English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lewis Atkinson Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I am pleased that the Government support the principle of banning pavement parking and giving local authorities new powers, assuming that they come with new burdens funding. However, Lords amendment 40, which will give powers without a national framework, risks confusion, with inconsistent enforcement, frustrated residents and unfair pressure on frontline staff.

We need a ban across the country, with embedded changes to the highway code and a public information campaign. Shifting the responsibility to councils that decide to go ahead of the curve means that drivers could be caught out, particularly in areas of high tourism like mine in Dorset, where many drivers come from elsewhere. We need the law to be clear about exemptions for postal workers, emergency vehicles and where roads are too narrow for parking. Where such issues exist, we need the time to put down yellow lines and parking restrictions to prevent one problem from being replaced by another.

I recognise that as Lords amendment 40 is a Government amendment, there will be no vote on it, but I urge the Government to consider the potential pitfalls of the amendment and whether it answers the question that people have been asking for so many years. I think the answer is that it does not, and I urge the Government to bring forward a proper road safety Bill in the King’s Speech to properly ban pavement parking.

Let me turn to community asset transfer. I recently worked with Corfe Mullen town council to prepare an application for a transfer but it was no longer needed, thanks to the community raising nearly £600,000. I am now working with Holt football club to help it to protect its club from sale; the club was started 60 years ago by Terry Bradford with a lawnmower and a hosepipe for a shower, I am told. Since then, local residents and businesses from Gaunt’s Common and Holt have invested for all those decades to build a fabulous clubhouse and develop talent that has represented their country.

However, these projects fail because communities cannot compete with private buyers looking to make a profit and sellers knowing that they can squeeze every penny from local people by setting a price beyond their ability to fundraise. I welcome the Government’s commitment in the Bill to extend both the time that communities have to delay a sale and the independent valuation, but I seek clarity on whether the change will take effect on Royal Assent and be retrospective for applications already in train. I also strongly support the Lords amendments to extend the time on the register so that Holt football club, which has previously been threatened with eviction, can protect itself into the next generation.

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

I will speak to Lords amendment 41, regarding putting the agent of change principle on a statutory basis, particularly ensuring that new developments have a noise impact assessment when they are near grassroots music venues. I support the Government’s plans to increase house building, and I recognise that genuine care has to be taken to not increase red tape to the detriment of that goal. However, at the moment, the agent of change regime is preventing elements of house building and residential use in my constituency, as I will come on to. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Withington (Jeff Smith), I am slightly disappointed that that a Government amendment in lieu to Lords amendment 41 has not been tabled.

Sunderland is a music city, and venues such as Pop Recs, Independent and The Bunker are core to our identity. If we are about empowering our community, we need to empower it to protect those venues culturally important to us, which of course are also crucially economically important. As has been said, many grassroots music venues have closed over recent years, with the number declining from 1,150 venues nationally to 800 today. Those closures are due to not just economic factors, but planning issues.

The Minister referenced that there will be guidance around the agent of change principle, but the reality is that there have been forms of guidance since 2014 or 2015, and the Music Venue Trust reports that there has been no let-up in inappropriate planning applications near music venues. For those reasons, the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport’s 2024 report recommended that

“the agent of change principles are put on a statutory footing at the earliest opportunity.”

This Bill is an opportunity to do so—if not through Lords amendment 41, then potentially through alternative means, which I hope the Minister will say something about. I repeat the question asked by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), about whether the guidance will be statutory or general.

In my constituency, the Music Venue Trust had to intervene in a planning application to convert a unit of flats near Independent on Holmeside because the plans did not contain sufficient noise protection. That process took too long, incurred cost and risk to the venue, and ultimately meant that the flats were not built, so we actually have housing that is not being built due to a lack of clarity on the agent of change principle. That shows why that principle needs to be strengthened; currently, given that the guidance is not statutory, developers are incentivised to try to get away with proposals.

Will the Minister meet me, other members of the APPG on music, and the Music Venue Trust to discuss strengthening the guidance? Will she also make sure that the statutory guidance in the NPPF that she refers to specifically refers to noise abatement in relation to grassroots music venues?

[Mr Kohler]

I wish to speak to Lords amendment 42. Where a local authority provides land for public recreation, it can be held on the basis of a statutory trust that protects it. Parliament has set out a process that must be followed if that trust is to be ended. It is not a brilliant process by any means, but at least it gives a central role to local authorities.

In Day v. Shropshire, the Supreme Court recently held that where those requirements are not followed, the trust—quite reasonably—remains in place. However, amendment 42, first tabled in the other place by the Conservative peer Lord Banner, cuts across that principle. It would allow the Secretary of State to set aside those protections where the proper process has not been followed, even where the current local authority might not now support terminating the trust. It replaces localism with centralism.

Lord Banner sought to justify his amendment on a number of questionable grounds, including the assertion that the Supreme Court decision is

“causing considerable uncertainty in relation to land purchased in good faith from local authorities”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 March 2026; Vol. 863, c. GC527.]

The only example I am aware of is a controversial issue in my constituency of Wimbledon. In that case, the All England Lawn Tennis Club bought the freehold to a portion of Wimbledon Park in 1993 at an appropriately reduced price, having expressly agreed both to never build on the land and to restore full rights of public recreation after the expiry of a pre-existing leasehold interest. There seems little doubt that the primary motivation behind the tabling of Lord Banner’s amendment relates to the Wimbledon Park controversy.

Unfortunately, despite previous assurances that they would leave the law unchanged until a proper consultation could take place, the Government rowed in behind the Banner amendment. That amendment would, however, still have been defeated had the Tories joined my Lib Dem colleagues in the No Lobby. Sadly, despite many assurances to the people of Wimbledon, every Tory peer either abstained or voted for the amendment tabled by their Conservative colleague, Lord Banner.

As we have heard, the Tories tabled an amendment—now re-tabled by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds)—that would require the Secretary of State to write a report, lay it before Parliament and consider it. That is simply a tick-box exercise that would do nothing to stop Lord Banner’s amendment from coming into force. It is a parliamentary sleight of hand to pretend to the people of Wimbledon that the Tories have not abandoned them—and the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), has the cheek to ask me why the Lib Dems refuse to join the Tories in this deception.

My constituents in Wimbledon expect the legal protections of land to be upheld in practice, not set aside for ministerial discretion and Tory cons. I tabled a motion to disagree with the Banner amendment but under the arcane procedures of this place, I understand that my motion will not be voted on, while the Banner amendment will remain. That marks a sad day for Wimbledon specifically, public trust land generally and the credibility of the Conservative party across Merton, where the overreach of the AELTC is an important local election issue.