Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Deben Excerpts

Wednesday 27th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord True]

My Lords, I have an amendment in this group, which the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has effectively summarised in the points made. I do not pretend that the specific wording or format is necessarily correct, but none the less the broad principle enshrined in it, and in what the noble Lord has just said, is important. As this process goes forward there will inevitably be fears that a Government—not this one necessarily—may in time use this process to ensure that it is made easier to secure agreement to major developments against the wishes of the local population. It might be feared that that could be done either by having a process that is conducted through written procedures or by a rather cursory appearance from an inspector for a hearing in the local area. In this process, a great deal also goes on in the pre-planning stage. Good developers are these days very active and are often encouraged by local authorities to meet local populations to discuss and undertake consultation, perhaps in relation to what might be the specific local community benefits that come from the development. All those things are best conducted locally, in the place and community where the development will take place and which will be affected by it.

As I said, I do not intend to try to write law that is prescriptive. My noble friend gave some general reassurances earlier, but in both the pre-planning stage and the period in which a planning application is under consideration, it is absolutely essential that the Government leave no suspicion in the minds of the public about their rights, about which they feel ever stronger. Those of us who have the honour to represent people in local authorities know that the people’s wish to have their voice heard is greater, not less, as time goes by. I hope that we can hear a very strong reaffirmation from my noble friend that if not the specifics of my amendment, certainly the spirit of it will be written into whatever provision the Government might follow up with as they refine secondary legislation, codes of practice and so on, once the legislation becomes law.

The public must not believe, or have any justification to believe, that there is something herein that makes it easier for development to take place in the teeth of what local people believe to be in their interests. That is not nimbyism; there is a balance in these matters. Giving people a chance to have their day in court and to have their voice heard is extremely important in the principle of securing consent to planning developments, which all of us in this House know that this country will need in the decades ahead.

[Lord Deben]

My Lords, I remind the House that I have declared an interest as someone helping people through a company with sustainable development. It is on that point that I support what has been said. It is not just a question of community not feeling that it is being bypassed, although that is crucial and the gravamen of the whole discussion. We also want to support those developers who do the job properly, as against those who think that there is a short cut.

One of the encouraging things of recent years has been the increasing number of developers who have understood that proper community consultation early on makes their development not only more likely but probably better. Many of them are taking seriously the fact that input from the community can be not an incubus but a considerable advantage. Therefore, I, too, hope that my noble friend will be able to give us an assurance—which I am sure she would wish to give—that this is a mechanism to achieve things which cannot otherwise be achieved, rather than a mechanism to make easier to achieve things that should not be achieved and would otherwise be stopped. That is the distinction that we are trying to draw.

My concern in respect of developers, therefore, is that we do not want the less good to triumph over the good. Moreover, as my noble friend Lord True rightly pointed out, we do not want the public to feel that they are being railroaded about things in which they are increasingly interested. We in this House ought to remind people that this is not some evanescent view that will disappear. People will increasingly want to have control over what happens in their own area; that is why we had the Localism Bill. It is also true that, as the world outside becomes more and more complex and people feel it is more and more difficult to decide on how they will have some control over energy policy, the European Union, the work of the United Nations and all the rest of it, localism—the concept of at least having some real control over the area around you—becomes a greater demand rather than a lesser one. This is a crucial moment in this Bill, and the ability of my noble friend to reassure the House is of great importance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, perhaps it is appropriate at this stage in our proceedings that I remind the House that I am a resident of a national park, a vice-president of the Campaign for National Parks and a patron of the Friends of the Lake District.

In Committee, my noble friend Lord Adonis very powerfully put on the record how well national parks had done in planning matters. Rereading what was said at that stage of our deliberations, it does not seem to me that the Government tried to refute the case that he put forward so convincingly. I am not altogether clear about what the rationale is for the specific exemptions listed in the Bill. Why these alone in the Bill? What is really the case for them? I hope that, in dealing with what I am about to say, the Minister may have an opportunity to leave the House wiser on this point.

If there are to be exemptions, I believe most strongly that the case of the national parks is outstanding. Why? Repeatedly since the parks were originally created in the post-war era, successive Governments of different persuasions have put on the record their determination that these parks are very special parts of the United Kingdom. To those who would say that this is an emotional argument and not a practical one, I would say—I made this point in Committee—that that is utter nonsense, because a healthy, effective nation needs space to regenerate physically and mentally and the parks make a direct contribution therefore to the well-being and operational efficiency of the nation.

We all want economic development—it would be hypocritical to pretend otherwise; I certainly want it—but these very special areas must be protected in the context of our commitment to still better economic performance, because they contribute to the well-being of society and help to underpin the whole nature of the society that we are trying to achieve our by our economic performance. Economic performance cannot become an end in itself; economic performance is so that we can have a decent United Kingdom, and these special areas are absolutely central to that.

It is important to recognise that we in both Houses of Parliament have had a very important role as guarantors of this reality. Since the national parks and the Broads were established, it has been recognised not only by government but by Parliament repeatedly that they are the most important areas for natural beauty and for the opportunities they provide for public understanding of their special qualities. The Government’s national parks circular of 2010 explains why it is important for national park authorities to retain a planning function in order to deliver these statutory functions. The Government’s National Planning Policy Framework restates that they are to be afforded the highest levels of protection and that major developments within or affecting a national park therefore need to be given very careful consideration.

Of course, a national park authority is highly likely to receive far fewer major applications for development than other planning authorities. A consequence of this is that the percentages for major applications determined within 26 weeks, and the percentage success rates on appeals—the criteria which are proposed by the Government for determining poorly performing authorities—can shift quite markedly from one year to another. The Government’s Planning Guarantee Monitoring Report, published in September last year, highlights that six national park authorities received three or fewer major applications in 2011-12 and that, of those, two received only one application. This surely demonstrates that the statistical problem of relying on percentages as far as they relate to national parks is a dangerous game. I recognise that the Government have issued a consultation paper that deliberates on the criteria they will use to determine poorly performing authorities. Although the period over which this is to be assessed seeks to address large variations from year to year, it is important to understand that this potentially raises very serious considerations for the parks.

Before I conclude I shall go over the basic statistical realities again. Leaving to one side the South Downs National Park, which was designated during the year in question, in the year ending 2012, the eight national park authorities and the Broads Authority received 5,000 planning applications. They granted approval for 89% of applications, which is higher than the English average of 87%. They received 53 applications for major development, of which 91% were granted approval. For major development, national park authorities compare favourably with other local planning authorities for speed of determination. They approved 60% of applications within 13 weeks, compared with the English average of 57%. It is absolutely clear to me—and I would have thought to everybody—that the national park authorities have a good track record in planning performance and a number are, for example, part of the Government’s front runner programme for promoting neighbourhood planning. If there are to be exemptions, I urge the Minister to look seriously at whether, even at the final stages of consideration of the Bill, she could include the national park authorities alongside the other designated authorities, although, as has been said, it would helpful if we could have a bit more information on the overall rationale for the authorities mentioned in the Bill.

This is an important issue. It is important to keep the factual side under consideration all the time. However, I am not ashamed to say that it would be very easy to introduce a new culture in which the parks have to justify their existence rather than anyone who wants to undermine their special character having to justify why they are doing that. When we introduce legislation of this kind, it is crucial to remember that we are dealing not only with the Ministers of the day. I am convinced that the Ministers of the day are quite civilised on these issues. They have a very enlightened approach. They want to help, I think, in many ways. That is encouraging, but they might not always be there. Another Minister coming along could very easily see this as the thin end of the wedge and that the door was being pushed open, opening up all sorts of new opportunities which could very easily lead to the complete destruction of the special nature of the parks. I beg to move.

[Lord Deben]

My Lords, I hope very much that my noble friend will resist this proposition. It seems to me to be really unacceptable. If it is necessary to have a fallback power for circumstances in which it is necessary to take to the centre decisions that would otherwise be done locally, I find it very difficult to understand why the national parks should be excluded.

There are two reasons for that. First, it says something about everybody else. It says that those people are perfectly safe, but the other people have to be subject to this rule. Speaking on behalf of everybody else, I do not think that that is a very good argument. Secondly, I was Secretary of State responsible for these matters, and I can think of one national park which ought to have been under this rule for quite some time, because its planning attitudes at the time were utterly indefensible. It is no good saying that they are always perfect. If what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, says, is true—I am sure that it is—and the national parks have a remarkable record over recent years because of the fantastic speed with which they deal with plans, nobody will do that to them. If the record is as good as that, they will be the last people to be subject to this.

I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that I find it difficult to believe in the infallibility of the national parks. Indeed, I have good reason to believe that we have made a huge mistake in making the South Downs a national park. I have opposed that all my life; I still think that it has been a disaster; it is not what should have been done and it has alienated local authorities in areas where it would be much better for them to have worked as they had worked before. I think that the same is true of the New Forest. That was an historic, political decision to do with the 1930s rather than anything to do with the 2000s, but there we are: we have done it. It has not been as damaging as it might have been, but it was not sensible.

National parks do a wonderful job. They are a fantastically important part of our structure. I think I have a long enough record of defending the countryside and working for country people and the nature of the British rural society not to be maligned by the suggestion that in some way I have a wicked desire to concrete over the countryside. Indeed, I have been pretty critical of the Government’s proposals on the basis that I do not think that it is necessary to build on greenfield sites. I happen to think that we can build all the housing we need on brownfield sites. It is an easy way out for developers to build on greenfield sites. They must be forced to build on brownfield sites because otherwise all they will do is build on greenfield sites and then wait until they have more greenfield sites. That was my experience from four years as Secretary of State. I hope that no one will criticise me for that.

If we are to have the clause—I have shown myself to be not altogether happy about the need for it—it must cover national parks and the Broads Authority like everybody else. It is hemmed around with all the Minister’s careful comments—she has been very clear that it would not be used except in certain extreme and specific circumstances. She has laid down some new mechanisms by which we can receive greater comfort about it. I still wonder in my heart whether it is utterly necessary, but, having done all that, it would be preposterous to leave the national parks out. It would be extremely rude to some other excellent local authorities, which will never be affected by the regulations because they, too, do the job as well as a national park.

I hope that my noble friend will resist this elegant, polite, romantic proposal, which the House should not support.

[Lord Liddle]

I did not intend to intervene in this debate. I normally find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Deben, on most issues and I greatly respect his record as a supporter of what one might call green policy. However, on this occasion, I speak declaring an interest as a Friend of the Lake District and believing that special circumstances relate to national parks which make them different from other local authorities. I saw this first-hand in my capacity as chairman of Cumbria Vision, the sub-regional body of the North West Development Agency, which was responsible for promoting economic development in Cumbria.

There are two fundamental differences. First, the people who work on national parks go into it with a very strong personal commitment to planning. I found the quality of staff working for the national park authority to be extremely high. That was not true of planning in all the other district councils in the county of Cumbria. I will not name names, but there were some problems there on the planning side. There were not, however, problems with economic development with the national park, which had a very constructive role in sustainable economic development.

The second difference, which is a fundamental difference from a local authority and the question of a Secretary of State’s potential call-in powers, is that with a national park the Secretary of State nominates quite a high proportion of the members of the authority. Therefore, if the Secretary of State believes that the national park is not getting the balance between development and the environment right, he or she can nominate members. That is my simple point. I shall give way.

[Lord Deben]

I thank the noble Lord for taking the opportunity to find a disagreement between us because we are both singularly embarrassed by the similarity of our views on a whole range of issues, from Europe to planning. However, if what he says is true, would it not be very surprising to get rid of people whose normal attitudes were extremely good but, because of something specific, things had gone wrong? Surely it would be much more sensible for the Secretary of State to be able to deal with this with a precise measure, rather than a sacking. As I understand it, these people are under a contract for a period of time and the Secretary of State would have to wait some time to remove them if they were so wrong. However, I understand from his noble friend that they very rarely get it wrong.

[Lord Liddle]

In my experience, they very rarely get it wrong. My point was simply that if the Secretary of State felt that the overall balance of the way a national park was operating was not right, there is a remedy available to him or her, which is not the case for a local authority. Anyway, I would urge a special provision for national parks because, on the whole, they are a very precious element of our polity, introduced by the post-war Labour Government, and I do not think we want to tamper with them and their independence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Deben]

My Lords, I remain uncertain as to the value of this clause but I am clear that the Government, particularly my noble friend, have done a great deal to allay the real and immediate anxieties that we have had. I am sad that the Government put her in this position. The changes that she has made could perfectly well have been part of the Bill in the first place. There are other things in it on which I am not sure that we have yet reached the kind of accommodation that will be necessary if they are not to do serious harm. We shall come to those later.

This is now a better clause after the assurances and changes that have been made. The clause to which the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has jut referred is the clause with which we started. We are not discussing that but one that has been amended and clothed by the explanations and references that the Minister has put before us. I hope that others will recognise the sterling work that she has done to get us into this position and perhaps in future we can be a little more careful about how we produce the Bill in the first place. Many of our discussions could have been prevented, in the proper sense of that word, by more care in its drafting and with thought over how one proceeds in a House with sufficient numbers who do not speak from a party political point of view but who have some experience of how these things work out in practice. I hope that this may serve as a warning and a reminder that Bills carefully prepared at the outset are less likely to take time to pass through.

[Lord Tope]

My Lords, I am inclined to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Deben, but then to speculate that if that perfect world existed what function would we be left with?

Three months ago I would have had little, probably no, hesitation in joining the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. When first published, this clause was really the antithesis of localism, which we spend so much time debating. It was clearly centralist and unsatisfactory. Even after some welcome reassurances on Report in the other place, at Second Reading, I still felt that it was unacceptable.

In moving his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, acknowledged that the Minister had moved “a little”, I think his precise words were. That was uncharacteristically ungenerous of him. The Government have moved very substantially on this clause. I have not become an enthusiast for it but I acknowledge that pressure from all sides of this House, some excellent work by the Minister and her colleagues, and other Ministers who have been prepared to listen and hear—to echo my earlier words—have made this clause very much less harmful than it might have been. We have criteria, which will be subject to parliamentary approval, proposed at a very low threshold that, as set now, would catch, if that is the right word, few local planning authorities. We have a process whereby local planning authorities will have good warning of when they are at risk and ample opportunity to improve.

We have heard that that improvement will be sector-led and that the LGA has been in discussions and is prepared to work with local planning authorities at risk and to help them reach the necessary improvements so that they do not become designated. If after all that a local planning authority is performing so badly, it probably deserves to be designated. We are looking at an incentive to improve and not a deterrent to punish. I believe that after the criteria that we have put in place, and the provisos and reassurances that we have had, very few local planning authorities will actually get designated. I understand why the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, fears that, at least in part, that may in part be because the quality of decision-making is reduced particularly to meet timescales, or, to be less particular, on important issues such as design.

We will have to see, but given how few local planning authorities currently would meet the criteria for designation, I am not too worried about that. If it looks to be the case, we will have to tackle that, but I am not too worried. As I said previously, if at the end of this process the local planning authority is still so bad that it meets the criteria for designation, that may very well be the last resort that has to be taken, but even when we get to designation we should remember that major planning applications will not be required to go PINS; that will be the choice of the developer. The local situation may be so bad that the developer makes that choice, but my guess is that in most cases the developer would still prefer to stay local and stay working with a local planning authority, where by that stage no doubt the relationship would be far from perfect, but there would still be a relationship.

I start to wonder whether this clause—not that it is undesirable—may not be necessary and whether the Planning Minister’s hope and aspiration that it will never be necessary to use it may well come about. Like my noble friends, I have been reassured during the process of the Bill and, perhaps unlike the noble Lord, Lord Deben, I am pleased that we have been able to go through the process, although I would rather not have been in that place in the first place. On that basis, I am prepared to accept the Government’s wish to have this clause as an incentive not a deterrent to encourage those local planning authorities whose performance is far from perfect—and we all acknowledge that they exist—to improve themselves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Best]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 30, 31 and 35. I preface my remarks by thanking the Minister for a really helpful and lengthy meeting at which a number of my earlier amendments were discussed. On the basis of that discussion, I have dropped three of my amendments, either because I have better understood where the Government were coming from or because I noticed some modest amendments along the way. I was extremely grateful for that more than helpful discussion.

Amendments 30, 31 and 35 all address the hazards in Clause 6 and are intended to ensure that the clause achieves what the Government intend: to get developers on site and building new homes as a quid pro quo for being able to increase their profits on sites where they have previously signed up to obligations to allocate some homes for affordable housing.

Amendment 30 would protect the local authority, the taxpayer and the people who need affordable housing from developers being excused from their obligations on the grounds of expected low house prices today but making substantial profits in future when house prices have risen appreciably. The amendment inserts a clawback provision for the local authority to receive payment in kind if values rise more than expected. A highly unsatisfactory outcome from the use of Clause 6 by a developer to secure a reduction in the affordable housing on its site would be for it simply to await house price increases and make a killing later. Then, the developer would see bigger gains in the years ahead, but the whole purpose of the Bill—to get sites developed today—would be thwarted.

When I brought a similar amendment from the LGA before your Lordships in Committee, the proposition was that local authorities should share a proportion of the profit from future sales if they turned out to be at higher levels than had been expected when the deal was considered by the Planning Inspectorate. The revised amendment is intended to address concerns raised by your Lordships that that route would not be appropriate. The new version would ensure that the local authority could claw back only a commuted sum—payment in kind—in the form of finance specifically to replace some or all of the affordable housing in the original planning obligation, probably to build offsite. That seems entirely reasonable and I hope that the revised amendment will be acceptable to Ministers.

Amendment 31 takes the story forward. It is intended to address the situation where, after a Clause 6 negotiation has reduced the previous requirement for affordable housing, the developer does not, as the Government hope, start swiftly on site but instead awaits the moment when the market is more favourable and prices are higher. The primary reason why sites are stalled is the reluctance of housebuilders to press forward with developments of homes for sale because the local market is sluggish and, if they build too quickly, it will be impossible to achieve the prices they desire.

Even if they are allowed to produce fewer affordable homes—homes which are usually transferred to a housing association for rent or shared ownership—the market for outright sales will remain the same, and the housebuilder may well prefer to await an upturn rather than, despite the earnest hopes of the Government, getting going with the building work which is so badly needed. Amendment 31 would compel the developer to commence construction within six months if it receives a favourable outcome from invoking the provisions of Clause 6 and secures a reduction in its legal obligation.

That is a fundamental point. Unless there is a benefit to society in the form of a rapid start on site, most people would surely ask why the state should be intervening retrospectively to overrule a legal agreement between a local council and a housebuilder simply to increase the profits of the latter. Why should central Government step in when a speculative land purchase now means that a development is not as profitable as the housebuilder had hoped? After all, no one has suggested that local authorities should pursue housebuilders for an increase in the quota of affordable housing when, a year or two after an agreement was signed, house prices rise dramatically, as they did a few years ago, when unexpectedly high profits were made.

If the developer is able to negotiate a reduction in their Section 106 obligations, they will raise the value of the site without laying a single brick. Amendment 31 is intended to overcome this major defect in Clause 6 and require housebuilders to commence construction within six months if they receive a favourable outcome from their appeal. If the Planning Inspectorate has found the development would not have been profitable because of the level of affordable housing required and has reduced that level accordingly, there should be no good reason why the developer should continue to sit on their planning approval. Instead of being accused of land banking, they should then start delivering the homes the UK so badly needs.

Finally, Amendment 35 puts the finishing touches to these proposed changes to Clause 6 by raising the threshold of what defines commencement of development on site. Planning permissions do not last indefinitely, and in considering whether to extend a permission or allow it to expire, a local authority considers whether the developer has commenced development, defined as a “material operation” in Section 56 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Act sets out what a developer has to do on site to implement a planning permission. The physical works that make up a “material operation” can be relatively minimal when compared with the totality of the development— for example, digging a trench or starting to lay a road. Case law is clear that it does not matter if the developer carries out those works simply to keep the planning permission alive, rather than with a genuine intention to complete the development. If developers have to start within six months, but simply dig a ditch, Amendment 31 has not taken us forward.

I moved an amendment in Committee to enable local authorities and developers to agree at the outset what the definition of commencement would be. The Minister’s response, which I fully understand, was that this would create a postcode lottery, with every council doing things differently. The problem might be countered with non-statutory guidance on best practice. However, in recognition of ministerial concerns, I am now suggesting an amendment that raises the threshold of what is defined as commencement. This amendment would alter the current definition of what constitutes a “material operation”. It would require a certain percentage of, for example, the foundations to be completed to count as a material operation and thus keep the planning permission alive. Spelling this out would have the benefit of certainty. It would encourage developers to move from commencement to completion faster in the future because a greater proportion of costs would have been incurred at an earlier stage.

In combination, these three amendments salvage something sensible from Clause 6 and save the Government from falling into a trap. The worst possible outcome would see the clause to reduce the amount of affordable homes that developers are required to build proceeding, but developers still not getting on with the job and instead banking the increased value gained from having their obligations reduced and waiting until house prices, pressurised by escalating shortages, rise and bigger profits can be made. I beg to move.

[Lord Deben]

Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask a question because there is something I do not understand? What is there under present law to stop a local authority saying to a developer, “Yes, we’ll agree to this, but there are other conditions that are part of that deal”? All that the noble Lord suggests could be perfectly properly achieved in a deal with the local authority. What sort of local authority would give its permission without such a deal taking place?

[Lord Best]

These cases are historic, dating back to 2008-09, where a Section 106 agreement has been signed that does not specify that commencement on site must happen within six months or what commencement on site means, other than within the law. The agreement has not been, if you like, sharply enough defined, although it has followed standard practice. The opportunity then exists for the developer to say, “I don’t wish to proceed on this basis. I shall use Clause 6 and the Planning Inspectorate to reduce my obligations. Even though I signed up to that, I don’t want to be held to it any longer because I have decided that the profitability of my scheme would be increased if I waited some time and did the development later”. These amendments put pressure on the housebuilder and enable the job to be started.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I support the amendment so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and would like to speak in particular to Amendment 31, to which my name has been added.

I regard this as a public interest matter and I am not currently assured that this is being addressed adequately in the Bill. It seems to me that taxpayers have a right to secure clawback if, following a renegotiation, there is a rise in the value of the land. That clawback should be spent on affordable housing because it was the inability to build and the requirements around the level of affordable housing that caused the renegotiations to take place initially. There is a public interest issue here on behalf of the taxpayer, who should be able to share in the rise of the value of land.

On Amendment 31, it is reasonable that an applicant, having renegotiated successfully, must commence development within six months of the final appeal decision. Otherwise, if they do not get on with it, what is the point of that appeal having been made? It seems to me that the public interest requires a developer to get on with the building, having successfully renegotiated the arrangement.

I read very carefully the draft liability test and I am very concerned about the failure of the Government to define “commencement” as at present it can only be defined in terms of the case law that exists. I find Amendment 35 to be extremely helpful because it seeks to define what commencement means. Also, in terms of securing an outcome—renegotiation—which is in the public interest and in the interest of taxpayers, it seems reasonable to have a tighter definition of what commencement means.

[Lord Deben]

I wonder whether my noble friend could help me. It may be that I am extremely stupid about this, but I do not understand why it is not possible for the local authority, as part of its renegotiation, to insist upon these things in any case. Why can it not say, “As part of the agreement we want to do this, but the deal is you do actually get started in the way that we between us decide is a start.” Is there anything illegal in doing that?

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend’s intervention. The Minister will be in a better position to reply, but it seems to me that, where there is agreement, these matters can be satisfactorily resolved. The problem arises when there is not agreement, as a consequence of which a decision has to be made. The case law definition of commencement will then be used; it will enable a whole set of minor things to be done and the developer is deemed in law to have commenced development. Amendment 35 defines much more closely what commencement actually means.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, there is a certain amount of misunderstanding arising in this situation. As I understand it, if the new clause is left as it is, on the planning inspector agreeing a reduction the developer would have no obligation except the statutory obligation. He could not, or the local authority would not be in a position to, redefine the commencement of development because the statutory authority would open the way such that the local authority could not close it. The view of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, is that it might be a good idea to permit the local authority to make such an arrangement. However, that is not provided for as yet and the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, seems to deal with this. The local authority might make an even better definition, depending on local circumstances, but having some power in the local authority to persuade or force the developer to get on with it in a reasonable time, if he takes the reduction, seems essential for this to work.

[Lord Deben]

My Lords, there is an issue here. I do not actually like the way proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Best, because it seems too prescriptive as to how it might be done. I am entirely in favour of this clause. It is very important, in the present circumstances, to find a way of not insisting upon the kinds of costs which were possible at a time in which prices were utterly different. I therefore like the clause but I am concerned that it does not include the possibility of local authorities saying “Yes, okay, the inspector has said that we can reduce the number by this level but the deal is that you get started—and these are the terms of getting started that we want”. In other words, I am not sure that I want to have statutory, public, universal terms because it would seem much better to have it dealt with at local level, and to lay down there which definition of commencement was necessary in this circumstance by this particular local authority.

I am not sure that I like the answer which the noble Lord, Lord Best, has brought forward but my noble and learned friend has pointed to the fact that we need some sort of answer. If we do not have one, people will be getting a deal and then not doing what we are trying to bring this forward to achieve. I do not know whether my noble friend would be right to accept this amendment, but it would be helpful to us if she were prepared, at least, to look again at having some kind of mechanism so that this was not misused, instead of being the very valuable thing which it could so easily be.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, we need to be a little careful about Report stage rules.