Neighbourhood Planning Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Helen Hayes and Chris Philp

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

[Helen Hayes]

I am arguing, first, that the scale of the problem is not nearly as great as the Government say, and secondly, that where there is a problem it is a symptom of the lack of resourcing in planning departments—the primary cause of that problem—not a problem in its own right. Therefore, the Government should be directing their energy towards the resourcing of local planning departments. I have argued many times that local authorities should be able to recover the full cost of resourcing and development management services through the fees they charge for those services. That proposal has broad support from the development industry, local planning departments and the organisations that represent local government in London and across the country. It would be a far better place to start the debate than clause 7.

As we have heard from many witnesses, there are circumstances where pre-commencement conditions are welcomed by developers, and where there is flexibility to agree some details when finance has been secured on the basis of a planning application, or when more is known about the site due to site investigations that take place in the earlier stages of a scheme. Last week, I sat down with several representatives of the local community and a developer who is bringing forward a very sensitive scheme in my constituency. The planning permission for the site in question was a detailed consent secured by a previous landowner who used that consent to sell the site on; that was a controversial issue in its own right.

Last week we met the developer, which did not take part in the planning application process for the site that it has now inherited. In that case, there are pre-commencement conditions on materials and archaeology. It is entirely right and proper that the developer has the opportunity to consider those conditions and make proposals to the local authority for those conditions to be discharged before development commences.

[Chris Philp]

In the hon. Lady’s example, did not the new owner have ample opportunity to consider those pre-commencement conditions before the purchase of the site? If they did not like the conditions, they could simply have not purchased the site.

[Helen Hayes]

That is a rather blunt and not nuanced enough understanding of how such things work in practice. Last week, the developer met with the community —a vociferous community who feel very strongly about the site. That conversation will enable the developer to inform the discussions and plans for some important detailed aspects of the scheme. That is entirely the right order of things. It would not have been appropriate for the developer to speak to the community ahead of securing the purchase of the site; the developer would not have had a relationship with the community that allowed such a conversation. The way that things are progressing is entirely right and timely; it is not leading to any delay in bringing forward the site in question.

Neighbourhood Planning Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Helen Hayes and Chris Philp

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 18th October 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I should mention that I employ a local authority council member in my parliamentary team.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I should draw colleagues’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a shareholder in a business that provides finance for construction projects.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Hayes]

Q I am a member of the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government, and yesterday we heard evidence from a range of witnesses within the sector, including from the Federation of Master Builders and the Home Builders Federation, about the lack of resource and capacity in local authority planning departments. It was suggested in that evidence session that the reported overuse of pre-commencement planning conditions is a symptom of a lack of resource in planning departments, rather than a wilful misuse of pre-commencement conditions on the part of local authorities. Will you comment on your experience of the resourcing issues in local authority planning departments?

Andrew Dixon: We would certainly agree that under-resourcing is one of the major drivers behind the high level of use of planning conditions. The strong perception among our members is that planning conditions are often being used to limit the necessity of engaging in detail with a full application. Among the things that often arise from that are planning conditions that have actually been covered in the full application. An example of that would be landscaping. I have heard a number of our members say that detailed landscaping plans were included in their full application but that there did not seem to be any engagement with it, there then being a condition to bring forward those details. Under-resourcing is a major issue that causes numerous hold-ups within the system, and we think it is one of the drivers behind the excessive use of conditions.

Ross Murray: This is very profound in rural planning authorities, which are significantly under-resourced in planning. Our members around the country see that all the time. The Committee must also have a mind to the resource of the applicant and the risks within the process. We should do anything that we can to provide certainty of process after the application has been determined, and when an applicant finds that the pre-commencement conditions just do not work for him. In a rural context, these are often low-return projects, and the planning process is the highest risk point at the start of the process.

Andrew Whitaker: It is very much a chicken-and-egg situation. If local authorities do not put enough resources into determining a planning application, the temptation is—rather lazily, in my opinion—to deal with everything via condition, rather than as part of the primary application. If authorities focused their resources on what needed to be done as part of the application, they would need to condition less. That would relieve them of having to discharge conditions, which can take just as many resources as the primary application. Therefore, we think that local authorities should reassess their systems and processes to focus their limited resources into the right parts of the process.

[Chris Philp]

Q I would like to continue the line of questioning on resourcing and planning departments that Helen Hayes started. Mr Dixon, you said earlier that the lack of resourcing in planning departments was the No. 1 impediment to getting more applications. Will you confirm that that was the case?

Andrew Dixon: That was the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

Q Of course, you would still have the statutory time targets, and if you increased total resource levels, it may most directly benefit those paying more, but it might have wider benefits as well, even to applicants who were not paying the extra fees.

Angus Walker: It is possible, but in my field, it is not financial deadlines—we have time deadlines in some areas, and not in others. The ones that have a decision required, statutorily, in a certain length of time get their decisions within that time; the others probably take longer than they otherwise would have done, because more of the resources are devoted to making those decisions on time.

[Helen Hayes]

Q I have a question for Councillor Newman, and perhaps Hugh Ellis as well. Have either of you undertaken any assessment of the likely additional burden to local planning authorities from the new proposed process in the Bill? Supplementary to that, and following the discussion that was just had about the possibility of applicants paying for an enhanced level of service, might a better system be for local authorities to be able, on a transparent and consultative basis, to charge the full cost of their development management service through fees? One concern I have about the proposal that developers be able to buy in an enhanced level of service is that it is potentially quite difficult for local authorities to manage fluctuating demand, in relation to individual applications. Surely what we actually want is for local authorities to be properly resourced to do the job well for everybody, irrespective of who the applicant is.

Councillor Newman: We do want to be properly resourced anyway, as a starting point. There is a £150 million tax subsidy going in; that would absolutely be the starting point for me, but I still think that this is worth exploring, in terms of the particular recruitment issues we have, because there will never be agreement on what “properly resourced” would be. That is why I would not rule out looking at—I do not like the word “enhanced”. There is something around fast-track and something around some major developments perhaps requiring more resource than other developments, but there is a discussion to be had. One way or another, we have to get more resource into a system that is under-resourced financially, and where in many areas, as we have heard, there are pressures regarding recruitment and staff coming forward.

On the other question you asked, I know the LGA is submitting written evidence later in the week. I have not got figures in front of me to evidence the extra burden, but I think the extra work this would potentially bring round is significant. As colleagues here have said, you could see more refusals, and the whole thing could become mired in a more confrontational process that, by definition, will set planning applications back, rather than them being, where possible, resolved, sometimes in a mature manner.

Hugh Ellis: Just to reiterate, planning is a key service with vital outputs for communities; in that sense, it needs to be resourced properly, and certainly at a minimum level. It also worries me that a lot of this resource in fees would go into development management, leaving open the question of how you fund the rest of the planning service, which is, in some senses, the most important part for us—the development plan, neighbourhood planning and master planning process, and getting it right up front.

On the idea that applicants would pay a fee base for a particular service, and that that would somehow sustain the planning service, there are some real questions to answer. It could be part of the answer—that is absolutely true—but I return to the point, on section 106 and the community infrastructure levy, that there is already, in pure taxation terms, a slightly regressive element to planning: you get most in high-demand areas. If this was another measure that led to that, it would be challenging, partly because the planning system has to deal with all sorts of varied issues. The examples coming in from Cumbria really reinforce that. They need very powerful local plans; how are they to pay for them if the predominant form of income generation is fees from applications that they do not get?

Neighbourhood Planning Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Helen Hayes and Chris Philp

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 18th October 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Chris Philp]

I am not sure that any public body has ever been financially liable for changing planning permissions.

[Helen Hayes]

Q May I ask Carole Reilly how many neighbourhood plans Locality has supported to date?

Carole Reilly: To date? Under the current programme, we have supported 1,300 neighbourhood plans with grants for technical support. In outline, there are two ways in which you can get support. You can get cash—£9,000 for straightforward plans and, for those that are more complex, the grant can go up to £15,000—and, alongside that, we offer a number of technical support packages. Under the current programme, which we have been running since the beginning of 2015, we have worked with 1,200 or 1,300 groups.

Housing and Planning Bill (Seventeenth sitting)

Debate between Helen Hayes and Chris Philp

Thursday 10th December 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Helen Hayes]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is an investment. It is, however, an investment that many local authorities do not have the luxury of being able to make in the context of the stretching of their resources across other very important statutory areas of service.

I will complete the quotation from London Councils:

“Full cost charging could also be used to fund the kind of pro-active multi-borough teams that supported”

the work of the Olympic Delivery Authority. Where we have large-scale regeneration across a wide area, London Councils supports the principle that local authorities should share that resource and be able to recoup the costs of it.

The new clause makes sense for councils, who would be able to raise the resources that they need without jeopardising vital statutory services such as children’s and adults’ social care; for communities, who will get higher-quality decisions; and for developers, who will get the speed of service they need to bring forward development. I hope that the Government will support it.

[Chris Philp]

It is an exquisite pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I shall be extremely brief.

Again, I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I spent the past five years financing developers, and must say that they commonly complain that local authority planning departments are both insufficiently resourced in terms of the number of people they employ and inadequately resourced in terms of the quality of those people, because so many move into private practice.

I fully accept the points, made in interventions by my colleagues on the Government Benches, that local authority planning departments should be made more efficient by sharing services and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough said, that local authorities enjoy financial benefit when development takes place, but I do know that developers would, in principle, be prepared to pay higher fees in exchange for better levels of service, which they can currently do via agreements for larger schemes. There might be some concern that local authorities would simply take the extra fees and spend them on something else, so will the Ministers consider whether in future local authorities could be permitted to charge a specific higher fee in exchange for a guaranteed service level? If that service level was not delivered, the fee could be refundable so that there would be a direct and explicit link between the fee and the service. I understand, though, that this is a complicated subject area and there are views on both sides.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

It is reasonable to want to ensure that developers are not simply treated as cash cows and penalised with unlimited fees, which is why I was suggesting that the Ministers might in future consider a fixed-fee schedule related to specific service delivery, with the extra fees being refunded if that delivery is not made. Having uncapped fees so that developers could simply be bled dry would be a retrograde step.

[Helen Hayes]

The text of the new clause is explicit in saying that the schedule of charges should be set in a transparent way. To my mind, that would include setting out the level of service that would be expected to be delivered, as well as the full cost of that service, and undertaking consultation with the wider development industry prior to setting the schedule of charges. I hope that answers the hon. Gentleman’s point.

[Chris Philp]

Before one could sign up to the new clause, one would want to see the detail, which clearly is not there. I think I have made my point in general terms.

Housing and Planning Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Debate between Helen Hayes and Chris Philp

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Helen Hayes]

I would like to make a little more progress, if I may.

It may even succeed in increasing alarm local communities, leading to further objections and challenges at the technical details stage.

The amendment is supported by the National Housing Federation written evidence that says:

“We believe that permission in principle should be broadly comparable with outline permission. So, for it to be granted, there will need to be clarity over the number of homes to be delivered, the tenure mix, the house type, the density and other permitted uses…and the permission in principle, should be time-bound to incentivise delivery.”

Amendment 285 seeks to ensure that sufficient investigatory work is undertaken prior to permission in principle being granted to determine that the site in question is suitable for the proposed development. It would require the Secretary of State to make regulations on the information about a site that must be known before permission in principle is granted. The content of that information should be defined by the regulations, but obvious examples include heritage and archeological considerations, ground contamination, wildlife habitats and protected species, flood risk and rights of light to neighbours. There are several others.

It seems only sensible that planning permission in principle should not be granted on whim or a hunch but on the basis of a sufficient level of information for all concerned to be confident that the land is suitable and that development can be delivered.

It is not at all clear how permission in principle will relate to technical details consent, or that other forms of consent that are currently required in sensitive locations, such as demolition consent, listed building consent or conservation area consent, will still be required.

Historic England has presented a case study that illustrates the issue well: brownfield land in an historic town centre. It may be possible to judge without too much detail that 10 housing units might be developed on the site. Permission in principle could, therefore, be given, but what may be very serious is the impact on below-ground archaeology, the massing of the building and the style of the architecture. If these issues cannot be dealt with thoroughly at the technical details stage, then nationally important archaeology and historical places, which I think all of us on the Committee would agree that we value, could be seriously at risk.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Is not the whole purpose of the technical details consent stage that exactly the matters the hon. Lady has referred to will get considered fully at that point, prior to full permission being given? If we try to force all these things to be considered at the in principle stage, it will simply place obstacles in the path of the in principle consent being given in the first place by making it much more difficult to achieve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I will endeavour to be a model of brevity in opposing amendment 285—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] That is the most popular thing I have said so far.

I spent the five years prior to coming here running a business that financed residential development. I can tell the Committee that a grant of permission in principle is of great use to financing organisations in offering finance either to acquire land or to fund the professional fees associated with developing it. Even though not all the technical details will have been signed off at that stage, it will give both funders and the prospective developer a huge amount of confidence and a measure of certainty that a particular kind of development scheme can be brought forward. As such it will be extremely valuable and will undoubtedly expedite the process of development.

On the question of technical details raised by the hon. Lady the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood, I think it is reasonable that they are dealt with later. If we insist on them being dealt with up front, there will be significant associated costs that may deter acquirers of land or developers from proceeding with a project. If the subsequent technical investigation uncovers problems such as bats, newts or Japanese knotweed, developments can be fine-tuned to address those issues in granting detailed consent.

The hon. Lady mentioned Roman forts. My father is an archaeologist and has encountered many Roman forts in his career. It is generally possible to reconfigure developments to avoid causing disruption: for example, my father was involved with a Roman fort in Dover that was going to be destroyed by a road, and they simply lifted up the road to go over the Roman remains. There are always ways of changing developments to resolve whatever problem subsequent technical investigations uncover. If the hon. Lady looks in the basement of many buildings in the City, she will see Roman remains that have been preserved.

[Helen Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman is making a helpful contribution. I am fully aware that in almost all circumstances it is possible to accommodate any constraints that might be found on a development site. The point is simply that there is a significant cost in doing that. If a developer is entirely unaware that the problem exists or even the potential that a problem exists, they may be biting off more than they can chew in seeking to bring forward that development.

[Chris Philp]

To that point I would say “Caveat emptor”—buyer beware. The developers should assess risk. If they choose to take the risk of not having done those investigations, that is their problem. Moreover, once they have got permission in principle, they will have the confidence to invest the money required to undertake those investigations.

Housing and Planning Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Helen Hayes and Chris Philp

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Chris Philp]

Q 3 Finally, are the CPO powers in the Bill adequate for the purposes of the Mayor of London and the GLA for things to go further?

Richard Blakeway: We welcome the Government’s focus on CPO, but we would like them to go further. We would like to see two things. The first is a general CPO power for the GLA around regeneration. At the moment, our CPO powers are separated, depending on which part of the GLA group you look at. The GLA itself has CPO for housing; Transport for London has CPO for transport. We would like that to be interchangeable.

Secondly, we would like to see the ability for us to devolve our CPO powers to members of the GLA family. For example, where we have established mayoral development corporations—something which was enabled through the Localism Act—we would like to see the ability for us to devolve those CPO powers. For example, the Old Oak Common mayoral development corporation could exercise CPO.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

Q 4 What do you think will be the impact of the starter homes clause on the provision of affordable housing in London?

Richard Blakeway: The GLA welcomes the introduction of starter homes and the Government’s focus on promoting home ownership. A number of things relating to starter homes will be in the regulations. For us to undertake a full assessment of the impact, we will have to see the regulations first. The first important point to make is that starter homes are not a substitute for all affordable housing. They are another affordable housing product. While there will be a quota that has to be delivered on site, we would still expect the London plan policy, which seeks to maximise affordable housing and therefore other affordable housing products, to apply once the quota has been sought.

The second important point is that we already have quite a well-established intermediate market in the capital. In particular, we have a significant number of shared ownership properties coming forward. Since this Mayor was elected, we have helped 52,000 Londoners purchase through intermediate products, predominately shared ownership, and we have a target to help a quarter of a million Londoners over the next decade. It is really important that starter homes complement existing products such as that, rather than substitute for them. The two have to work alongside each other, not least because they will probably target people with different incomes.