Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 20th April 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Berkeley]

240: After Clause 93, insert the following new Clause—
“Cycling, walking and rights of way plans: incorporation in development plans(1) A local planning authority must ensure that the development plan incorporates, so far as relevant to the use or development of land in the local planning authority’s area, the policies and proposals set out in— (a) any local cycling and walking infrastructure plan or plans prepared by a local transport authority;(b) any rights of way improvement plan.(2) In dealing with an application for planning permission or permission in principle the local planning authority shall also have regard to any policies or proposals contained within a local cycling and walking infrastructure plan or plans and any rights of way improvement plan which have not been included as part of the development plan, so far as is material to the application.(3) In this section—(a) “local planning authority” has the same meaning as in section 15LF of PCPA 2004;(b) “local transport authority” has the same meaning as in section 108 of the Transport Act 2000;(c) a “rights of way improvement plan” is a plan published by a local highway authority under section 60 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause would require development plans to incorporate policies and proposals for cycling and walking infrastructure plans and rights of way improvement plans. Local planning authorities would be required to have regard to any such policies and proposals where they have not been incorporated in a development plan.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to start this day in Committee by moving Amendment 240. I shall also speak to the other amendments in this grouping.

I am very grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who apologises for not being here today. This amendment has the support of the Bicycle Association, Bikeability Trust, British Cycling, Cycling UK, Living Streets, Ramblers and Sustrans. I think you can say that that support basically includes the Better Planning Coalition. Its purpose is to ensure that the various walking and cycling network plans and rights of way drawn up by county councils or combined authorities are incorporated into local planning authorities’ development plans and are reflected in their planning decisions. This would help to safeguard land for new walking and cycling routes or rights of way, including disused railway lines, improve existing routes, and ensure that developments connected with existing or new walking, wheeling or cycling networks with secure development contributions are introduced. This came to a head within the last six months, when National Highways was caught filling in disused railway bridges with concrete to prevent them from being used in the future as footpaths or cycleways, for example. I am grateful that there has been a pause put on that. I hope that it stays a pause, because it was a very stupid decision with no benefit whatever.

This amendment addresses the problems of local planning authorities that sometimes, wittingly or unwittingly, frustrate a higher tier authority’s aspirations for walking, cycling and rights of way by not recording these network aspirations in their development plans. That means that they are not safeguarding the land for these networks or to connect new developments with existing networks for secure developer contributions to implement or upgrade specific routes. There is much discussion going on about all these issues, but it is very important that this covers what is happening now and what might happen in future. The biggest problem is when we have two-tier authorities—county councils or combined authorities, and district councils. In one case, one part of a unitary authority commissioned Sustrans to assesses the feasibility of reopening a disused railway line as a walking and cycling route, while another part of the same authority gave permission for a housing development which blocked the route. There is no point in doing this; it wastes a lot of time and seriously affects the people who want to develop cycling or walking routes.

Local transport authorities have a duty to prepare a statutory local transport plan. They are also responsible for drawing up one or more non-statutory local cycling and walking infrastructure plans. That is all a bit of a mouthful, but really important. Usually it is the same body, but for each one it is required to draw up a statutory rights-of-way improvement plan for its area. We probably all have examples in our own areas of rights of way not being taken very seriously—and we will talk about that later—but all these things need co-ordination.

The Government have argued that our concerns about this lack of co-ordination would best be addressed through the NPPFs, rather than through legislation. My worry is that the current NPPFs, which are still in proposed revisions, mention these local cycling, walking and infrastructure plans only in passing, leaving out the right-of-way plans altogether. This results in developments being granted permission without taking into account the need for walking and cycling or improving these links. I call it active travel—it is a bit shorter. I am sure that the Minister will take this amendment seriously, and I hope that she gives me a nice positive response to it and says that perhaps we can have further discussions and see what happens.

My Amendment 470, on electric vehicle charging, is quite a short amendment. It requires a change to the Electricity Act, for the Government to facilitate or accelerate the rollout of electric vehicle charging points for domestic and commercial customers. We have discussed this in your Lordship’s House quite a few times. A few statistics really worry me, frankly. First, the Government have a target of 300,000 public charging points by 2030, and there is a long way to go before we get there. Interestingly, a Written Answer from the Minister on 29 March to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Warwick, stated that the number of installations were 8,600 public charging, 71,000 electric vehicle home charge schemes, and very few electric charge point sockets and grants, while workplace had 15,000.

Another telling Written Answer, to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, on 21 March, stated that

“the majority (around 75%) of electric car charging happens at home, as it is often cheaper and more convenient for drivers.”

I am sure that the Minister is right, but the problem is: how many people have home charging? I expect many noble Lords here have home charging, if they want it, but there are an awful lot of people in this country who park on the road and, if they want to charge their cars, they will have to get it off a lamppost.

Another Written Answer from the Minister said that there was no national data on how many lamppost chargers were available. If we do not know how many are available, we do not know who wants them, and we do not know where the public ones are, where do you charge your heavy goods vehicle or coach? Who will fund them? Most important of all, what about the regulation of chargers? There is a lot for the Government to do to meet their target of 300,000 charging points by 2030.

Finally, I support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, on the same subject. I am sure that she will tell us a great deal more of it. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, in this debate on transport, it is a pleasure to follow in the slipstream of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and add some footnotes to his speech on Amendment 240.

Before I turn to the amendment, I will say a word about the target of 300,000 EV chargers. Some chargers are fast chargers and some are slow chargers. At some point, we need to define more accurately the division of those 300,000. If they are all slow chargers, that will not do the trick. If they are fast chargers, we may not need quite so many. So a bit of granularity on that target at some point would be welcome.

Researching for this debate, I came across a government document stating that

“continuing growth in road transport and consequential environmental impacts present a major challenge to the objective of sustainable development. Traffic growth on the scale projected could threaten our ability to meet objectives for greenhouse gas emissions … and for the protection of landscapes and habitats”.

I should have recognised it instantly, as it was in a document that I published nearly 30 years ago when I was Planning Minister. It was PPG13, which offered advice to local authorities on integrating land-use planning and transport. Its object was to reduce reliance on the car by promoting alternative means of travel and improving the quality of life.

I note in passing that I referred to the then Government’s policy of increasing the real level of fuel duty by an average of at least 5% a year—a policy now very much in the rear-view mirror—and also my commitment to introducing electronic tolling on motorways. Back in 1993, I was clearly a little bit ahead of the game.

Amendment 240 could almost have been lifted from PPG13. It promoted development within urban areas at locations highly accessible by means other than the car, and it supported policies to improve choice for people to walk, cycle or catch public transport, rather than drive between homes and facilities that they need to visit regularly.

I also came across an article in the Independent from 10 July 1995, when I became Transport Secretary and continued my campaign. In an open letter to me, Christian Wolmar wrote:

“When your appointment as Transport Secretary was announced, the whoops of joy from cycling campaigners could be heard across the nation. The notion of having a Transport Secretary who is not only an active member of Friends of the Earth but also an active cyclist and tandem rider was beyond their wildest dreams”.


So, the Minister will not be surprised that, as middle age taps me on the shoulder, my commitment to environmental means of transport is undimmed.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, set out the case for the amendment, which I believe is even stronger than it was in the 1990s. I will not repeat it. I understand from the Government’s response to a similar amendment in another place that, instead of an amendment to primary legislation, the objectives to the amendment should be incorporated in a revised NPPF, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has just said. My response is that I tried that and it did not work. We need to be more assertive.

Paragraph 1.10 of PPG13 said:

“If land-use policies permit continued dispersal of development and a high reliance on the car, other policies to reduce the environmental impact of transport may be less effective or come at a higher cost”.


That is exactly what has been happening, as the Government’s own publication, Gear Change: A Bold Vision for Cycling and Walking, published in 2020, recognised. Despite the exhortation in that PPG and, I suspect, many other PPGs since, we have not seen the transformation in planning for transport that is required. We continue to build housing with little or no public transport provision, or where it is impractical to get to school, the shops or work without jumping into a car. We must up our game and cease relying on guidance.

The amendment also addresses the problem touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that has arisen in two-tier authorities, where, typically, the county council is the transport authority but the district council is the planning authority: if you do not have the commitment to walking or cycling networks recorded in the district plan, this can then frustrate the county’s ambition to promote cycling and walking networks—clearly an undesirable outcome.

The challenge to my noble friend, who I am delighted to see is replying to this debate, is to convince me that we should continue to rely on guidance, as I suspect my officials advised me to do in 1993, despite the evidence that it has not brought about the transformation that I aspire to. I wish her every success.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, I turn to Amendments 470 and 486, which look at the future of electric vehicles. I am very concerned that the charging infrastructure is already developing with inbuilt inequality. The noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Young, raised very important issues. I will not repeat the details and statistics given to us, but I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Young, that, as well as standard rate and fast chargers, there are also rapid chargers. He has pinpointed a key issue: the level of awareness among all of us about the difference in the provision from one area to another.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

Could the noble Baroness explain whether rapid or fast is the faster of the two?

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

Rapid is faster than far, but that would not be obvious to the average local public sector employee whose job it is to ensure that there is adequate infrastructure for EVs.

My Amendment 486 requires the Government to update us regularly on their strategy to improve the charging network. It particularly refers to the discrepancies across the country. The discussion often relates to the pure numbers of charge points, but just as important are two different factors. The first is the adequacy of the numbers available in public places. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has made that point. Currently, EV ownership is concentrated among more affluent people—those with drives and who can therefore have chargers attached to their homes. We cannot have an EV revolution that is only for the rich. People who live in terraced houses and in flats must also be able to own EVs. As the revolution plays out and a second-hand market develops for electric vehicles, this becomes an ever more pertinent point. The second factor is that the Government have emphasised time and again that they believe that the market will adequately take care of the provision of charge points, but the figures do not bear that out. London and the south-east have a far more generous ratio of electric vehicles to public charge points than any other part of the UK.

My conclusions are that particular problems need to be addressed. The first is the disparity in cost between home charging and public charge points. If you charge at home, you pay 5% VAT; if you charge in a public car park, a public place or from a lamppost, you pay 20% VAT. That reinforces the unfairness. I urge the Government to deal with the issue soon as otherwise it will hamper any of their best intentions on this issue.

The second conclusion is that the Government must work much harder to increase support and funding in areas that have large gaps in their electric vehicle infrastructure. They are often towns in poorer areas and, of course, almost every rural area. Local authorities have a key role in this but often need greater advice because officials do not know the difference between fast and rapid and so on. They need not just money but support and advice to help them, otherwise EVs will remain vehicles for rich areas and poorer areas will remain subject to suffering from poor air quality.

My final point on this is that the Government simply must address the delays in national grid connection. They are hampering the whole thing which is totally inadequate to service the revolution that needs to take place.

In relation to Amendment 48 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I live in Wales. This week, 20 miles per hour became the default speed limit throughout the country. I live in Cardiff, where it has been the default speed limit for some time, and we have all—more or less—got used to it. The traffic flows more smoothly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this excellent debate. Many of them are probably the usual suspects on these things, but it has been a useful debate, reinforcing many of the views that we have all held for a long time. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, mentioned PPG13; I remember it when I was in the commercial side, which is a very long time. Christian Wolmar is still chair of the Labour transport group and we are both patrons of the All-Party Group for Cycling and Walking. The group held an event in Portcullis House yesterday and Mr Wolmar was there promoting this. It is working very hard, which is good to know.

I will not respond to all the other comments on other amendments; it is not my place to do that. I just point out to the Minister, who mentioned the NPPF and the question in relation to my Amendment 240 on whether we should rely on the new NPPFs, that I said in my opening remarks that the current one mentions local cycling and walking infrastructure plans only very briefly and does not mention right of way improvement plans at all. We will need to look very carefully at what the Minister said in her helpful response and decide whether we bring back something different on Report.

I cannot resist one last comment on the speed limit issues. Once we all have electronic self-driving cars, it can all be changed anywhere at the click of a mouse—if we believe that will ever happen.

On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 240 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. My concern is to do with not the specific examples referred to, but that we seem to be in a situation where we are asked to confer an unconstrained power in relation to an undefined objective. The undefined objective is “national importance”, and I have not been able to find a definition of what that might be. I suppose you would say that I might ask from these Benches: is the national importance clearly distinguishable from the political aspirations of the Government of the day? Is it something different? I would want to know because I would not want to confer a power without having a very clear sense of purpose.

We turn to the matter of “urgency”—not emergency, I stress, but urgency. We need to understand what that amounts to. It may be irksome to Governments of the day—the more centralist and command economy-type the thinking, the more irksome it becomes—to go through hoops to do with projects that involve Crown land. But it is the price of democracy, and the price of the maintenance of the rule of law and the continuation of what might be regarded as the rules-based system. That demands a degree of consistent approach. Without having some definitions in the Bill, it is difficult to see how there could be any consistent approach here, as opposed to one based on whim.

Some of the examples that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, produced in her excellent introduction made it look like Government gaming the system, and that worries me very greatly because it is not just the Government that may be here today, but one tomorrow or in future years, and perhaps—who knows?—one that is more extreme of right or left; I say not which. I get back to the rules-based system. Are we in that environment or are we getting into the area where anything goes?

I mention the following because I do not want it to be used as the lever by the Minister when he comes to reply. Wrapped up in the middle of page 123 of the Bill, in new Section 293B(11), is the provision for matters of national security and public disclosure that would be

“contrary to the national interest”.

I get that, and I do not have any principled objection to it, subject to adequate definitions and safeguards. I want to know how “national importance” and “national interest” interface for a start.

Going over the page in the Bill, page 124 states, in new Section 293C(3), that:

“A development order may make provision as to the consultation”—


“may”, but does not have to. That cannot be an entirely optional extra at the whim of whichever Secretary of State happens to be in power at the time. Still on page 124, new subsection (8) states:

“The following provisions do not apply for the purposes of determining an application … sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act”.


Section 66(1) is in relation to the desirability of conserving and protecting listed buildings, and Section 72(1) is effectively the same but for conservation areas. But when the Bill says:

“The following provisions do not apply”,


they clearly do not apply to anybody, not even the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is, in other measures, asking the general citizenry to comply with precisely the same burdens that they decide, on a whim, that they are going to relieve themselves of. I am behind the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, because this is just not good enough.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend Lady Hayman, who performed an excellent destruction of this clause. Other noble Lords have said much the same thing. I have one question for the Minister, because this is all about the Crown, but I cannot see any definition in the clause of who “the Crown” is. There are other definitions in other parts of the Bill, which include the Duchy of Cornwall, which I shall come on to in the next amendment, the Duchy of Lancaster, and the Crown Estate. It makes me think that what we are really trying to do is to go back to a time when we had “the Crown” in the shape of Henry VIII, who could do more or less what he wanted. This seems a very good start to the Government’s plan to give Henry VIII, in the shape of whoever is in charge at the time, carte blanche to do what they want.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. Before we hear from my noble friend, I want to say that Section 293 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 defines what is Crown land and goes on to make it clear what is an appropriate authority for the purposes of what is being introduced in Section 293B, down to and including,

“in relation to Westminster Hall and the Chapel of St Mary Undercroft … the Lord Great Chamberlain and the Speakers of the House of Lords and the House of Commons acting jointly”

being the appropriate authority.

I want to ask my noble friend about something because I simply do not understand it. There is an existing Section 293A, which as it stands is called “Urgent Crown development: application”; it has almost the same name as new Section 293B. I completely understand that the existing legislation does not appear to include all the provisions relating to how the Secretary of State deals with such an application and how the Secretary of State might give permission, so it is probably defective. But then I do not understand why all this is being added in and Section 293A is not being repealed. Perhaps my noble friend can explain that to me.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Berkeley]

258: After Clause 101, insert the following new Clause—
“Application of TCPA 1990 to the Duchy of Cornwall(1) Section 293 of TCPA 1990 (application of Act to Crown land: preliminary definitions) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), in the definition of “Duchy interest” omit “or belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall”.(3) In subsection (2), omit paragraph (d).(4) In subsection (3B), omit paragraph (b).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to provided that for the purposes of planning law the Duchy of Cornwall is treated as any private sector entity.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

I rise to speak to Amendments 258 and 504GJI in my name. Both refer to issues to do with the Duchy of Cornwall. As the Minister will probably know, I live on the island of Bryher in Scilly, and I have been challenging the Duchy of Cornwall on many things for a number of years, including one or two Private Member’s Bills, which only got so far.

Things move on. We have a new Duke of Cornwall, and I welcome him, but if one looks at the website of the Duchy of Cornwall and at much of its publicity, it emphasises that it is in the private sector. My argument is that if you are in the private sector, you have to behave as any other company, estate or whatever that exists in the private sector. Sometimes that is maybe good for the tenants, sometimes it may not be. I will not get into all the other issues that may be affected by changes in the personnel there, but there are two issues that I want to cover tonight.

The first is in Amendment 258 on the application of the Town and Country Planning Act to the Duchy of Cornwall. In other words, why should the Duchy get special treatment for planning applications and everything when other similar organisations do not? That comes back to the question that we had just had now, which is who is the Crown? It is a difficult one. I do not think that the Minister answered my question on this in the previous group. I am sure that he will have a go at doing it again. There are the Crown Estates, which are doing very well in the offshore field, as well as everywhere else, bringing in lots of revenue, and the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall. All of them, apart from the Duchy of Cornwall, are effectively arms, shall we say, in the relationship between the Crown and the Government and in the financial arrangements and control that the Treasury has.

However, the Duchy of Cornwall is slightly different, so in addition to my suggestion that it should not have any special treatment when it comes to planning applications—which affect a lot of people on the Isles of Scilly, in Cornwall and probably in other places as well—there is leasehold reform, which we have been debating for about five years. I have a lot of friends who are leaseholders who want to buy their freehold from the Duchy. It affects many people on the islands and probably on the mainland as well. We have had some very interesting and useful documentation on this. The last major one was the Law Commission’s report on leasehold enfranchisement, which I thought was excellent. I sent in lots of evidence and a lot of other people did. It came up with a very good report in July 2021 recommending the right to buy for many people. I am not going to read out all its recommendations, but they were wide ranging and, I think, generally welcomed by leaseholders.

However, the Duchy argued that it should be exempt from any right to buy on the Isles of Scilly and the off-islands and on certain buildings on the mainland and elsewhere. Its reason was that the areas where these buildings were located were of such enormous importance to the environment and the quality of the life there that it should not be left to the local planning authority to decide whether a lease should be able to be converted into a freehold.

--- Later in debate ---

Given the extent of government action on leasehold reform set out elsewhere in policy and our intention to legislate in this area, and the detail I have already mentioned on the reasons not to change the definition of Crown land at this time, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw Amendment 258.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving us a very interesting history lesson, which I certainly knew about but maybe other noble Lords did not. As he said, this goes back to 1300 or thereabouts, when the Duchy started. Yes, it would cause trouble to make changes; however, there has to be a debate about the Duchy land. Is it in the private ownership of the Duke of Cornwall, or it is in what you might call state ownership, alongside the Crown Estates and the Duchy of Lancaster?

When the Law Commission report came out a couple of years ago, I wrote to the Duchy of Cornwall, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Crown Estates to ask whether they were going to implement the recommendations, in particular for their own land. I got really good answers from the Crown Estates and the Duchy of Lancaster. They said they would follow the recommendations, but in a slightly different way. The Duchy of Cornwall could not make up its mind. It is seen to be trying to be different, and I do not quite know why, because I love it dearly. It is something that probably ought to be looked at, but I will not go any further on that this evening.

There is a democratic deficit, and if the Minister is saying we are going to go ahead and try to complete the process, which I certainly welcome, how is the democratic input from the Duchy of Cornwall’s residents and others, such as stakeholders, going to be put in?

We have had a very interesting debate and I thank the Minister for his helpful answers, and on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 258 withdrawn.