Oral Answers to Questions

Greg Smith Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Secretary of State, I do not want to do this every time we have questions. We get to topicals, and because the question is asked you feel it is a free-for-all. It is not your questions; it is Back-Benchers’ questions. Please, let us get everybody in, and let us start with Greg Smith, who wants to ask a good question.

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Whole communities have been up in arms after perverse decisions by the Planning Inspectorate, most recently on a site between Askett and Meadle and another between Twyford and Poundon. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to reform the Planning Inspectorate to stop it walking all over local wishes?

[Michael Gove]

The new national planning policy framework ensures that the Planning Inspectorate will work with, not against, local communities. The Planning Inspectorate also has a wonderful new chief executive officer—an official from my Department who helped to deliver the homes for Ukraine programme and understands what communities need and want.

Brownfield Development and Green Belt

Greg Smith Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2023 Westminster Hall

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on securing an incredibly important debate, as the other place continues its deliberations over the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill. I worked alongside my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) on many amendments. We will start to see some big wins in protecting the countryside from development on green belt, open countryside and greenfield sites, which will push the Government much more towards their stated aim of brownfield development.

I will start by trying to define what we are talking about. It is not just the green belt. That is a technical term. The green belt is vital to many constituencies, but in mine, we have very little technical green belt. What we have is 335 square miles of open countryside. Ninety per cent of the land in the constituency that I am fortunate enough to represent in this place is agricultural.

I echo the points made by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet when I say that it is important to remember when we debate these matters that there is a point to the countryside. It is not just there to be pretty and beautiful, although it is both of those things. It is not just there for people to enjoy for leisure: to walk, camp and do all of the things we enjoy the countryside for. It has specific purposes. First, obviously, to produce the food and drink that we all enjoy eating and drinking. It is part of the vital backbone to our national economy. It is also important to things such as water management, allowing drainage to run, rivers to flow and chalk streams to be vibrant and active. The more we build over open countryside, green belt and agricultural land, the greater the risk there is to those things.

I will give a couple of examples from my own constituency. When the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill was in Committee, I used the village of Ickford as an example when speaking to some of the amendments on flooding. The village is small and close to the Oxfordshire border with Buckinghamshire. Deanfield Homes has almost finished building nearly 90 homes on a site there —a site that has always been known to flood. It is on the flood plain of the River Thame.

Throughout the planning process, every excuse under the sun was accepted. Every clever scheme that was introduced for clever drainage solutions, or whatever it might be, was proposed and ultimately accepted by the Planning Inspectorate. Of course there are no surprises in the fact that that land continues to flood to this day, to the extent that the developers have even raised the level at which they are building the houses, with the fancy graphics used on the marketing materials even showing enormous slopes in the back gardens to allow water to run off, which of course goes into the existing and older properties in that village.

Only this week, I heard from a concerned constituent in the village of Haddenham, which has seen considerable development over recent decades, who reported a development at the back of their house on The Clays, off Churchway. The drainage pond that was put in as the developers started to dig foundations has been way above its natural level for some time. The amount of concrete that is going into those foundations is forcing the water towards their cul-de-sac, which is surrounded by walls made out of a cob unique to Buckinghamshire called wychert that, if it gets wet, quickly falls down.

We therefore have to ensure that we encourage the development of the houses and commercial properties that we need on brownfield and regeneration sites; I very much appreciate the soundbite that my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills came up with, namely “the regeneration generation”. It is important that we are cautious about the impact that development on the countryside has on flooding.

The big issue, of course, is food security. The more we build over our countryside—our farmland and prime agricultural land—the lower our self-sufficiency in food will drop. We are already down to about 60%. Of course we will never hit 100%, because there are lots of things that we like to eat and drink that cannot be grown in this country. Nevertheless, the more we build over our agricultural land, the more reliance we will have on imports, which is crazy.

I was pleased when, off the back of an amendment that I tabled to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, the Government and the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities agreed to put into the consultation on the new NPPF a reference that food production can be “considered” in the planning process for the first time. That is important and I urge the Minister to ensure that that change makes it through to the final NPPF. More than that, however, I urge her to ensure that planning authorities up and down the land are given a clear instruction that that is now available to them and they can use it.

A big flaw in the current NPPF—the previous NPPF, if we can call it that—is that the best and most versatile agricultural land was often walked all over and ignored by planning authorities and indeed the Planning Inspectorate. It would therefore be much appreciated by my constituents if the Minister could give some assurances in her response about the pressure that the Government will apply to planning authorities and the Planning Inspectorate on the provisions that will hopefully, in the not-too-distant future, be in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act and the new NPPF.

My last point is about consistency within the Planning Inspectorate, because if we are to achieve the ambition of the homes, commercial properties and solar panels that we need being on brownfield sites, or on rooftops in the latter case, rather than across our fields, we will need consistency in the planning process. I have a perverse case that has come to light regarding land—open countryside —that was always believed to be protected as a buffer zone next to the town of Princes Risborough in my constituency. Despite two previous decisions by the Planning Inspectorate saying that the land should be protected, a third planning inspector has now granted retrospective permission to a number of plots that have been developed on the site, so the residents of the hamlet of Ascot and the nearby hamlet of Meadle are up in arms. We need consistency from the Planning Inspectorate when it considers such matters and—if it can be achieved through the Minister’s good offices—we need that clarity to be pushed down, not only to planning authorities but to the Planning Inspectorate.

The facts speak for themselves. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, the hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) and others have mentioned, the plots are out there on brownfield land. The CPRE’s data is pretty clear: there is space for 1.2 million homes. The Government’s manifesto talked of an ambition to build 300,000 houses, whereas brownfield development can deliver 1.2 million without touching a blade of grass on the green belt—precious agricultural land, open countryside, nature reserves and so much more. I urge the Government to be bold in their ambition to move towards brownfield development.

[Margaret Greenwood]

The hon. Member has made the case very clearly. Does he agree that we need a much more positive way to talk about brownfield development? Wirral Council’s plans for the Wirral, which is a peninsula, involve the development of the east side of the borough, which has brownfield sites with fantastic views of the Liverpool city skyline. Brownfield sites can be incredibly exciting urban developments that people will want to live in, but we need the political drive to make sure that they happen. The design of many brownfield sites can be very attractive for people.

[Greg Smith]

I fundamentally agree with that proposition. Lots of brownfield sites offer spectacular views—whether of a skyline or out towards the countryside. The big challenge is political ambition, but we also need recognition within the tax system through the infrastructure levy to ensure that prospective developers do not look at a brownfield site and a comparator in the green belt or open countryside and say, “It is far cheaper for us to develop the countryside.” If we had a sliding scale to make it cost-neutral to the developer, so that they paid far less in the infrastructure levy or another form of taxation to develop a brownfield site, that would be a quick political win to get us to the brownfield development that I think all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken in the debate want to see.

[Yvonne Fovargue (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that I want to start the wind-ups at 14.38.

Capital Projects: Spending Decisions

Greg Smith Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Lee Rowley]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely incorrect to say that the levelling-up agenda is unravelling. Just last month we announced several billion pounds of additional capital spending on levelling-up projects bid for in round 2. As for caring about levelling up, communities up and down the land are getting the opportunity to transform their area, and to make good on promises that were not delivered under successive Governments for many decades. We in this place should celebrate that, rather than focusing on what is being focused on now. I gently say to him that if in Scotland, as in Derbyshire and elsewhere in the country, a number of areas have not been successful in getting funds that were on offer, are being provided and will be spent, I very much encourage those areas to apply when round 3 of the levelling-up fund opens in the coming months.

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

As a great lady once reminded us, there is no such thing as public money, only taxpayers’ money. Does my hon. Friend agree that we Conservative Members should never apologise for applying the most stringent checks and balances, so that every penny spent is spent wisely?

[Lee Rowley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are seeking to transform areas, including mine, that were ignored for far too long, but are doing so in a way that works for the Government and for taxpayers, so that their hard-earned money is spent in the right place, at the right time, to the right effect.

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 Rural Britain

Greg Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing this important debate for rural communities across our whole United Kingdom, not least the 335 square miles of rural north Buckinghamshire that I have the privilege of representing in this place.

I associate myself with the points multiple hon. Members made to quash the myth that rural communities are all universally wealthy without pockets of deprivation. In my constituency, there are certainly communities that are struggling and need support. The energy crisis has really highlighted that, following on from the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) made about off-grid households. It took until September for Whitehall to acknowledge that off grid existed. The £100 scheme is too universal and does not address the real fuel poverty that exists in off-grid households, not least those that are not on oil and do not have the space to have a liquefied petroleum gas tank but are on the 47 kg LPG bottles, which I believe are up to something like £88 plus VAT a bottle now and, on full burn, only last for 19 hours. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to take that point back to the Treasury, because if we do not get the basics right for rural communities it is very difficult to level up rural communities and deliver for everyone.

I was struck by the figures my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) gave that rural communities receive for their public services 37% less than their urban counterparts. Clearly, that is not right and we absolutely need to address it to ensure that every community across our United Kingdom gets, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) said, their fair slice of the cake. For communities like mine, when it comes to public services it is not just the core funding that is a challenge. It is also the way we remunerate the expenses of some of the lowest paid but most vital and important public servants. Carers often have to go in their own cars to visit patients and those they are caring for. Often, they do not even get the 45p a mile set out by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which, as we all know with rising prices at the fuel pumps, does not actually cover costs in the first place. That needs to be addressed urgently.

For my constituency, there is something that needs to be tackled very, very urgently: projects that are done in the name of levelling up, but do anything but level up north Buckinghamshire. I have two railways being built through my constituency. One is HS2. It is totally toxic—a destroyer of farms, countryside and our very way of life—and I have spoken in total opposition to it many times in this House. The other is East West Rail. While we welcome that railway, which will bring vital connectivity, those responsible have made, if I may put it in such a way, a bit of a hash of building it.

The unintended consequences need to be resolved through cross-governmental work to ensure that where big infrastructure projects are being built, whether they are welcome or not, they are not allowed to disrupt the day-to-day lives of communities. Only this morning, for example, I learned that the Crooked Billet pub in Newton Longville has closed its doors for the last time and is being handed back to the brewery, because the endless road closures from East West Rail have starved them of their trade. When the Addison Road bridge in Steeple Claydon was closed for months on end earlier this year, the Prince of Wales pub’s takings were £2,000 a week down. That is a devastating amount for a rural village pub to lose. There was no compensation—nothing whatever. W. G. Hill & Son just outside Marsh Gibbon has effectively been shut down by East West Rail replacing a bridge next to that business, as it cannot now legally get its HGVs underneath the bridge.

All those businesses have essentially been allowed to fail in the name of levelling-up projects. I urge the Minister to look at that very carefully to ensure that, in the future when infrastructure projects are built, we do not allow communities and businesses to suffer in that way—not to mention the state of our roads, which have literally been ripped up by the sheer volume of HGV movements around the large infrastructure projects. Buckinghamshire Council is doing its best; it has a £100 million programme to resurface roads across the county. However, when others are doing the damage, it is not fair that council tax payers have to pick up the bill.

I welcome the infrastructure first moves that the Government are introducing, but there needs to be some retrospective action on GP access in my constituency. Long Crendon lost its surgery last year. It secured land through a development, but it desperately needs the funds to build the new surgery; that needs attention. Likewise, on the Kingsbrook development just to the east of Aylesbury, the integrated care board is trying to claw back the section 106 money to spend it on other surgeries. I urge the Minister to take urgent action to ensure that infrastructure first can be retrospective, too.

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 (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 (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 (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 (Nineteenth sitting)

Greg Smith Excerpts

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.)