place their local plans and neighbourhood plans and believe that they are in control, but then a national monster—in whatever form it takes—comes along and walks all over that. The people of Buckinghamshire are all too aware of that with certain infrastructure projects being built through the county right now—I never miss an opportunity to get that in, Mr Deputy Speaker.