Lord Beecham
Main Page: Lord Beecham (Labour - Life peer)Housing and Planning Bill
Lord Beecham Excerpts
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, as the noble Lord has just reminded us, we have at last come to the part of the Bill which deals with permission in principle or, as he has put it “PIP”. This is another form of PIP—following the personal independence payment—which is to be the subject of controversy. I am also reminded, of course, of the character of Mr Pip in Great Expectations which we do not really harbour in relation to this Bill.
What the Government are engaged in is legislation in principle. Members all around the House have complained frequently during Committee about the large number of issues on which the impact assessment was hopelessly inadequate. With even greater vehemence and relevance, they complained about the Bill’s reliance on secondary legislation, drafts of which remain unavailable. An embarrassed, overworked and—it is fair to say—much-admired Minister shares our concerns. However, given the Government’s determination to drive the Bill through as quickly as possible, there is little chance that we will have an opportunity to see—let alone have time properly to consider—how the legislation will work in practice.
On 17 February, two months after the Bill left the Commons, the department issued a 64-page document—the one referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves—containing a “Technical consultation on implementation of planning changes”. Had Michael Gove been Secretary of State, we would at least have seen the definite article before “implementation”. The consultation on this major change to planning policy and practice will end on 15 April. I assume that, on the Government’s rushed timetable, Report will conclude in the following week or, at the latest, the week after. There is therefore no chance that this House will have an opportunity to consider the responses to that consultation, let alone the Government’s reaction to it, before the Bill is enacted. Of course, all this is four or five months after the Bill left the Commons.
One of the Bill’s characteristics, particularly relevant to the clauses we are now discussing, is the increasing number of functions assigned to the Secretary of State. Thus, where an application is made to the local authority, under new Section 59A, the Secretary of State will have the power to set out in a development order the process that local authorities must follow. In relation to technical detailed consent, a development order may—and I emphasise that word—set out the process that must be followed.
The Explanatory Notes helpfully assert that the Government intend to consult on the process in due course. Perhaps the Minister could indicate when this might occur. They also identify a range of issues where the Secretary of State may—or I suppose may not—do a variety of things. New Section 59A provides that development orders will set out how long PIP is valid for and that it may contain transitional arrangements when PIP expires. It empowers the Secretary of State to issue statutory guidance.
Clause 137 sets out a string of powerful new actions which the Secretary of State may take. These include the possibility of requiring the register of brownfield land to be held in two parts—one for brownfield land suitable for housing; the other for a grant of PIP where the local planning authority considers it suitable. To be clear, this is a new form of planning permission, imposed centrally, which deliberately reduces the scope of democratically accountable local decision-making. The next step would presumably be for the function to be entirely in the hands of the Secretary of State or his appointees.
Regulations may provide that the local planning authority is permitted to include land which does not meet all the specified conditions and that the Secretary of State might exercise this power so that the local planning authority could register land suitable for four dwellings or fewer. New subsection (4) sets out what regulations may specify in relation to the register. It gives an example where the Secretary of State may specify that certain descriptions of land are not to be entered into the register. New subsection (4)(c) provides that the Secretary of State may allow for some discretion by the local planning authority—how generous—to exclude land from the register and that he might allow the local planning authority to exercise its discretion in exceptional circumstances. He may also specify by regulation what information should be included in the register or specify descriptions of lands by reference to national policies, advice and guidance. For example, regulations could refer to the definition of previous development land within the National Planning Policy Framework.
Given the plethora of possibilities, could the Minister advise us how many civil servants will be required—and for how long—to produce the detail envisaged by this Government of self-proclaimed localists, ensuring that Whitehall, and not town halls, becomes in effect the local planning authority? How many regulations are likely to emerge from this bureaucratic jungle? Yesterday we received a letter from her—for which we are grateful—enclosing the timetable for consultation, impact statements and the laying of regulations in respect of eight areas of the Bill. None will reach us before Report and there is as yet no timetable for PIP.
Last week, in reference to the Government’s approach, I referred to George Orwell. Today it is Lewis Carroll’s turn because, as ever with this Government, when it comes to legislation it is “Sentence first—verdict afterwards” and, I might add, evidence invisible. This is no way to deal with important legislation about the future of our communities, cities and counties. Members on all sides of the House have expressed concern about the way in which the Government have proceeded. One Conservative Peer, whose identity I will not reveal, approached me last week and said: “You have done well to preserve your sanity over this terrible, terrible housing Bill”. I will not seek to test the opinion of the House on the question of my sanity but the opinion of the Member in question—a thoroughly loyal Conservative Back-Bencher—tells its own story. The hubris exhibited by this Government is beginning to make Margaret Thatcher look like a legislative shrinking violet.
This is exemplified in the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report of 12 February, to which the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred. It is highly critical of Parts 6 to 9 of the Bill and declares that the memorandum,
“seeks to justify a delegation of wide powers … without properly explaining why this is considered appropriate”.
The committee found that,
“references to powers being ‘technical’ or even ‘quasi-technical’”,
were not accurate. It drew attention to the wonderful phrase that one delegated power was the result of,
“a ‘likely shifting matrix of considerations’!”.
Perhaps the Minister could clarify the meaning of these words, but the House will forgive her if she is unable to do so.
In relation to PIP, the committee drew attention to new Section 59A of the 1990 Act, to which I have referred, which would of course be created by this Bill. It points out that the Secretary of State’s power, either for himself or for a local authority, to grant PIP—either by a “qualifying document” or via a “prescribed description”, respectively—would be by negative procedure. This is coupled with an assurance by the Government that a document will be prescribed only if it is made by a public body after going through a robust process—whatever that might mean.
The committee points out that the Secretary of State’s legislation would not bind future Governments, and that new Section 59A should be amended to specify the consultation and other processes involved, and not be left therefore to secondary legislation. The committee notes the Government’s intention to apply PIP to housing-led development, albeit with the possibility of being extended to other developments. On this, the committee points out that the procedure is new and untested, and that no reason has been proffered for a possible extension to non-housing development. Hence its conclusion that the delegation of power under new Section 59A is inappropriate to the extent that it would allow PIP for developments which are not housing-led. All this reinforces the concerns and misgivings widely shared across your Lordships’ House and elsewhere about the excessive reliance on secondary legislation, in respect of which the contents are shrouded in mystery from which the cloak may not be lifted before we reach Report, let alone Third Reading.
Before I turn to the amendments in this, the first of eight or nine groups, it would be sensible if I outlined the Opposition’s view on the overall policy. We clearly support efforts to promote the building of more new homes, for which there is an evident massive need. We are also at one with the Government in wishing to see brownfield sites reclaimed for housing, but also for ancillary and perhaps alternative uses. However, we have major concerns about what will be built in terms of design, space, energy efficiency and affordability. We want to see a range of tenures and, where sites are substantial, we want to see them as not just sites for property development but for the building of communities.
We are conscious of the huge numbers of extant planning permissions to which the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred, some of which have been on the shelf for years, while—as my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours has pointed out more than once—land and property prices have soared, producing potential capital gains which, of course, thanks to the Budget, will now extract minimal taxation.
A good deal of concern has been expressed by a wide range of commentators, some of them expressing fears that we may be adopting by default the kind of zoning policy which has led to significant problems in urban America. The Royal Town Planning Institute stresses the need for local communities to have a say through their planning committees in what happens to their area, and that there should be flexibility to exempt certain types of development from PIP while the whole process, including the second stage of technical details consent, should be developed in consultation with planning authorities.
The National Housing Federation welcomes PIP, but cautions that councils should define density, housing and tenure mix in this new “zonal planning system” which could affect,
“people’s democratic rights; and the way we secure high-quality outcomes for people”.
The process will require planning authorities to prepare a register of brownfield sites which, when included in a development order, will grant PIP for the type, amount and location of development. Other sites may be identified in local and neighbourhood plans and “other documents”. Can the Minister tell us what sort of “other documents”, and whether or not, in this category, development will be limited to housing?
Thirdly, and more worryingly, applicants may seek PIP in a process which will restrict the local planning authority’s function to approve or refuse and provide no opportunity for conditions to be imposed. Critically, applications could not be turned down on technical details even if there has been a change in circumstances such as those reflected in Amendment 95, to which we will come in a later group, where, for example, archaeological finds may be discovered. In my own ward, a small housing development is going ahead under the existing procedure after archaeological investigations of the site, which formed part of a civilian vicus near a major fort on the Roman wall. Under the new provisions, had there been any such discovery after PIP had been granted, nothing could be done. Similar concerns could arise about environmental or ecological issues, which the divorce between allocation and detailed permission may exacerbate.
The Town and Country Planning Association points out that the department says that local planning authorities will have a choice of what kind of land will be subject to PIP. However, it is not clear from the addition to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 of new Section 59A(2)(c)—inserted in Clause 136—whether that new section’s reference to an indication that the land is “allocated for development” means that the LPA could, apparently, pick and choose which sites to include. The TCPA points out that this, like so much else, is subject to statutory guidance, and calls for a clear statement from the Secretary of State. Perhaps the Minister could procure this before Report.
London Councils stresses that local authorities should have sufficient flexibility to exempt certain types of development, or certain types of land or areas, from PIP, and that the second stage of technical details consent should be properly thorough and not, in its words, just a,
“truncated prior notification type procedure”.
Can the Minister offer any assurances in that respect? Can she say whether, in relation to housing sites, there will be a limit to the number of houses to be built under PPI? Sorry, I meant to say PIP. I am getting my consonants mixed up. The Government are getting their policies mixed up. A report in Planning Resource in October suggested that PIP would apply to housing schemes of around 500. Is there any indication of the kind of numbers that the Government are expecting to be included in such schemes? Above all, will she dispel the concerns expressed by Hugh Ellis—the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred to him—the policy director of the TCPA, that PIP as prescribed in the Bill,
“could apply to all forms of development”,
even for fracking as part of a minerals plan, and whether it is the Government’s intention to adopt US-style zonal plans? Interestingly, in last week’s Budget the Chancellor referred specifically to zonal planning. But perhaps this, like certain other proposals in the Budget, will now be subject to review and, we hope, with a similar outcome. We broadly support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lords Greaves, which list some 19 types of land to be excluded from the process.
Amendment 90 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Kennedy—whose return I very much look forward to—approaches the issue from a different standpoint, restricting PIP to brownfield sites, where it seemed the concept was originally to apply. We support many of the amendments to be moved by other Members in relation to PIP in the groups of amendments which follow, which seek to allow the tailoring of what resembles a one-size-suits-all pre-emptive policy to local needs and aspirations, not only for increasing housing supply but for building well-designed, mixed communities.
Having spoken at some length, I promise your Lordships’ House that I will be brief hereafter as we go into the Bill, and not merely in stature.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Perhaps I may reaffirm that if a local authority considers that a site is suitable for housing-led development in line with local and national policy, it will be able to use the permission in principle to help to ensure that the site gets delivered. The NPPF already provides strong protections for the type of sites listed in these amendments, including the green belt, the historic and the natural environment. At its heart, the framework is clear that local authorities should plan positively to meet each of the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development. For example, paragraph 157 sets out that plans should identify land where development would be inappropriate and contain a clear strategy for enhancing the natural built and historic environment. Permission in principle does not change any of these existing protections. Local and national policy has always driven how local decisions are made, and the addition of a new route to obtaining planning permission does not change that. I suggest that setting out centrally what type of land may or may not be granted permission in principle would set an unwelcome precedent.
Noble Lords have tabled a number of amendments to Clause 136 that seek to restrict permission in principle to be granted for housing development only. Amendment 90, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is part of the group. Although I understand the desire to add more detail to the legislation at this stage, there are important reasons why it would be unwise to restrict the granting of permission in principle to housing development in the Bill. First, and most importantly, if we restrict permission in principle to housing only, we lose the crucial ability to facilitate mixed-use development. We are currently consulting on an approach that would enable permission in principle to be granted for housing-led development to allow for the possibility of mixed uses that are compatible with a residential environment. This means that as long as a site allocation is housing-led, local authorities will be able to grant permission in principle in line with local and national policy for other uses.
Lord Beecham
I will not ask the Minister to do so now, but will there be a definition in guidance about what housing-led actually means in terms of proportions of sites and so on?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Yes, my Lords. I can give an example of what that might include. It may be a retail community and office space. This approach is absolutely crucial to continuing to promote sustainable development and the delivery of balanced, mixed communities, spaces and places in line with the principles set out in the NPPF. We are currently consulting on this approach and we would welcome views about what would constitute a suitable proportion of housing and the compatible uses, in line with the noble Lord’s pre-emptive question. This will allow us to set out a sensible definition of housing-led development in secondary legislation.
Amendment 90 would also restrict the granting of permission in principle to brownfield sites only. I want to remind the Committee that the Bill will enable permission in principle to be granted to sites identified on the new brownfield register specifically to help to ensure that development takes place on these priority sites. We also intend to enable permission in principle to be granted on sites chosen and allocated by local authorities, parishes and neighbourhood forums within their local and neighbourhood plans. Restricting the granting of permission in principle to only brownfield sites in this context would greatly reduce the effectiveness of this measure and the freedom for local agreement on where development should take place as part of the plan-led approach.
Finally, my noble friend Lord Lansley asked whether new plans could automatically be considered for PIP. Once the secondary legislation is in place, our newly adopted plan could grant permission in principle. The choice about whether it should be granted will be a local one. I hope that, with those words, the noble Lord will feel happy to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I submitted some of the amendments in this group before I got further information by reading the technical consultation and implementation, which I will come to. I shall speak also to the other amendments in my name in this group. These amendments are mainly about timescales and time limitations, which is why they have been grouped. There is a very helpful Labour amendment in the middle of the group.
Amendments 90A, 95C and two others refer to the prescribed period. Amendment 90A is a probing amendment to find the Government’s idea of what the prescribed period should be for after permission in principle is given on a piece of land but before technical details have to be given, otherwise the permission in principle may lapse. I have suggested three years, which is the present position for outline planning permission and reserved matters. Since I tabled the amendment, I have been able to see the technical consultation which talks about a different timescale, and I hope noble Lords will let me raise this as it is important.
The maximum determination period for permission in principle on application and technical details consent is how long the local authority has to process and determine applications. At the moment, it is essentially eight weeks for ordinary applications and 13 weeks for major applications. The proposed determination periods that are being consulted on are five weeks for permission in principle for minor applications, five weeks for technical details consent for minor sites and 10 weeks for technical details consent for major sites. There is considerable concern about these proposals and these timescales. I apologise to the Minister, who will not have answers on these specific things, but I want to put them on the record.
I have a comment from my planning manager in Pendle. He says:
“If there is to be meaningful consultation the timescales involved are unworkable and will lead to many applications being rejected. A significant number of applications need amending or further clarifying information needs to be prepared. This requirement often comes from the comments of consultees who normally take the full 21 days to respond”.
Consultees are Highways England, the Environment Agency, the Coal Authority and the rest of them.
“The processing of an application and registration takes two days and letters sent out to consultees. They will get the letters in the first week. There are then three weeks for consultation. That leaves 1 week to deal with all the issues that are brought up. If there are outstanding matters”—
and my experience is that there usually are—
“which there will inevitably be, LPAs will refuse consent rather than allow something that is potentially unacceptable.
Timescales need to be more realistic or the process will fall down with impossible to achieve timescales”.
The Minister said that our comments will be fed into the consultation, so I hope those comments will be fed in.
Amendment 93A states that PIP cannot be retrospective, and I think the Government agree that that is the case, so perhaps I will not pursue it. Amendment 92N probes the circumstances in which the Secretary of State can grant PIP instead of the LPA. Amendment 93A also states:
“The procedure to be followed for the readoption or revision of a qualifying document in a way that affects the granting of permission in principle to any land is the same as that which applies to the original adoption of the document”.
The purpose of that provision is to probe whether, after the document has been adopted with all the public consultation and processes which it appears are being promised, it could then be changed in some way on the sly without all that process taking place again.
Amendment 93B is about whether permission in principle will cease to have effect on land. If planning permission is given for a different use, does the housing PIP then lapse or does it stand alongside a new permission for, say, a supermarket? If land is allocated for a different use or has the allocation for housing removed in the local development plan, does the planning in principle lapse if the local development plan is changed? If land is removed from the list of land suitable for housing development or the register of brownfield land, does that mean that the planning in principle is also removed at the same time?
Amendment 93C is about how applications for planning permission will work on land which already has planning in principle for housing. If it has permission in principle for housing, and somebody puts in a planning application for a supermarket, a garage site or whatever, will that simply operate on the same lines as it would if that permission in principle did not exist? If the permission in principle for the supermarket, the garage site or whatever is then granted, does the planning in principle for housing lapse or does it continue to exist alongside? I beg to move.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I rise with, I promise, uncharacteristic brevity to speak to Amendments 93 and 96, which are tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Kennedy. These amendments relate to time. Amendment 93 relates to new Section 59A(4), which states:
“Permission in principle … takes effect when the qualifying document is adopted”,
and, critically, goes on to say in new paragraph (b) that it,
“is not brought to an end by the qualifying document ceasing to have effect or being revised, unless the order provides otherwise”,
which strikes me as somewhat peculiar provision. My amendment would ensure that the provision in principle expired when the plan was no longer relevant or had been replaced. It limits the time to circumstances when it remains relevant or has not been replaced.
Amendment 96 again relates to the time factor, because the somewhat convoluted proposed new subsection (2ZZC) says:
“Subsection (2ZZA) does not apply where … the permission in principle has been in force for longer than a prescribed period”.
That is what the Bill currently says. The amendment seeks to put a limit on that period of five years, so there would have to be development within a five-year period. That seems perfectly reasonable given what we already know about the vast number of outstanding permissions which are not acted on, and which therefore of course do not contribute to meeting housing or indeed any other needs.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the effect of all four Amendments 90A, 95C, 96ZB and 96 would be to put a timeframe in the Bill to allow local authorities to reopen the principle of development when determining an application for technical details consent after a permission in principle has been in place for three years.
Proposed new Section 70(2ZZC), as introduced by the Government, will give local authorities the ability to re-examine the principle of development when a permission in principle has been in place for longer than a set period and where there has been a material change in circumstance. I assure noble Lords that we intend to set out a suitable period for when the principle of development could be reconsidered in secondary legislation. We are currently consulting on the duration of a permission in principle granted either on allocation in a plan or on application to a local authority. To set the duration of permission in principle in secondary legislation rather than in the Bill is a prudent approach, because it gives us a better opportunity to ensure that this model works as intended and for the Secretary of State to keep it under review and respond as appropriate.
Amendment 92J would have the effect of removing the ability to prescribe the type of development that can be granted permission in principle in secondary legislation and—taken with some of the other amendments tabled by the noble Lord to this clause—would limit permission in principle to housing development only. Once again, I understand the desire to place detail in the Bill. However, as I have already set out, there are important reasons why permission in principle should not be restricted in this way. The power that Amendment 92N seeks to remove is there simply to ensure that permission in principle is consistent with the existing system. This is important as it minimises complexity, and for this reason, I ask the noble Lord to consider not moving this amendment.
On Amendment 93, I will briefly explain to noble Lords our intentions behind proposed new subsection (4)(b) in Clause 136 on the duration of permission in principle. We have no intention of allowing permission in principle to exist in perpetuity. We are intent on setting out a sensible duration and are currently consulting on the option of setting that limit at five years. Proposed new subsection (4)(b) would give us important flexibility to ensure that, in appropriate circumstances, where a plan or a register is more regularly revised or updated, it does not automatically mean that permission in principle comes to an end.
Lord Beecham
Did I hear the Minister correctly? She indicates that she is thinking of a five-year period, but how would that be provided for? It does not seem to be in the Bill—will it be a matter for regulation, and whence would that authority derive?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord is right; as I just said, we are currently consulting on setting the limit at five years. Does that answer the noble Lord’s question or am I answering a totally different one?
Lord Beecham
Does the Minister mean that she is thinking about a government amendment to this clause on Report, or will that be determined by regulation?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I am saying that we have no intention of setting it out in perpetuity; we are consulting on what the length of time would be and on the option of setting the limit at five years, which would indeed be set out in secondary legislation.
“(4) Criteria for permission in principle and technical details consent shall be subject to consultation with local authorities.”
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I understand that it could be modified in an extreme circumstance such as that. This is a rare circumstance, but I understand that that is the case.
On the revoking of a PIP granted by a local plan or brownfield allocation, the noble Baroness makes a good point. The Bill does not currently make provision for this, as she has told me again and again. Can I take that away and thank her for her points? She also asked me to confirm absolutely that only local authorities can be responsible for the granting of permission in principle. Yes, that is the case.
Lord Beecham
The Minister has just made a concession and agreed to my noble friend’s point, but she talks in terms of revocation. Is it not necessary also to provide for variation?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Baroness has raised something that I have said I will take away. I will also take away the noble Lord’s point because it is not particularly provided for in the Bill. Will the noble Lord and the noble Baroness let me take that away and reflect on it?
On Amendment 96ZA, an important starting point is that permission in principle will be granted where a proposal accords with the development plan for the area, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework, as I have said, alongside other material considerations. When choosing appropriate sites that may be deemed suitable for a grant of permission in principle through a local plan, local authorities will be able to draw on a wealth of information to determine whether that site is suitable. That includes information gathered to support their local plan, a strategic housing land availability assessment, local knowledge of areas of constraint, engagement with communities and statutory bodies, and other information. That will all be underpinned by consideration against local and national policy.
It is possible that on the basis of that assessment a local authority could conclude that granting permission in principle would not be appropriate, either because the site is unsuitable—which goes to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves—or, in exceptional cases, that the fine detail of the scheme needs to be worked up before a decision can even be reached on the principle of development. I hope that what I have set out is a sensible basis for deciding whether to grant permission in principle. I remind noble Lords that it must be followed by a grant of technical details consent before development may commence.
I turn to Amendments 96ZC, 96ZD, 96ZE, and 96ZF, which provide by condition for the assessment of flood risk, highways and access, contaminated land, and securing of appropriate infrastructure through either Section 106 contributions or the community infrastructure levy. I hope that I have put the noble Lord’s mind at ease over the course of my remarks as I have described in more detail how permission in principle will operate—specifically that it will still include consideration of these important matters through an assessment against local and national planning policy.
Specifically on conditions, I hope that my comments on Amendment 94ZC set out the Government’s thinking on the timing for the use of conditions. Permission in principle is to provide simple certainty on the basic acceptability of a site early on in the process. As it does not on its own authorise development, conditions at this point would unnecessarily complicate matters, although we would expect local authorities to make clear, when they give permission in principle, the matters that they would expect to see covered in an application for technical details. On the community infrastructure levy, I confirm that, where it is in place, it would become payable once technical details consent has been granted, as is the case when full planning permission is given.
Finally, Schedule 12 is a list of consequential amendments that we have made to the Town and Country Planning Act and other planning legislation. This accompanies Clause 136 and is important for ensuring that permission in principle, as a new route to obtaining planning permission, operates effectively alongside the existing system. I will therefore press that Schedule 12 stands part of the Bill.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for his comments on these amendments, and to the noble Baroness. I hope I will be able to assure your Lordships that the Mayor of London will continue to play an important role without the need for these amendments.
New Section 59A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, inserted by Clause 136, makes it possible for permission in principle to be granted on sites allocated within local development plans, neighbourhood plans and the new brownfield register, and the choice of when to do this will be a local one. Let me be absolutely clear that the Secretary of State will have no direct role in choosing specific sites to grant permission in principle to. In the same way that the Secretary of State maintains oversight of the existing development order-making powers under Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to ensure consistency of how the planning system functions across England, he must maintain oversight of how the permission-in-principle system will work.
Amendment 92B would effectively set up different planning systems between London and the rest of the country by giving the Mayor of London the ability to change the process for permission in principle. We believe that introducing inconsistency into the system would be undesirable.
I reassure noble Lords that there are a number of ways in which the Mayor of London will be able to play an active role in influencing the granting of permission in principle in London. The London Plan will be able to set policies that will influence which sites are suitable for a grant of permission in principle. The mayor will also be a key statutory consultee during the plan preparation of any borough in London. Furthermore, where a mayoral development corporation is in place, the plan for that corporation can allocate specific sites that could be granted permission in principle. Mayoral development orders can also now be used to grant planning permission for site-specific development in London.
The noble Lord also asked whether the mayor would be able to call in applications for technical details consent. The answer is yes: the mayor can call in applications, including the new technical details consent, when the planning application is of potential strategic importance. He can also do this for an application for permission in principle. I will see if there is any further information that I can provide the noble Lord with in writing, but I hope that on the basis of what I have said he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Beecham
For the avoidance of doubt, will the Minister confirm that the Government do not intend to extend any of these mayoral powers to the mayors of combined authorities under the devolution deal?
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I will speak just a few words on Amendment 98A. It is quite odd that in this debate no one has referred to the biggest driver of ugly housing and design in the United Kingdom. It is not bad architects, problems in planning law or disinterested local authorities but the price of land. In many areas that is what determines what houses look like and how they are placed on these sites. The noble Duke referred to mass-market box housing that is crammed in. That is what you get when you have high-priced land. All these debates that are taking place take me back to my amendment—it seems as if I moved it six months ago—on the price of land and the need to build on the green belt as the population expands.
In America, people can buy a house for a fraction of what they pay in the United Kingdom. The reason is very simple: land is cheaper. They do not need fancy architects or planners to tell them to do it. People want better-designed houses because they can afford them. The driver here is the price of land, which is driving millions of people out of the housing market. The best way to deal with this problem is to find a way of securing land at sensible prices, and these problems will evaporate.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I hesitate to disagree with my noble friend because I entirely agree with him that the price of land is a significant issue, and it has risen to an unconscionable extent in recent years. However, I do not think that is a good enough reason to acquit the industry of poor design and poor building. Good design and well-built properties are not incompatible with a reasonable price, even allowing for the undoubted problems of land prices. I am afraid that volume builders over the years, when prices were not as high, have not produced good-quality properties, paid little attention to issues such as energy conservation—never mind the aesthetics. My noble friend is being overindulgent towards the industry while making a very valid point about land prices.
I hope the Minister will think about the land price issue. My noble friend Lord McKenzie muttered the words “Develop land tax” to me as I rose, and that is not a bad idea, to be reverted to. That apart, I hope she will stress the need for good design as part of the Government’s approach to housing and part of their interest when looking at the technical side of permitted development. I would not like to see carte blanche given to the kind of builders who put up pretty depressing properties, as the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, referred to before. We should not give them any excuse. They should be made, in the context of the new system, to provide aesthetic quality and energy-efficient quality, among other things, as part of the deal.
Lord True
My Lords, we are reserving remarks about the register until later, so I am puzzled about the register and the point of it and what we will actually do with it when we as a local authority have it, as I said earlier. I agree with what has been said about design, but I also hear what has been said about sustainability. The only thing I would say is that some of the ugliest properties that I have ever seen passed the highest sustainability tests—the wonderful eco-house that is completely jarring in its setting. There are tensions between design and sustainability. That of course leads me back to local rather than national determination. We have to tease out some of these things before putting them in the Bill.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, Amendment 98B is about the viability of brownfield sites and what happens to brownfield sites which local people and the local authority wish to see developed for housing but which are not viable. The amendment then goes on in a rather cheeky way to suggest that the Secretary of State should cough up some money to make them viable.
There are a lot of genuine brownfield sites in areas such as Lancashire and Yorkshire. They may still have structures on them, or they may have been removed. In some cases, they may have been remediated, or they may be perfectly good flattened sites ready for development. The problem is that nobody will develop them because there is no profit to be made from building houses on them. There is an old works in the ward I represent on the council in Colne. The outside walls of the mill are still there. We have been trying to get it developed for housing for 10 or 15 years now. We nearly got there before the credit crunch in 2008 and the collapse of house prices. We got the owner to apply for full planning permission, and he got permission for about 20 houses in three blocks. The area is surrounded by terraced houses. It was a nice little development. He was proposing to sell the site on to a local builder who was going to develop it. The local builder is not there any more. The council’s joint venture development company has done a viability assessment of the site and, even with a subsidy from the council, it is not viable. The total cost of developing it is around £130,000 per house, but the sale price for new terraced three-bedroom houses in that area is £100,000. It is simply not viable.
Another site in the same town was cleared under housing market renewal about 10 years ago, but the problem is that it is on quite a steep slope. It is remediated and perfectly ready to develop for perhaps a dozen houses. It is possibly just viable with some help from the council on the basis that the council owns the land and will put the land into the scheme for free. This is the kind of thing we are talking about. There must be dozens of brownfield sites in east Lancashire of this nature which simply cannot or will not be developed—although everybody wants to see them developed for housing. That is the obvious use for those sites and it would benefit the area, help to regenerate it and provide much-needed local housing for people. Nevertheless, because of the local housing market, they are not viable.
I have two questions apart from the question of what the Government or the Secretary of State will do about this to help us fill the gap. It is no good doing what they have been doing so far, saying that they will provide loans. You provide loans to get a scheme going, but if over a period of 30 years of selling the properties or renting them out in the short run the scheme does not add up, the loan is no use because you cannot repay it. It needs gap funding. The council itself has money to help with gap funding of sites like this, and we hope to move ahead with one very soon, but this is typical of a lot of places in the north of England—perhaps in smaller towns, away from the big cities—where brownfield sites like this are simply not viable.
First, therefore, the question is: do such sites go on the brownfield register—the big register, with all the sites on? Do they go on that register to get planning in principle, and what is the point of getting that when any scheme on them will get planning tomorrow? Therefore, what use is the brownfield register to these types of sites? Secondly, we keep reading that the Government have lots of money for brownfield sites: the Chancellor in his Budget announced £1.2 billion or £1.3 billion—I think it was the same £1.2 billion that had been announced some months previously, but that does not matter. This money keeps being announced, but whenever we look at it we find that it is for remediation schemes, and we do not need remediation money; we need pure, simple gap funding.
That is a plea from the heart, from the heart of the Pennines, because we want to develop these sites and we cannot, because they are not viable. Gap funding is needed, and we need some help from central government as well as from local funds. However, my questions were also about the brownfield register and how non-viable sites like that would fit in with the register and its purpose. I beg to move.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I am slightly puzzled by the tenor of the noble Lord’s argument. I quite understand his point that no profit can be made by building for sale on these sites. However, that raises the question of why he is looking only at building for sale. Why cannot a site like that be used for social housing? That seems to be the obvious answer in many ways. Of course it is slightly subverted by two things, which affect the potential for local authority or housing association housebuilding. One is the right to buy, which will ultimately accrue, and the second is of course the reduction in rents that will be charged by housing authorities, which will reduce their capacity to invest in either their current stock or in new building. To look at such sites as sites for social housing provision is a better way of dealing with them than to seek some sort of subsidy for private sale, which will ultimately result in people making a gain out of what would probably be better as social housing. Therefore the noble Lord might want to reconsider the whole nature of his approach.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, it is very simple. Housing associations are organisations which have to run commercially. They therefore judge the viability of their new-build schemes on the basis of contributions that they get from the Housing and Communities Agency, contributions they put into it themselves, the cost of managing and repairing the properties over 30 years and the rents they will get in during that period.
We are an area which has not only low house prices but low rents, so there is a limit to what we can charge. These sites have been looked at in great detail. Some of them have been developed by the council in co-operation with the main housing association, which is the Stock Transfer Housing Association. The sites I am talking about, however, are simply not viable for social housing, just as they are not viable for anything else. The numbers do not add up, whether you are building for rent, for sale or for partial schemes. In some sites they do. For example, the council has developed some sites in Briarfield, where a majority of the houses have been sold, and in order to make the scheme viable and for other good reasons, some of them have been sold to the housing association. We are working together wherever possible, but the fact is that building new houses on a lot of the brownfield sites in a lot of these places, and certainly in Lancashire and neighbouring parts of Yorkshire, simply is not viable. Therefore, there has to be gap funding and some sort of subsidy—not a huge one, but it has to be there to make it possible.
Lord Beecham
I can see the argument for housing association provision, but I would not have thought it would run to the same extent, or at all, for the local authority itself doing the building because it would have a housing stock and a housing revenue account. It certainly has to balance that housing revenue account, but those costs can be spread, I would have thought, in a way that a housing association might find difficult. I still think there is a difficulty.
Lord Greaves
Some local authorities were sensible enough, or foolish enough, according to your view—I was against what we did in our local authority, but we did it—to get rid of all their council housing. In our case, it was as a result of a quite disgraceful bribe from the previous Labour Government which people felt they simply could not turn down. It really was shocking, the amount of money that was thrown into it—not shocking for the tenants and the houses, because a lot of money went into those houses as a result of the stock transfer, and the local authority had all its debt written off as a result. The whole thing was a public scandal, but very good for the housing estates in Pendle. However, we do not have a housing revenue account, so we cannot do it. What we do is build properties through our development company, a half-owned council development company, highly successful, but, again, it has to be done. We do it on the basis of a 5% or 8% mark-up, profit, compared to the commercial people, who want 15% or even 20% on such sites.
Lord Beecham
I stand corrected on the experience of Pendle, but that is not necessarily typical, one hopes. I look to the Minister to take the point that I made in respect of other authorities, which are perhaps not in quite the vulnerable position that Pendle appears to be. That means, again, looking at local authorities building houses, whether on brownfield sites or elsewhere. There is no incentive in the Bill for that to happen, so I ask the Minister to consider, again, the role of local authorities in providing housing, not just on brownfield sites but more generally.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for his amendment. I reassure him that the Government are fully committed to unlocking new homes on brownfield land, which is why we are creating the £2 billion Home Building Fund to provide the investment in infrastructure and land remediation needed to support major housing developments. The fund will provide long-term loan funding to help unlock or accelerate a pipeline of 160,000 to 200,000 homes. It will support our key manifesto commitment to create a brownfield regeneration fund and to fund housing zones to transform brownfield sites into new housing. The new fund will be available to builders and housing developers across England.
I emphasise that the criteria on which we are consulting to assess the suitability of sites for brownfield registers will include a consideration of site viability. We would expect a site that was not viable to be unlikely to go on the register. I reassure the noble Lord that viability is central to our proposals and ask him to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord True, on his amendment. He is absolutely right to deplore the Government’s imposition of this rule, effectively allowing the conversion of commercial properties in high streets to residential, without any consideration of local need or the property market and to the detriment of the high street. This is Mary Portas in reverse. As the noble Lord said, it is an extraordinary step for a Conservative Government to take.
On an earlier day in Committee, I raised the issue of property guardians and the possible exploitation of people being housed on a very temporary basis in buildings awaiting development. That is an undesirable state of affairs, but this provision is worse because here we are seeing not just buildings that have become empty over time but buildings that are deliberately being emptied of their current occupants, comprising businesses contributing to the local economy, to make profits for private developers, as the noble Lord rightly said, on which he was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. The system is thereby exclusively tilted in their favour without any regard whatever to local circumstances or the views of local people or local authorities. It is another example of the Government imposing their policies with complete disregard for the localism which they repeatedly proclaim is their watchword, and is totally indefensible.
The noble Lord’s amendments are quite lengthy but very much to the point and deal very effectively with the problem that he described. I hope that the Government will look again very carefully at what they are doing. Have they made any assessment of the impact of their policy? We have a very poor impact assessment for the Bill. What kind of impact assessment was undertaken when the Government made the decision to change the planning system in the way that they have in this respect? Where did they look for evidence of the impact? Did they consider the position in London, where there is huge pressure in any case on the housing market and huge pressure for the provision of residential accommodation? That should be met by properly thought through housing development and not at the expense of the local economy and local business. For example, have the Government consulted local chambers of commerce in London or anywhere else where these measures have been implemented? Can the Minister tell us what is happening up and down the country in terms of the number of conversions? We have heard very telling figures from two noble Lords in relation to their authorities. Do the Government have any idea what the national position is and what the impact has been not just in terms of the numbers of people but the viability of the local high street—and not just in terms of shopping, as the noble Lord said? He cited the case of a medical practice, and there will be other services as opposed to simple retail, important though that is, which will find life increasingly difficult.
It would be interesting to learn exactly what the Government know about the situation. Have they conducted any kind of review? Will they conduct any kind of review into what is happening on our high streets? Where does the process end? Is there any indication of even a balance of residential property with office and commercial and other uses of property in the high street? If not, the Government have failed lamentably to fulfil their responsibility to look at the picture in the round and, above all, to consult localities. There may be different approaches in some places. Some areas may be ready to accept conversions of this kind, but that is what a planning process is for. It is not a matter to be laid down arbitrarily by Whitehall.
I strongly support the noble Lord’s amendment. He may not call a Division on it today—I assume that he will not—but if we get to Report without any indication from the Government that they are prepared to change their position on this, I hope that he will test the opinion of the House. I can say with confidence that the Opposition will support him. The Government need to rethink the position they have created and the damaging effects they have caused, and to do so urgently.
Lord Kerslake
I support the amendment and, in doing so, declare my interests as chair of Peabody and president of the Local Government Association. It is worth going back to when this policy came in. It was in the context of an economy struggling to recover and the Government’s desire to stimulate development rapidly. It was particularly focused on the issue of office developments that had outlived their useful economic life and an unwillingness on the part of local authorities to contemplate change to an alternative use. That was the context in which the policy came forward. There was considerable debate about the issue, but the difficulty was that what worked in one part of the country may well not have worked in others. The safeguard introduced at the time was, essentially, to allow certain areas to be excluded from the application of the permitted development rights. In reality, only very few areas were excluded. The exclusions were very narrowly drawn to include areas, such as the City, that were very concerned about the issue.
We now know that, while the policy was well intentioned, the consequences have been perverse in some parts of the country, particularly in London and particularly in places of it that we have heard about, such as Richmond and Sutton. Having that information now, it is right that the Government revisit this issue and think again. For the price of a small addition of new housing, we are in danger of denuding significant areas of their economic capacity to grow and develop. The case is compelling: we should learn from how policies have worked in practice and be open to revisiting them.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I said I would meet them before Report. This part will not come to Report on day one, which is why I made that offer.
Lord Beecham
Perhaps the Minister will bear with me. She is offering to meet, which is desirable, but does that embrace the two amendments in the noble Lord’s name? Amendment 101A is about local determination and Amendment 101B is about compensation to businesses. Would both those things be on the agenda?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I think my noble friend’s principal concern is the effect on Richmond of the permitted development right, but if he wishes to discuss compensation, of course I will discuss it.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I am very happy to write to noble Lords on the back of a discussion.
Lord Beecham
I am sorry to press the Minister, but important though Richmond is, it is not the only place where this is happening. She may not be able to answer this question now, but I hope that the Government have details of what is happening up and down the country on this front. They have imposed this policy across the country; they ought to know what is happening. It would be helpful for those discussions to be a little broader, with all due respect to the noble Lord. The Minister may want to open this up to other Members of the House, because there will be people from different parts of the country whose own experience would be quite helpful. But I hope everything is on the table.
Lord Beecham
No, I am not going to sort it out—but I was going to suggest that one way in which to look at it would be to revoke the permission, so that that developer is no longer sitting on it. Does that not work?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I am sorry to contradict a lawyer, and I shall probably get slapped down for it, but the planning permission is usually granted for a site and not for a person. I think that that is the point that my noble friend made. So you would not revoke the permission, because the permission is on the site rather than for the person—or you could, but it would run contrary to anything that planning law has ever done, in my memory anyway. But I am sympathetic towards the intent behind the amendment, because it raises the issue of planning permissions given but the building not happening. That is a challenge within the context of the Government trying to deliver 1 million homes by 2020. However, a requirement fixing a timeframe for both commencing and completing the development is a highly dangerous approach. While I appreciate that this measure is aimed at encouraging the build-out of permissions, it would not be prudent to introduce such a measure without the full and proper assessment of the potential consequences. In particular, careful consideration would be needed of the impact on the viability and deliverability of schemes. It is important to acknowledge that putting a standard time limit on when development should be completed might be unrealistic, given that developments come in different shapes and sizes, as my noble friend Lord Porter, said, and each has its own specific set of issues.
A number of factors can delay both starts on site and completion of development, including market conditions, availability of finance, difficulty discharging conditions and the availability of infrastructure and utilities. Imposing a requirement without considering any legitimate reasons for delay would be a highly risky, unreasonable approach that is likely to introduce fear and a reluctance to enter the market in the first place. It may deter development coming forward, given the added constraints and risks. That is not to say that I do not sympathise when these situations arise because, as a former council leader, I know that it is deeply frustrating. We are trying to encourage the build-out of existing stock of planning permissions and taking it very seriously. The department has already announced a number of measures designed to address these various factors that cause delays on site. They include a £1 billion fund to support small and custom builders to deliver 26,000 new homes, and the £2 billion long-term fund to unlock housing development for up to 160,000 homes announced in the spending review.
I hope that I have been able to set out that, although I agree wholeheartedly with the need to encourage build-out, the amendment is probably not the best way in which to deal with it, as other noble Lords have pointed out.
The noble Lord asked about the presumption to approve if a site has previously had permission. A planning application will always be considered on its planning merits at the time of application, so I do not think that that applies. I hope that with those words I have reassured the noble Lord, and he will feel happy to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
I rise on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, who is no longer in his place because of the hour at which this amendment is being debated. Amendments 100ZAA and 100ZBB relate to a matter that has come up in previous discussions on this Bill. Clause 139 will allow the Secretary of State to designate a local planning authority for its poor performance in determining applications for categories of development described in the regulations, possibly including non-major development. If a local planning authority is designated, developers may then choose to make an application for development in the poorly performing authority area directly to the Secretary of State.
It is believed that in London the actual consideration should be made by the mayor rather than by the Secretary of State, because the Greater London Authority, as the Minister will know, has significant planning expertise, local knowledge and strong experience of PSI applications, making it a far better place to determine these applications than Whitehall. This change will probably take into account the mayor’s strategic planning role in the capital and the Government’s devolution agenda. So rather like a previous amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Tope, this amendment is saying that in developments of this nature the person best suited to decide would be the Mayor of London rather than the Secretary of State, which would fit in with the Government’s proposals for devolution and localism. I beg to move.
Lord Beecham
Perhaps the noble Lord could help me. The amendment as drafted refers to the substitution of the Secretary of State or the Mayor of London. I take it he means the Secretary of State elsewhere than in London and the mayor in London, but that is not what the amendment actually says. It seems to pose a choice, even in London, which I do not think is the intention.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
There is to be a choice at times. There may be times when it is appropriate for it to be the Secretary of State. This does not completely outlaw the Secretary of State from taking action in this case, but the appropriate person to deal with it in the first instance would be the mayor of the largest city in this country.
Lord Beecham
With respect, that is not what the amendment seems to say. The Minister and I are in rare agreement.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I think we might be. I will start with Clause 139, which amends Sections 62A and 62B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It allows the Secretary of State to set out in secondary legislation categories of applications that a local planning authority may be designated for, should their performance fall below the specified threshold. This will allow our existing approach to addressing any instances of underperformance, which currently applies only to major development, to be extended to include applications for non-major development. The existing designation approach has proved successful in speeding up decisions on major development since it was first announced in September 2012. By extending our approach to include non-major development, we are ensuring that all applicants can have confidence in the service to be provided.
We will keep under review the categories of applications on which performance will be assessed to ensure that they remain targeted at the most relevant aspects of the planning process. As the existing designation approach has proved, this measure has several benefits. It encourages improvement and gives applicants the choice of a better service in the very few cases of persistent underperformance. This approach has shown its effectiveness in tackling performance on major development, so it is only natural that we should now bring non-major development within its scope.
I now turn to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, regarding applicants for planning permission having the choice to apply directly to the Mayor of London instead of the Secretary of State where a London borough is designated as poorly performing. I agree that it is essential that the Mayor of London plays an important part in strategic decisions affecting the capital, which is why the mayor already has power to call in for his own decision applications of potential strategic importance—for example, where more than 150 dwellings are proposed.
I should highlight that if applications are submitted directly to the Secretary of State by applicants in areas that are designated as underperforming, Section 2A(1B) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 already provides for the Mayor of London to have the same call-in powers for applications that are of potential strategic importance. This ensures that the mayor can still take the final decision on applications of importance in London. I reassure noble Lords that we value the important role of the mayor in taking strategic decisions in London, and we are taking steps in this Bill to devolve more planning powers to the mayor. With that reassurance, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor
My Lords, I will speak briefly because we should all be in bed already, but I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake. In the planning review that I conducted back in 2008, I specifically recommended both that planning departments should be able to charge a fee that met the costs and that they should be able to offer improved services, provided that developers met those costs. This is not about getting a better outcome for the developer by paying more; it is about getting a proper, quick delivery of services, which is in the interests of the whole community and not just those bringing forward development proposals.
It is nonsense that we see many schemes held up fundamentally because the local authorities cannot afford to deliver an adequate service. Developers are entirely frustrated by that. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake. I have spoken to many developers across the country, as well as many councils. There is no unwillingness to pay for a proper quality of service.
The one caveat that I have on this is for individual householders who may be bringing forward small-scale applications. It is of fundamental importance that the fees should remain accessible for people bringing forward a proposal for an extension of their home or whatever. I do not believe that the costs will be excessive there anyway, but if there is an area where we should worry, it is that. For any scale of development, it is a nonsense that planning departments simply cannot afford to process the applications properly and rapidly. It is not in anyone’s interest.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, the amendment in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Kennedy and the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Foster, is very much consistent with the other amendments. However, I draw a comparison between what is being proposed here and what is happening in the legal world, where the Ministry of Justice is not just engaged in full cost recovery, but seeking in its court fees and other levies to recover more than the cost of the service. This does not go quite as far as the Government are prepared to in the justice field. For that it is all the better.
However, I wonder what the implications would be for this scheme if, as other parts of the Bill would perhaps lead to, we saw the outsourcing of the planning function, which would then potentially become a commercial activity. That might have certain difficulties when lined up with the amendment proposed here. Having said that, I certainly support the amendment and I hope that the Government will respond sympathetically to it.
Lord Foster of Bath
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, quite rightly said that all three of these amendments are related. However, there are differences. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord True, as I understand it, merely says that there will continue to be a nationally imposed fee framework, but in which full cost recovery will be possible, whereas the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, and the amendment that my name is attached to, suggest the devolution of responsibility for fee setting to local authorities. I hope that that is the direction that the Minister will be prepared to go in.
When I was the Member of Parliament for the wonderful city of Bath, my local authority had real problems because, as a world heritage city, it had extra things to deal with, such as archaeological issues, for the very large number of properties that it had to give various forms of planning consent to—as listed buildings and so on. Of course, that also cannot be reflected in the fee structure, so, like many other councils, it had a huge deficit between the fees that it could charge and the costs it incurred.
In 2012, when the Government were carrying out the previous review of the fee structure, it participated in an exercise in which there was a very detailed analysis of every minute and hour spent by staff employed and all the other costs. It showed very clearly that it was recovering no more than 50% of its costs. That is reflected by many councils; I am sure that many noble Lords have seen the figures from London Councils, which show that they are many tens of millions of pounds adrift each year.
The problem is that if we look at this just as giving councils the ability to charge more to cover their costs, I can see the Minister looking horrified, because she wants improvements in standards to go alongside it. The interesting thing is that there is a real opportunity to combine the two. Although I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, said about planning performance approaches adopted through the planning performance agreements, nevertheless they have demonstrated very clearly in the one area where local authorities can charge over and above the fee structure that they can develop some very innovative and ambitious approaches. If we give this additional power over fee-level decision-making to our local councils and local planning authorities, I believe that that will be combined with some very adventurous and innovative ways forward.
Finally, I have one simple question for the Minister. If she is not going at least to allow the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord True, with full cost recovery, I wonder how she envisages a later part of the Bill when she wants to give the opportunity for experimentation to private organisations coming into the planning operation. No commercial organisation I know is going to enter a deal where the starting base is only 50% back for any investment. It simply will not happen. I am sure that the Minister has an answer, which will be to accept the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord True or, better still, the other two amendments.