Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Legislative Grand Committee: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 13th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I apologise for missing the beginning of the debate—I was chairing a Select Committee.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

You only missed one minute.

[Robert Neill]

I am sure it was a very important and fascinating minute, Mr Deputy Speaker, particularly as the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) was speaking—I have great regard for her.

I support my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) and the amendments in our names. We put them forward in an endeavour to be constructive. They reflect areas where the Government have taken valuable and worthwhile steps. New clause 12 is built on the fact that they rightly increased the rates of interest, but it is important that there is not a lacuna between the enabling legislation and the practical application of the regulations. The Minister might say, “There is another means whereby I can achieve the same objective as the new clause,” in which case my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds and I will be perfectly happy, but it is important to flag that up, particularly because the Treasury has to deal with the regulations, although I could be wrong about that. We would not want anything to fall between the gaps and prevent the Government’s good intention from being delivered in practice.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Mr John Redwood!

[John Redwood]

I rise, Mr Deputy Speaker, to support—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I sounded shocked because I had not realised you were here at the beginning.

[John Redwood]

I was in at the beginning. I have come because this an important subject and I want to support my colleagues in saying that where land is being compulsorily acquired, the aim should be to ensure that the owner gets the open market value that they would have got had they been a voluntary seller in the private sector market without the distortion of the public sector purchaser. As my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) indicated, that surely means that if there is hope value in the land, it should be included in the price. It might be possible to take care of hope value with an overage, or it might be that we can express a capital value of the hope value and clean the whole thing up in one go. Either way, it needs to be sorted out, and I hope that will be confirmed by the Minister. I believe that that is the intention.

As to the Opposition argument, I think that sometimes the best is the enemy of the good. We already have 17 pages of additional legislation on compulsory purchase, and if the Opposition thought that something needed fixing or improving, this was their opportunity to table amendments to do so. The new clause is the Government’s best fix for the current legislation. I think we can do it by means of amendment to existing law. We need not redesign the whole thing. A redesign could create added hazards and complexities and bring scope for mistakes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

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

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Planning Applications: award of costs—

“(1) Where a planning application for development meets the terms of subsection (2), and is—

(a) refused by a local authority, or

(b) an appeal under section 78 of the TCPA 1990 which is dismissed,

the planning authority may apply to the Secretary of State for an award of costs to reimburse the expenses incurred by individuals who submitted objections to the unsuccessful application or appeal.

(2) A planning authority may only use this power if the following conditions are met—

(a) the unsuccessful application or appeal concerned a new commercial or residential development; and

(b) the application or appeal was unsuccessful, at least in part, due to its incompatibility with the relevant approved neighbourhood development plan.”

New clause 4—Sustainable development and placemaking—

“(1) The Secretary of State must issue guidance setting out how the principles of sustainable development and placemaking can be—

(a) reflected in neighbourhood development plans;

(b) used by local authorities to support neighbourhood planning.

(2) “Sustainable development and placemaking” means managing the use, development and protection of land and natural resources in a way which enables people and communities to provide for their legitimate social, economic and cultural wellbeing while sustaining the potential of future generations to meet their own needs.

(3) To support this aim local planning authorities should—

(a) identify suitable land for development in line with the economic, social and environmental objectives so as to improve the quality of life, wellbeing and health of people and the community;

(b) contribute to the sustainable economic development of the community;

(c) contribute to the vibrant cultural and artistic development of the community;

(d) protect and enhance the natural and historic environment;

(e) contribute to mitigation and adaptation to climate change in line with the objectives of the Climate Change Act 2008;

(f) promote high quality and inclusive design;

(g) ensure that decision-making is open, transparent, participative and accountable; and

(h) ensure that assets are managed for long-term interest of the community.”

This new clause would clarify in statute that neighbourhood planning should be focused on the public interest and in achieving quality outcomes including placemaking.

New clause 5—Neighbourhood Planning: Payments to support production of plans—

“(1) Where a parish is designated as a neighbourhood area under the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012, and where the parish council agrees to forego some or all of the relevant Community Infrastructure Ley Monies, the Local Planning Authority may make available the amounts foregone to support the parish council in the production of a Neighbourhood Plan or a Neighbourhood Development Order.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) the relevant Community Infrastructure Levy Monies are those that will be payable to the Local Planning Authority under Regulation 8 of the CIL (Amendment) Regulations 2013 if the Neighbourhood Plan or Neighbourhood Development Order, when made—

(a) provides for the number of houses specified for development in that neighbourhood area under the relevant Local Plan, and

(b) those houses are built.”

This amendment would require Local Planning Authorities to make advances available to parish councils to support the production of Neighbourhood Plan or a Neighbourhood Development Order. The advances will equal the amount of income that the parish council agrees to forego out of the CIL revenues that would otherwise be paid to them by the Local Planning Authority once the housing specified in the Plan or Order is built.

New clause 7—Planning decisions: involvement of neighbourhood planning bodies—

“In place of section 75ZB of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as inserted by section 156 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016) insert—

“75ZB Responsibilities of decision-makers in respect of Neighbourhood Development Plans in the exercise of planning functions

(1) In considering whether to grant planning permission or permission in principle for development which affects land all or part of which is included within the area covered by a made or emerging Neighbourhood Development Plan, the local planning authority must—

(a) have regard to the desirability of upholding the policies and proposals contained in the Neighbourhood Development Plan;

(b) send a copy of the application to the relevant neighbourhood planning body;

(c) allow the relevant neighbourhood planning body a period of 21 days from receipt of the application to make recommendations about how the application should be determined; and

(d) take into account any recommendations made under paragraph (c).

(2) Where a neighbourhood planning body recommended against the application, under subsection (1), and the following conditions are met, the local planning authority may not approve the application without first consulting with the Secretary of State.

(3) The conditions mentioned in subsection (2) are—

(a) the development is not classed as a householder development;

(b) the development is not on a site identified for the proposed development in the relevant neighbourhood development plan.

(4) Consultations with the Secretary of State under subsection (2) must follow the procedures set out in provisions 10 to 12 of the Town & Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009.

(5) In this section—

“emerging Neighbourhood Development Plan” means a Neighbourhood Development Plan that has been examined, is being examined, or is due to be examined, having met the public consultation requirements necessary to proceed to this stage.

“householder development” means proposals to alter or enlarge a single house, including works within the curtilage (boundary/garden) of the house.

“neighbourhood planning body” means a town or parish council or neighbourhood forum, as defined in section 61F of the 1990 Act (authorisation to act in relation to neighbourhood areas).””

This new clause would require planning authorities to consult neighbourhood planning bodies on decisions to grant planning permission. Where a planning authority wants to approve a major development against the wishes of a neighbourhood planning body, the planning authority will be required to consult the Secretary of State before granting permission.

New clause 8—Delivery of housing development—

“After section 74 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 insert—

“74A Delivery of housing development

(1) The Secretary of State may make provision, by a development order, for regulating the manner in which applications for planning permission for housing development are to be determined by local planning authorities with regard to the assessment of a five year supply of housing land.

(2) A development order issued under subsection (1) may in particular—

(a) define a methodology to be used by local planning authorities to assess a deliverable five-year supply of housing land, including confirmation of types of sites that may be included;

(b) specify the minimum period of time after which, if a local authority has not demonstrated a five-year supply of housing land, the presumption in favour of sustainable development should be applied in accordance with paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework;

(c) set out the desirability of upholding policies and proposals of made or emerging neighbourhood plans, where these are positive towards housing development, notwithstanding any lack of a five-year supply of housing land in the local authority area in which the neighbourhood plan is wholly or partly situated.

(3) In this section “five year supply of housing land” means specified deliverable sites identified as sufficient to provide five years’ worth of housing against the area’s housing requirements (see paragraph 47 of the National Planning Policy Framework).””

The proposal would empower the Secretary of State to issue a development order to: clarify the means by which housing land supply is assessed; define the minimum amount of time before a local planning authority’s failure to meet its housing targets results in its local plan being “out of date”; and specify that neighbourhood plans should be taken into account notwithstanding the lack of a five-year supply of housing land.

Amendment 1, in clause 1, page 2, line 3, at end insert—

“(c) it has been examined by an independent examiner who is registered with the Royal Town Planning Institute.”

This amendment ensures that the examination of a neighbourhood plan is conducted by an RTPI registered examiner.

Amendment 2, in clause 2, page 2, line 19, at end insert—

“(3C) To support Neighbourhood Plans, the Secretary of State should set out the weight that should be given to approved neighbourhood development plans at key stages in the planning process.”

This amendment gives weight to the Neighbourhood Plans at key stages along the process and not just at the post- referendum stage.

Amendment 3, in clause 3, page 2, line 28, at end insert

“after consultation with the local area involved.”

This amendment ensure that any changes to a neighbourhood development order or plan are first subject to consultation with the local area involved.

Amendment 4, in clause 4, page 4, line 7, at end insert

“providing that the subsequent area is not smaller than a parish or town council area or local authority ward.”

This amendment ensures that the size of a neighbourhood area is not smaller than a parish or town council area or local authority ward.

Amendment 7, in clause 5, page 5, line 10, at end insert—

“(c) reasonable payments made by local authorities for the purpose set out in paragraph (a) and (b) shall be recovered from the Secretary of State’s department.”

This amendment allows for the full recovery of costs of assisting with the development of a neighbourhood plan to be recovered to the local authority.

Amendment 5, page 5, line 11, at end insert—

“(2BA) Such statements of community involvement must include a right for members of the community to make representations.”

This amendment would give local people and communities a statutory “right to be heard”.

Amendment 6, page 5, line 11, at end insert—

“(2BA) Such statements of community involvement shall include measures to enable local parish councils to be set up in a streamlined and speedy manner.”

This amendment would make it easier for new parish and town councils to be formed.

Amendment 8, page 5, line 21, after subsection (3) insert—

“(4) Section 120 of the Localism Act 2011 (Financial assistance in relation to neighbourhood planning) is amended as follows—

(a) at the end of subsection (2)(a) leave out “, and” and insert “subject to the condition that such assistance is prioritised for bodies or persons in deprived communities, and”,

(b) after subsection (3)(b), insert—

“(ba) a deprived community is defined as being any area which is among the 20 per cent most deprived Lower Layer Super Output Areas according to the most recently published English Indices of Deprivation,

(bb) prioritised financial assistance is defined to mean that no less than 50 per cent of the total value of the financial assistance provided under this section is provided to deprived communities.””

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to prioritise deprived communities when making available financial assistance to support the development of neighbourhood plans.

Amendment 23, page 5, line 21, at end insert—

“(4) To support Neighbourhood Plans, all councils should have a Local Development Plan in place by December 2017.”

This amendment ensures that Local Plans are in place so Neighbourhood Plans can be made in line with the strategic aims of Local Plans.

Amendment 24, in clause 6, page 5, line 26, at end insert

“which must consider the current and future housing needs of the whole population including older and disabled people”.

Amendment 25, page 6, line 7, after “strategy” insert

“which must consider the current and future housing needs of the whole population including older and disabled people”.

Amendment 28, page 6, line 21, at end insert—

“(3) In section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 ((determination of applications for planning permission: general considerations) after subsection (4) insert—

(5) No grant or other financial assistance shall be payable by the Secretary of State in connection with development of land in the circumstances set out in subsection (6) below.

(6) The circumstances are where a development plan document includes any of the following policies—

(a) the removal of the Green Belt designation from land in order to accommodate 10 or more dwellings;

(b) the designation of land that falls within a designated National Park, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, or Site of Special Scientific Interest to allow major housing development;

(c) the designation of land that falls within a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest to allow major housing development.

(7) The Secretary of State must by regulation set out—

(a) what constitutes “major” development for the purposes of subsection (6) (c); and

(b) any exceptions to subsection (5).””

This amendment would have the effect of preventing the Government from making payments under the New Homes Bonus scheme for developments proposed in development plan documents on land (i) where the Green Belt boundary had been redrawn or (ii) within a National Park or Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, where a development is considered to be “major”. The amendment also allows the Secretary of State to set out exceptions to this provision within policies or guidance, which would include the NPPF.

Amendment 10, in clause 10, page 10, line 19, at end insert—

“(c) they must set out a timetable to review the need for technical documents.”

Government amendments 17 to 19.

Amendment 29, in clause 11, page 10, line 35, at end insert—

“(4) Such Statements of Community Involvement must outline—

(a) the links between Neighbourhood Plans and Local Plans; and

(b) consultation arrangements for Parish and Town Councils in the drawing up of Local Plans.”

This amendment outlines the relationship between local and neighbourhood plans and the role parish and town councils would play in their development.

Government amendment 22.

Amendment 9, in schedule 2, page 42, line 15, at end insert

“must consult the relevant lower-tier planning authority.”

This amendment ensures that district councils are consulted before a county council writes a local plan for their area.

[Graham Jones]

I want to speak to new clause 1, tabled in my name and those of many hon. Members from across the House, and planning guidance on the clustering of betting offices and payday lenders. Fixed odds betting terminals have been described as the crack cocaine of gambling and plague our high streets. Members have witnessed innumerable issues following the explosive growth in betting shops on their constituency’s high streets. Given the number, clustering and impact of betting shops, it is high time that there was clarity in planning law on this significant problem, which my moderate new clause seeks to address.

Research by the Local Government Association reveals a clear correlation between high-density betting shop clustering and problem gambling. Betting shop loyalty cards show that 28% of people living within 400 metres of betting shop clusters are problem gamblers, compared with 22% of those who do not live near a cluster. Research from the Institute for Public Policy Research shows that problem gambling, exacerbated by clustering, costs secondary mental health services and the taxpayer £100 million a year. Further academic research has revealed that clustering disproportionately affects vulnerable communities. The poorest 55 boroughs have more than twice as many betting shops compared with the most affluent 115 boroughs. There has been an adverse impact on our high streets. Those findings were summed up by Mary Portas, who said that

“the influx of betting shops, often in more deprived areas, is blighting our high streets”.

I remind some Members who might disagree that the Portas review was set up by Conservative Members when they were in the coalition Government, in the previous Parliament.

To date, deficiencies in the legislative framework have hampered efforts to address the effects of clustering on local communities. We have only to walk down any high street in a deprived area to see clusters of payday lenders and betting shops, which are affecting the vitality of our high streets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We have a few more speakers and there is another group to get through after this one. The quicker we can move on, the better.

[Fiona Bruce]

I rise to speak in support of new clauses 7 and 8, to which I have added my name, but I am spurred by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) to put on record my support for the tenor of new clause 1.

It is imperative that Ministers act to restore the confidence of my Congleton constituents in the status of neighbourhood plans specifically and in localism more widely. My constituents consider that the status and application of neighbourhood plans is confusing, contradictory, inconsistent and unfair. The area has no local plan and no agreed five-year planned supply. For years, local communities in my constituency have been bombarded with a barrage of inappropriate planning applications by developers gobbling up green spaces, including prime agricultural land, and putting pressure on local schools, health services, roads and other services. It is essential that Ministers take action to give neighbourhood plans the full weight in practice that the Government say they have in theory. It is for that reason that residents in my constituency have in some cases taken years to prepare neighbourhood plans. I respect the Government’s good intentions, but they are not being carried out.

The Government factsheet on the Bill states:

“Neighbourhood planning gives communities direct power to develop a shared vision for their neighbourhood and shape the development and growth of their local area. For the first time communities can produce plans that have real statutory weight in the planning system.”

That is the theory, but let me tell hon. Members about the practice. The parish of Brereton was the first area in my constituency to produce a neighbourhood plan. It is a rural farming area mainly—just 470 houses are dotted about it. It developed a neighbourhood plan over many years, and it was voted in with a huge 96% majority vote on a 51% turnout. It is a very intelligent document. It has no blanket objection to development, but does say that development should be appropriate in scale, design and character of the rural area of Brereton, and that it should not distort that character. It says that small groups of one or two properties built over time would be appropriate, supporting the rural economy and providing accommodation for those with local livelihoods, which seems reasonable.

I warmly welcomed the plan when it was produced and when it was adopted. However, the Brereton example is one of several in which planning applications that are contradictory to the best intentions of local residents have been approved by the inspectorate. Brereton is a parish of 470 houses. Within the last month, one development of no fewer than 190 houses has been allowed on appeal. Another application for 49 houses is coming down the track. That is more than half the size again of the parish.

Brereton has very few facilities—for example, it does not have a doctors’ surgery—so nearby Holmes Chapel will be pressurised further. That village already has hundreds of recently built properties or properties for which permission has been given. The health centre is full, the schools are under pressure and traffic pressures render roads dangerous. Unlike Brereton, Holmes Chapel has not yet completed its local neighbourhood plan, but people there are now asking whether it is worth the time and effort of completing one.

The position is the same in Goostrey, another nearby village that is in the process of developing its neighbourhood plan. A resident and member of the Goostrey parish council neighbourhood plan team wrote to me. He says that such decisions are demotivating when it comes to creating neighbourhood plans, and that they make encouraging people to get involved in the Goostrey plan much harder—he refers not only to the Brereton decision, but to the inconsistency of two recent decisions down the road in Sandbach, where one application for a substantial housing development was dismissed based on the neighbourhood plan, and another, cheek-by-jowl down the road, was approved with the neighbourhood plan carrying little or no weight, even though there was no five-year housing supply in both cases.

I have been told by local residents that what really offended people in Brereton was the fact that

“at the public examination of the Brereton Neighbourhood Plan in November 2015 at Sandbach Town Hall, the Examiner insisted our Plan and its policies were sufficiently robust to counteract mass housing development and protect the rural character of the Parish. He asserted publicly that Brereton, as a rural Parish, did not have a responsibility to provide mass housing towards the wider strategic housing target—yet, the Appeal Inspectorate essentially has argued the complete opposite. Why are Government representatives involved in planning matters holding completely opposing and inconsistent views?”

Another resident in yet another parish who has worked for almost two years with neighbours to develop a neighbourhood plan area designation has now resigned from the steering group, in what the constituent calls “total disillusionment”, saying:

“I do not understand how this decision is either fair or reasonable…I conclude that the Neighbourhood Planning Process is a Government-sponsored confidence trick”.

Those are strong words, but they express how many of my constituents feel. Another said that

“there seems little point in producing a neighbourhood plan if it is considered irrelevant.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I am grateful for catching your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker. So troublesome am I that three Whips, including one who is sitting next to me, have encouraged me to be brief, so I will do just that.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

It is in your hands.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

It is in my hands. The Whips will see whether their spell has worked.

I start by welcoming my hon. Friend the Planning Minister. He has been incredibly generous in listening to Back-Bench concerns about planning. Having practised in it as a chartered surveyor, I know that it is an incredibly difficult area. The Bill is important, because neighbourhood plans were introduced by the Localism Act 2011—the clue is in the name—and if we can devolve planning down as far as possible, many people will feel that they have ownership of the planning system and be much happier about what is being done to them. In contrast to some Members who have spoken in this debate, I warmly welcome such plans, and the Bill is a good step forward. New clauses 7 and 8 and amendments 19 and 28, which are in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), all represent improvements to the Bill.

We must ensure that neighbourhood plans work, and we need three things to do that. I represent two local authorities, Stroud District Council, which has a local district plan, and Cotswold District Council, which does not, and I have been pretty strong in my words about the latter. The net result in the Cotswold District Council area is that we do not have a single neighbourhood plan in operation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

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

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 10—Funding for local authority planning functions—

“(1) The Secretary of State must consult local planning authorities prior to the commencement of any new statutory duties to ensure that they are—

(a) adequately resourced; and

(b) adequately funded

so that they are able to undertake the additional work.

(2) In any instance where that is not the case, an independent review of additional cost must be conducted to set out the level of resource required to allow planning authorities to fulfil any new statutory duties.”

This new clause would ensure that the costs of new planning duties are calculated and adequately funded.

New clause 11—Planning obligations—

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

(2) In subsection (1) of section 106 (planning obligations) after paragraph (d) insert—

“(e) requiring that information submitted as part of, and in support of, a viability assessment be made available to the public.””

This new clause would ensure that viability assessments are public documents with no commercial confidentiality restrictions, except in cases where disclosure would not be in the public interest.

Amendment 14, page 11, line 1, leave out clause 12.

This amendment would remove from the Bill completely the changes to planning conditions.

Amendment 11, in clause 12, page 11, line 18, leave out subsection (2)(a).

This amendment would ensure that “acceptable in planning terms” does not mean that conditions can be overlooked because they are unacceptable for other reasons.

Amendment 12, page 11, line 27, leave out subsections (4) to (7).

This amendment would ensure that local authorities are still able to make necessary pre-commencement conditions on developers.

Amendment 13, page 11, line 34, at end insert—

“(6A) The Secretary of State should provide guidance for appeal routes where an agreement cannot be reached on pre-commencement conditions, along guidance on pre-completion and pre-occupation conditions.”

This amendment ensures that there is clarity on appeal routes, pre-completion and pre-occupation conditions.

Amendment 15, in clause 13, page 12, line 32, at end insert—

“(e) information on the number of permitted demolition of offices for residential use to a similar scale including—

(i) the impact on a local plan;

(ii) an estimate as to how many homes the development will deliver; and

(iii) a consultation with the local authority regarding the effect of the change of use on any urban regeneration plans.”

This amendment would ensure monitoring of the impact of permitted right of demolition on offices on urban regeneration that requires office space and on the provision of housing.

Government amendment 20.

Amendment 16, page 13, line 21, at end insert—

“(9) The cost of compiling a register and gathering the information to underpin it should be met by the Secretary of State.”

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I will speak to new clause 9, tabled by the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland), because I have added my name to it. It would require the demolition or change of use of pubs to be subject to planning permission. That seems very sensible. It is something that I feel very strongly about. As a shadow Minister, I was at the forefront of the fight against the changes to permitted development rights that the Government started to force through two years ago. I have spoken on pubs and permitted development many times. It is very important, as a pub can often be a real central point for a local community, and so it is right that local residents are given the chance to have their say over what happens to it.

Although pubs can be protected if they are designated an asset of community value, the process for that can be very cumbersome. I believe it is much more appropriate to return the decision on whether a pub can be demolished or converted to the local community, where it belongs, rather than dealing with it through permitted development.

I will move straight on to—