Leasehold: Property Management Companies

Lord Best Excerpts

Monday 19th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

Following previous Questions I looked at the example of Scotland, which we do seek to learn from, but the circumstances there are significantly different. At the time, there were only some 9,000 long leasehold properties in Scotland, compared with around 5 million leasehold properties in England and Wales. The majority of Scottish leases had ground rents of only £2.50 per year, whereas the average ground rent in England is £300 per year. It is more complicated to take reform forward in England, but the Government are committed to doing this. The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill will take important steps toward delivering commonhold as an alternative in future.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, there are some very good things in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill, but the Government have stopped short of instituting a proper regulator of managing agents, which would solve many of these problems and difficulties. Why stop short? Why not do the job properly and have a regulator of property agents?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

I welcome the work of the noble Lord on this issue, and I know that your Lordships will be looking at it further in Committee. It is already a legal requirement for property agents to belong to one of two government-approved redress schemes. We also welcome ongoing work undertaken by the industry itself to raise professionalism and standards across the sector, which will make property managing agents more accountable to leaseholders. We will keep that and the question of further regulation for the sector under review.

Housing: Accessibility Standards

Lord Best Excerpts

Monday 5th February 2024 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Best]

To ask His Majesty’s Government when they will implement their decision, announced in July 2022, to require all new homes to meet higher standards of accessibility.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Penn) (Con)]

My Lords, we have proposed to mandate the M4(2) requirement in building regulations as a minimum standard, leaving the current M4(1) standard to apply by exception only when M4(2) is impractical and unachievable. There will need to be a further technical consultation that the building safety regulator will need to take forward as part of its future work plan.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply, and to the Government for announcing that these higher standards for lifetime homes will be implemented and mandated through the building regulations. I say that on behalf of the many charities that have been campaigning for years to have these higher standards brought into practice. But that announcement was 18 months ago, and we have seen very little progress in getting on with the consultation that should have followed. Since that time, 220,000 properties have been built that do not accord with the new standards, and every further month we leave the consultation, another 13,000 homes are built that do not accord with the standards. When will we see some results from the Government on this?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

I am afraid I will have to disappoint the noble Lord, as I cannot give a specific timeframe for that further work. The building safety regulator is responsible for introducing updates to the building regulations and it is a new organisation with a busy programme of work. However, his points are well made. To reassure him, we are taking these considerations into account in a number of ways. For example, last December we published an updated NPPF which included a specific expectation that, when planning housing for older people, particular regard is given to retirement housing, housing with care and care homes. This reflects the Government’s understanding that we need to take into account accessibility and the changing needs of our population as we build new homes.

Temporary Accommodation Costs

Lord Best Excerpts

Wednesday 31st January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My noble friend is absolutely right. The Government will support institutional investment in the private sector as well as in the social rented sector, provided, of course, that they stick to the rules and we can regulate them. That includes Build to Rent homes, which can boost supply and drive up standards. We are offering support through the £1.5 billion levelling up home building fund being delivered through Homes England to provide loans, equity investment and joint ventures to encourage such institutional investment companies and to support new Build to Rent developments. I think they will be a growing part of the market.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Devon Housing Commission. I can confirm that the rise in temporary accommodation is not just in London and the conurbations. Devon is deeply affected, and that affects the budgets of local authorities. What progress is being made with the Government’s proposals to enable local authorities to limit the switching or changing of use of ordinary private rented accommodation into Airbnb holiday accommodation and short-term lets, which is having a huge effect in Devon and elsewhere?

Long-term Plan for Housing

Lord Best Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, we announced a number of different changes at the end of last year. However, as I said to both the noble Baronesses, the standard method for assessing housing need remains the starting point for local authorities. It is only in exceptional circumstances that we would expect them to move away from that, and that must be well evidenced. In such circumstances, where it is not appropriate for that area, there is a way and method for those local authorities to put forward a well-considered and well-thought-out local plan, which would have a much better chance of being delivered than something that does not command local support and does not suit the needs of the local area.

We have made other changes that may result in the changes that my noble friend talked about—for example, by removing the buffers needed on land supply set out in local plans. They go over and above the amount of land needed to deliver against the assessed housing need for an area. Where local authorities have done the right thing, put a plan in place and identified the land they need to deliver against the local housing need in their area, it is not the right way forward to require those local authorities to hold a 5% or 10% buffer on top.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I pick up on a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. If we could see the production of decent, accessible, energy-efficient, companionable, new retirement housing for older people needing and wanting to rightsize, we could free up tens of thousands of family homes, which are so badly needed. The planning system can allocate sites, not least urban sites that regenerate town centres, and those absolutely essential local plans can stipulate requirements for a proportion of such housing in all major developments. I add that at the same time removing stamp duty for purchases by those over pension age would stimulate the market, increasing revenue to HM Treasury through the chain that follows, and that housing for older people saves massive sums for the NHS and adult care services. Will the Minister get behind all those trying to boost the output of well-designed homes for the estimated 3 million older people who are interested in downsizing and rightsizing?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

I absolutely support the remarks by the noble Lord on needing the right housing to meet the needs of people at all stages in their lives. There are changes within this update to the NPPF that will encourage the delivery of older people’s housing, including retirement housing, housing with care and care homes. In addition, the Government have the Older People’s Housing Taskforce, which is exploring broader changes that we might wish to see to encourage housing for older people to be built in the areas where it is most suitable and most needed. Also, there is the point that the noble Lord made: ensuring that we have the right solution for older people has a knock-on effect throughout our housing supply on the availability for those who may be trying to get on the housing ladder in the first place.

Social Housing: Mould

Lord Best Excerpts

Wednesday 10th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I am delighted to see the noble Baroness back in post. The Government are absolutely right to come down hard on social housing landlords who have not doing what they should have in keeping their properties up to a decent standard. The ombudsman, the social housing regulator and legislation are all great but the amount of money available for social housing remains the same, and switching resources to getting that older stock up to muster is going to absorb an awful lot of money in the years ahead. Are we going to see quite a big decline in the new affordable social housing that is so badly needed?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

No. Through the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act, which, sadly, I did not see the end of, we intend to deliver more social housing. That came out strongly throughout proceedings on that legislation. The noble Lord is right; there are a lot of challenges for the sector in upgrading its stock, after many years of not putting money into it. We will all be working on that. This year we gave £30 million to Greater Manchester and the West Midlands. We wanted to look at how such investment would help them make improvements, and we are looking at that intervention quite closely for the future.

Home-ownership Rates

Lord Best Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, in the longer term it would clearly make homes more affordable for first-time buyers if there were enough homes to go round and current acute shortages were eased. In the short term, does the noble Baroness agree that it is ridiculous that so many young people pay more in rent to private landlords than they would pay for a mortgage to secure a home of their own if only they could persuade the banks and building societies to lend more sensibly? If she agrees, will the Government look at extending the new and useful mortgage guarantee scheme to reassure lenders and at the DWP’s support for mortgage interest scheme, which needs to be a benefit and not a loan, to pick up those rare cases where there are serious arrears?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I have good news for the noble Lord on the first point. The mortgage guarantee scheme has been extended to June 2025 to allow more 95% mortgages to be available to first-time buyers. We have also made changes on support for mortgage interest. Since April, we have allowed those on universal credit to apply for a support for mortgage interest loan after three months rather than nine. However, it is right that it remains a loan rather than a grant in these circumstances.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Best Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 13th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Duke of Wellington (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as may be relevant to this debate. I will speak in a minute to my Amendments 247YYAA, 247YYAB, and 247YYAC, but I must start by asking the Minister—I remain surprised by this—why she has, on Report, tabled such a large number of amendments that seek to reverse previous government policy on nutrient neutrality.

As the Office for Environmental Protection, set up by the Government in the Environment Act 2021, has stated—and I quote from Dame Glenys Stacey’s letter of 30 August—

“The proposed changes would demonstrably reduce the level of environmental protection provided for in existing environmental law. They are a regression”.


After a further exchange of letters with the Defra Secretary of State and a meeting, Dame Glenys wrote a second letter on 1 September. Again, I quote:

“What is certain is that the proposed amendments would amount to regression in law”.


She goes on to say:

“This is contrary to statements made in each House of Parliament on behalf of the Government”.


I have quoted from the Office for Environmental Protection to show that this is not in any way a political attack on the Government’s policy. The Office for Environmental Protection is the public body set up to protect and improve the environment by holding government to account. Ministers must therefore understand that any opposition to these amendments comes only from a desire by Members of this House, on all sides, to protect and improve the environment.

We all recognise the need to build more houses, and where possible to remove obstacles to achieving this, but surely none of us wishes this to be achieved at the expense of further damage to the environment. Ministers say this is fully mitigated, but that is not clear in the amendments. More houses create more sewage, and therefore there must be mitigation. But the Government appear to be relieving housebuilders from the cost of this mitigation and passing it to the taxpayer.

The announcement of additional money for Natural England is very welcome, but surely there must be a continuing requirement for housebuilders to contribute financially to mitigation. The Minister, in her letter to Peers on 29 August, said:

“The Government intends to work with the house building industry to ensure that larger developers make an appropriate and fair contribution to this scheme over the coming years”.

I must respectfully say to the Minister that that is not enough. There must be a legal requirement for housebuilders to contribute in each case to protecting the environment from further pollution created by new houses.

I now turn to the three amendments in my name. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Parminter, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, for adding their names. I know also that the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, had wanted to sign but was pipped at the post by the noble Lord, Lord Randall. Noble Lords will therefore understand that these are cross-party amendments with no party-political motivation.

For the benefit of noble Lords who have not been able—or inclined—to get into the detail of this large group of late-in-the-day government amendments, I must quote from them. In government Amendment 247YYA, in new Regulation 85A(2)—inserted by paragraph 11 of part 2 of new Schedule 13—it reads:

“When making the relevant decision, the competent authority must assume that nutrients in urban waste water … will not adversely affect the relevant site”.


I am surprised that any Minister from any department—or any party—could propose to Parliament such a paragraph. It is instructing a planning authority to disregard the facts. By any definition, that would be bad law. In paragraph (3) of new Regulation 85A, which I also seek to delete, the Bill instructs the planning authority not even to assess any possible pollution and, in paragraph (4), the planning authority is again instructed to disregard any assessment made by third parties, even the appropriate nature conservation body. I hope that all noble Lords will agree with me that this is just too far.

Here, I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for various meetings in the last few days. I also received at 7 pm yesterday a long letter from the noble Lord, Lord Benyon. Ministers argue that all the government amendments in this group are a package and that we should not look at individual clauses in isolation. I regret that I do not accept that argument. I believe that the duty of this House is to improve and then approve clear and coherent legislation. The government amendments are defective in wording and contrary to science in intention. I cannot believe that any noble Lord of whatever party could vote in favour of such proposed legislation.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I speak to this group of amendments, which come under the broad heading of nutrient neutrality. I declare my interest as a member of your Lordships’ Built Environment Committee, under the distinguished chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. The committee will release a report next week on the impact of environmental regulations on development. As our report is still under wraps, I cannot quote from it, but it provides important insights into the issues before us regarding nutrient neutrality, and my comments today will not, I think, clash with any of the committee’s findings.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Best Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 6th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, Amendment 193A, in my name, would require local plans to spell out the housing needs of the locality and set out how, over time, those needs can be met and homelessness and the use of temporary accommodation can be ended. There is a clear problem in that, at present, local plans are not required to factor in homelessness and social housing waiting lists. This means that the extent of housing problems and true housing need in a local authority area are not always reflected. Surely, including provisions to address these housing needs should be a basic component in a local plan; that is common sense.

Without this, there is far less of an incentive for local authorities to address the true extent of housing need in their area. The Bill currently permits local plans to include, among many other things, requirements for affordable housing. This amendment would replace this somewhat vague and light-touch permissive approach with a duty to be clear, both on the scale of local housing problems and the housing provisions that will address them.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Best]

193A: Schedule 7, page 347, line 17, at end insert—
“(3A) The local plan must identify the local nature and scale of housing need in the local planning authority’s area and must make provision for sufficient social rent housing, to eliminate homelessness within a reasonable period as stipulated in the updated local plan, and to provide housing for persons registered on the local housing authority’s allocation scheme within the meaning of section 166A of the Housing Act 1996.(3B) Subsection (3A) applies in relation to social housing provided both by the local housing authority where it retains its own housing stock and by private registered providers of social housing.(3C) The information concerning the level of housing need recorded on the local plan must be updated at least annually.”

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to noble Lords for their support for this amendment. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, for their support, and for pointing out the urgency of the need for homelessness and those on waiting lists to be addressed, and the value of using the local plan to help in that process. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for her eloquent support. She made the point that, unfortunately, things are getting worse for those in the most acute need. I am afraid to say that the urgency for doing more grows daily, and this would be a helpful step in the right direction.

The Minister, who I know believes that local plans are a very important instrument in getting things changed and done, said that she very much agreed that this deserved priority. Indeed, the government consultation currently going on may lead to greater prominence being given to the needs of those who are homeless, in temporary accommodation or on a never-ending waiting list. She hopes that local planning authorities will do their best by that and include those things in local plans, but there is no obligation on them so to do. It is that obligation that this amendment would put into place. I am grateful for the support of all those colleagues, and the moment has come for me to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, my name is down in support of Amendment 195, so brilliantly introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. It is also supported by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. The amendment would return us to the position whereby each local plan must be designed to secure enough homes to meet the target for the area set by government. I too see this as a matter of considerable significance.

In essence, this country needs to build at least 300,000 homes each year to ease the problems caused by acute housing shortages: overcrowding, homelessness, poverty and health inequalities. This national target will not be achieved by leaving the supply of sufficient homes to individual councils to determine. On its own, of course, the requirement on all local authorities to have local plans that together make provision for 300,000 homes will not mean that the planned-for number will necessarily be built. Market factors will affect private housebuilding. Insufficient government support will affect social housing output, and so on. If local plans do not plan for their share of the national total, it is certain that it will not be accomplished.

Many analysts suggest that the overall figure of 300,000 homes per annum is not enough. The Centre for Cities has explained that we would have another 4.3 million homes if we had matched the average rate of housebuilding of our European counterparts over recent decades. We have a massive catching-up job to do. The Centre for Policy Studies argues that 460,605 homes should have been added last year. The actual output was barely half this figure—235,000 net additions, including conversions of existing buildings. For the moment, 300,000 homes is a sensible, short-term target.

Why is it so improbable that this figure will be reached unless local planning authorities are obliged to meet housing targets? First, because a number of councils have already made clear that, if the decision on numbers is now in their hands, they will reduce the amount of development previously planned for. Even if only, say, a quarter of authorities opt to see fewer homes built, there will be a big undershoot of the grand total. Reducing acute shortages will then be even more difficult in future than it has been to date.

Secondly, nationally determined targets are necessary because—as I guess we all recognise—it is incredibly difficult for elected Members to champion new housebuilding in their areas. New housing is perceived as meaning more traffic, more pressure on services, disruption from construction and—although this may be an urban myth—a fall in house prices. It is also true that housebuilders have often singularly failed to create quality places. There is a long way to go in reforming that industry. These concerns do not mean that we can simply set aside the need for new homes.

The harsh fact is that where a councillor is likely to be voted out of office if they do not vociferously oppose new development, few will feel able to act in the interests of those who need a home but do not yet have a vote in that area. The structure of democracy at local level makes it nigh on impossible for representatives of local communities to act in the wider interests of those who do not live there.

Our planning system recognises that no one is keen to have a power station, airport or highways project on their doorstep. Nationally significant infrastructure projects are taken outside the remit of the local council. No one is suggesting the same approach for housing developments, even very large ones, but recognition should be given to what is in the national, rather than necessarily the local, interest. Securing sufficient new homes is a national priority and should be part of the national decision-making process.

This important amendment removes the unfair onus on local councillors to determine how many new homes their local plan should be designed to secure. It removes an unreasonable expectation that those who are—or hope to be—elected as local councillors will always do what is right for the next generation, the wider region and the country, rather than what the often vocal local electorate of here and now are demanding. I acknowledge that arguments can still rage over the methodology for setting housing targets and that there will rightly be lengthy consideration of exactly what gets built and where, but these are separate matters and do not affect the amendment before us. Rather, I warn that, without this change to the prevailing position, without decisions on overall numbers of new homes being taken at a higher level than the local planning authority, we will certainly not see 300,000 additional homes built each year. The horrendous housing shortage will get worse. I urge the Minister to accept this essential amendment.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Best Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 4th September 2023 Lords Chamber

This Better Planning Coalition amendment protects the right of the public and Parliament to have a say in planning policy and aligns the Bill’s planning powers with existing processes. I was delighted to get support from the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Carrington, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for her support from the Labour Front Bench. If there is no significant reassurance from the Minister, I will put this matter to a vote of the House.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 190 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington of Fulham. As we have heard, this amendment has the support of the Royal Town Planning Institute and a whole range of other distinguished bodies with planning expertise. Actually, the amendment is relatively modest and pretty straightforward. It does not reject the idea of creating national development management policies. What it does is simply ensure that these new planning policies result from thoroughgoing consultation, after due publicity, and are subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny. Such a consultative process, with accountability to Parliament just as for the national planning policy statements, would mean that these new NDMPs will have the authority and credibility that otherwise they are likely to lack. I hope the Minister will agree.

[Lord Carrington of Fulham (Con)]

My Lords, I too rise to support Amendment 190, to which I have added my name. Your Lordships will be delighted to know that I do not have to speak for very long as everything I was going to say has already been said. The House sounds as though it is unanimous in the view: that there needs to be some sort of constraint on the proposal in this clause, to ensure that there is consultation; that local communities should have primacy in deciding what happens in their area; and that the policy that general consultation should be in the hands of Secretary of State, without the definition of what that consultation should be, is one that no parliamentary assembly should readily accept.

I believe there is a principle in this amendment, that we can trust my noble friend the Minister, and we can probably trust my noble friend the Secretary of State in the other place; but, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, they will change. They will inevitably change. They may change for the better or for the worse; we do not know. But one thing is certain: if you give a power to centralise decision-taking, sooner or later that power will be abused. It is essential to make sure that we do not pass legislation in this House that allows the abuse of power—particularly, the forcing on to local communities of policies that they reject themselves.

It may well be—indeed, I think there is considerable evidence—that our planning laws do not work; we need only look at the problems over the environment, housing and so on. We should absolutely be looking at how our planning laws should be changed and how we should free up, speed up and make less expensive the whole planning process. But the way to do that is not by giving powers to the Secretary of State to override any consultation, any local decision-making and, indeed, the local power of other constitutionally established bodies such as local government.

I support the amendment for a lot of reasons. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will agree that this issue needs greater clarification, that it needs to be properly addressed, that this amendment almost certainly achieves all of that, and that, possibly with a few tweaks from the Government, this amendment could form part of the Bill to everybody’s benefit.

--- Later in debate ---

The Committee on Climate Change recently reported, to use its words, that solar development is “significantly off track”. If we are going to reach the target of 70 gigawatts by 2035, the Government really do need to get moving. I believe they recognise this, because they have said that they want to go further and faster on solar. If so, I ask the Minister to accept the amendment and, in doing so, match what many other countries are already doing. Apart from the benefit to UK energy consumption, it would lead to supporting around 600,000 new jobs. That is not something to be sneezed at; it would be another very important benefit to this amendment being implemented. I hope to hear a positive response from the Minister to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, this a very full group of powerful amendments and I find them all very appealing. I particularly support the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, in his brilliant Healthy Homes campaign with the Town and Country Planning Association, but a completely convincing case has been made from all parts of the House for his amendment. I will concentrate on Amendment 280, to which I have put my name in support of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, on creating a road map for addressing embodied carbon emissions in buildings.

It has been a rather rude awakening for me to discover that, in concentrating on the energy efficiency of buildings once occupied and taking measures to cut their operational carbon emissions when in use, I have been missing the bigger picture: half buildings’ emissions come from the process of producing and maintaining the building—that is, from the embodied carbon generated by the whole construction process. Many of us in the world of housing have focused on improving energy efficiency in new homes and have failed to recognise that we could be doing far more to cut the carbon emissions that result from the construction of those homes.

Construction, which uses more raw materials than any other industry, is responsible for a quarter of all carbon emissions. Half of these come from embodied carbon, particularly in the production of concrete and steel. Half a million tonnes of building materials are used daily in the UK. Moreover, demolition and excavation generate no less than 62% of all UK waste, to say nothing of the consequences for landfill and the nasty impact of air pollution.

I am very grateful to Shaun Spiers and colleagues at the Green Alliance for their work on “circular construction”: reducing the type and quality of raw materials, reusing, recycling and regenerating, rather than demolishing and building anew. Their work shows that there are plenty of ways in which this huge driver of carbon emissions can be addressed without adding to cost. An example is British Land’s new headquarters in London, which went for retrofitting in place of new build and took less time, while cutting costs by 15% to 18.5%.

A new embodied carbon section in the building regulations, referred to as Part Z, would send the construction industry down the right road. The Environment Act 2021 gives the Government the power to take this approach forward. Some neighbouring European countries are already getting there: for example, the Netherlands is committed to reducing raw material consumption by 50% by 2030. But what is needed first in the UK is an agreed set of metrics—an approved methodology—as the basis for calculating the whole-life carbon emissions, both operational and embodied, of construction work. Big players such as Lendlease, Atkins and Laing O’Rourke stand ready to help in devising this. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, provides the basis for that essential first step, with proper regard to the need for full consultation.

Frankly, I have been pretty ignorant about the significance of embodied carbon in construction. I now realise that concentrating on energy efficiency in the use of buildings once built misses the point. Key players in the industry are ready to adopt new practices to cut embodied carbon emissions. This amendment would enable the Government to progress this change of emphasis, which is surely overdue. I strongly support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I have an illustration—as ever, from Eastbourne—of what is going on with solar panels. We have in the middle of town about 400 hectares of grazing marshes. There is a proposal to build a solar farm on a chunk of that, right next to 100 hectares of industrial estate. None of the firms have solar panels and nor do their car parks. There is clearly a local demand for solar electricity and the grid connection needed for it, but nothing is happening to provide solar panels on the existing space, which could so easily be used for them.

The Government’s policy is pointing in the right direction, but it is inadequate. It needs reinforcing. They need to give a much harder shove to putting solar panels on existing commercial buildings and commercial space. I very much hope that, if the exact wording of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, cannot be accepted, the Government will commit to bringing something back at a later stage or finding another way of doing something about it, because where they are at the moment will not do.

Exactly the same applies to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, which I have great sympathy for. Therefore, I do not see the virtue in Amendment 191B, the wording of which seems very strange. I do not think that “should” bears the meaning that my noble friend tried to put on it; it is an imperative in legislation. Statements such as

“all new homes should be secure and built in such a way as to minimise the risk of crime”

mean that we would need to have eight-inch thick concrete blocks with tiny portholes for windows, because these are absolute words and not the much more open and discursive words employed in Amendment 198, which I therefore favour.

I also like the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. We need to look seriously at embodied carbon. If that involves new construction methods, we need to learn from the lesson of reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. It was the miracle of its time, but that wonderful new method of doing things has not worked out. If we are going to introduce new methods and new structures extensively in housing and other buildings, we really must go back to not only testing them to destruction but monitoring how they are working in the environment. We used to do that with new building methods; we need to get back to it now.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Best Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 18th July 2023 Lords Chamber

My amendment simply seeks to remove the veil of commercial confidentiality which is drawn, without exception, over the negotiations taking place between developers and planners, and which result in a reduction in the number of affordable homes to which they are committed. My amendment would disapply Section 43 of the Freedom of Information Act, so that commercial confidentiality cannot be used as a cloak of concealment. I very much hope that the Minister can see that this too is in exact alignment with the Government’s own objectives of securing more affordable homes, and that he will therefore willingly accept my Amendment 94, which I also commend to the House.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 71 in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Warwick of Undercliffe. I declare my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and chair of the Devon Housing Commission, as well as my various housing interests as set out in the register.

Following the speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, your Lordships will note that some doubt hangs over the future of the infrastructure levy. We have heard that representations have been made to the Secretary of State from some 30 significant organisations, which all feel that it would be better to stay with the current Section 106 regime. Those bodies argue that it would be better to stay with the devil we know, even though the system is not perfect—after all, the current system has been achieving half the affordable housing built each year, and no one wants to reduce the numbers. However, our Amendment 71 supposes that the infrastructure levy persists, and it seeks to ensure that the new arrangements do not lead to fewer genuinely affordable homes. Before saying more about Amendment 71, I offer support to Amendment 77 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and Amendments 70 and 94 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell.

I am grateful to the coalition of housing bodies that constitutes Homes for the North for their expert help in drafting Amendment 71. In Committee, we considered a range of amendments which all had the objective, in effect, of holding the Government to account for their own promise that the new infrastructure levy arrangements will lead to

“as much—if not more”

affordable social housing.

In Committee, the Government responded to our proposed amendments with various counter-arguments, the first of which was that this issue would be better dealt with in the regulations that will follow enactment and appear in the revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework. However, the affordable housing element is a fundamental part of the planning system. Currently, 78.5% of the funding via Section 106 obligations on housebuilders goes to affordable housing. This current priority needs legislative protection in the face of endless competing claims for the new levy proceeds.

Secondly, it can be argued that local authorities should be entirely free to decide for themselves how to spend infrastructure levy proceeds, with no obligation to give priority to affordable housing. However, the infrastructure levy represents a significant new tax-raising power for local authorities, and it would surely be expected that the Government would impose some limitations on its use.

Thirdly, the Minister told us that the relevant clause in the Bill already protects affordable housing provision. We responded that the relevant clause simply required local authorities to

“have regard … to the desirability of ensuring that”

the provision of affordable housing

“is equal to or exceeds”

the output achieved under the Section 106 system. This is a very weak provision, enabling funding for affordable housing to be used instead for any number of other spending opportunities.

Amendment 71 addresses these points and substantially strengthens the wording of the Bill, covering both the way the levy is set and how the money is subsequently spent. It removes the lightweight

“have regard to the desirability of”,

leaving “must ensure”, thereby prioritising affordable housing as identified in the local development plan and the infrastructure delivery strategy.

The Minister has followed through from Committee stage in an exemplary manner. She has reconsidered the position, held meetings with interested Peers and brought forward amendments that address the same issue as our Amendment 71. Her Amendments 72, 73, 74 and 75 alter the offending words in the original version, leaving out

“to the desirability of ensuring”

and inserting the much more direct “seek to ensure”. I am grateful indeed to the Minister for bringing forward these changes in wording, which tighten up the requirements on local authorities to do the right thing in respect of social housing provision.

However—is there not always a “however”?—the new Amendment 76 provides the local authority charging the infrastructure levy with a “get out of jail free” card. It allows the charging authority to drop the obligations on developers where compliance with its requirements for affordable housing would make the development in this area “economically unviable”. It lets developers off the hook where, not for the first time, they plead the case that they cannot achieve the affordable housing identified in the local plan. It is these arguments about viability that have made Section 106 so fraught, usually with local planning authorities losing the argument against the developers and their consultants and solicitors.

This extra clause, which promotes viability on the face of the Bill, undermines the good work being done by the four preceding amendments from the Minister. I may be interpreting this unkindly, but the amendment seems to provide the opportunity for the powerful volume housebuilders to claim—probably because they have paid too much for the land—that providing affordable housing will reduce their profits excessively.

We now have the report of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Select Committee of the House of Commons, which looks at planning policy and comments on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. The Select Committee welcomes these government amendments, which would strengthen the duty on local authorities to deliver at least as many affordable homes; but the committee warns that the additional proviso that this duty would be redundant if it could make the development “unviable” puts fulfilment of the Government’s ambition at risk.

The Commons committee concludes that the new infrastructure levy

“may not deliver as many affordable homes as the current regime”.

That outcome would be a disaster. We desperately need more, not fewer, affordable homes. This leaves me welcoming the government amendments, which attempt to do the same job as our Amendment 71, which need not now be pressed. But I will oppose the new government Amendment 76 unless it can be justified by the Minister when she responds.

This country desperately needs more housing for those on lower incomes. We must do everything we can to ensure that the new infrastructure levy regime does not diminish supply from the all-important obligations on housebuilders. There is a clear and present danger here, and I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Best, who has rightly commended my noble friend the Minister for the careful way she has responded to some of the points made in Committee on the infrastructure levy, and indeed on some of the further discussions we have had and the responses to the technical consultation on the infrastructure levy. That is rather important to take into account.

I confess that, listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, I felt that she was making a speech that would have been relevant at the time the technical consultation was published but not at the point at which the Government had clearly responded to that consultation, brought forward amendments and written to us, as the Minister did on 4 July, about those amendments and other factors.