Housing and Planning Bill

Lord Deben Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I do not wish to repeat the concerns I have had for some time over the amount of information that is available about this Bill, the regulations and the like. We are debating the Bill in these circumstances and therefore I remind the House what the planning system is for. It is a disagreeable necessity. We have to have it because you cannot have a circumstance in which the unlimited, private ownership of land has an effect on neighbours and communities. It is not about land owned by the local authority. The owner owns the land. Whenever I hear planning discussed by the parties opposite, I am fascinated because you might think it was owned by the local authority and that it should come back to the fact that this is a local authority matter.

The House has to recognise that there is an international agreement on human rights in which property is a basic human right—not only under the United Nations, but under the European Union of which I am sure we shall remain a full and active member, even though there is such nonsense spoken about it by the Brexit people. I am not getting on to that, of course. Even if they do not like the European Union, they are stuck with the United Nations human rights declaration, which we signed.

I happen to care about the right to property. It is basic in a community. It is basic for democracy. If you want to destroy democracy, the first thing you destroy is the right to property because it gives people independence. It enables them to stand up against government; it enables them to put two fingers up to a local authority if that is what it thinks. Yet, when I hear a debate like this, I understand precisely why I am on these Benches. Very often I find myself arguing not entirely on the side of the Government. However, I have been very much reassured, by the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and particularly of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and I understand why I am not a Liberal Democrat. It is because they are neither liberal nor democratic. That is the reality.

All the Government are suggesting is that it would do local authorities a lot of good to recognise that this is not a little bit of business which they do themselves in the way they want to do it. It is something which should be open to public concern and public alternatives. Of course, we can produce all sorts of scare tactics about what might happen and what people could do and all the things that might arise. What we are really arguing in the amendment is that we should not try anything else—there should be no opportunity for alternatives and no one ought to deal with this. Why? Because local authorities do not like it and because that well-known organ of democracy, in which I declare an interest as an honorary vice-president, the TCPA, does not hold with it.

The TCPA does not hold with a lot of things, mainly because it is still burdened by the memory of that dreadful old man, Ebenezer Howard—still thinking in the past, not understanding that we are in a world in which people do not expect there to be one provider or just one lot of people to go to. Today people expect that we test it all the time. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, went through a whole list of things, but in every one of those cases the nationalised provider is a lot better because there is an alternative. There are better prisons because they do not all have to be done in one way. Even when you have failures, the fact that there is an alternative is crucial in a democracy and crucial for the efficiency of the national system.

I come to the nature of planning. I cannot believe that there is anyone in this House who thinks that the planning system works well. That does not mean to say that an alternative would be better; sometimes planning may be thought of as Churchill thought of democracy—that it is a thoroughly bad system, but there is not a better one. Sometimes I think that that is the best definition of planning that we have. I have declared my interest and my pastimes; although I shall certainly not be involved in anything that may come out of this, I try to help people to produce sustainable buildings. One business with which I have an association tries to make buildings better, more sustainable and energy efficient. But in the course of that, I have to deal with planners, and we have very great difficulties sometimes. There was the lady who said to one of my constituents who wanted to have the next-door very small, knobbly and unimportant field as part of his garden, “You don’t need a bigger garden—therefore you won’t get the right to use it as a garden”. That is ludicrous, to have to ask planning permission to turn a field into a garden. I can think of nothing more ridiculous than telling people that they have to get planning permission to do with their own land what most of us would like them to do, which is to turn it into a garden. But no—that is one of the things, because at some stage some local authority thought that it would be better telling people what to do with their land than people can do themselves.

[Lord Greaves]

The noble Lord is very entertaining although I am not sure what his speech has to do with this Bill. But if a local authority requires planning permission for the conversion of a piece of a field into a garden, that is precisely because government regulations in the general development order, or whatever it is now called, require that to happen. If the planning system is not working well—and every time I get a chance to debate planning anywhere, including in your Lordships’ House, I announce it to be bust, because I believe that it is bust—it is almost entirely the fault of the national Government and detailed national rules and regulations, which tie the whole thing down.

[Lord Deben]

I am so pleased that I tempted the noble Lord to intervene at that stage, because I can now tell him that I tried to change the law on that when I was the Minister, and who opposed me? Every blooming local authority—they were the ones who demanded to keep this power and said that it was so important. So I want us to come back to what the Government are asking. This is entirely relevant. I am glad that it is amusing to the noble Lord, but I believe it to be central to the amendment. The Government propose that we give the Secretary of State the power to see whether there are alternative ways in which to handle something that, in the noble Lord’s words, is in many ways bust. That is what he says, but if it is bust, would not it be a good idea to see whether there are ways of unbusting it? This is one of the suggestions.

What do we get? Not a series of suggestions about how we might refine it, improve it, make the tests rather better or come forward with various suggestions about how the various pilots might be carried through. Instead, we get an onslaught on the basis that the only people who can do this are local authorities or public bodies. The Government have produced something which is worth trying. If it does not work, we have not done anything bad. If it does work, we have learned something. The worst thing in politics is to say that we cannot do something because we have not done it before, that we cannot do something because it will not work or that we cannot do something because we do not want to try. This is the moment when we ought to say that we may be a very old House and many of us in it may be very old, but at least we are young enough to recognise that it would be a good thing to have a go at something different.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, I listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Deben. He seems to think that the problems that might arise—I think he used the words “might arise”—should not really concern us at this stage. That is what Parliament is about. It is about identifying issues, legislating and, in the event that we foresee problems arising, amending our position to ensure that those problems are avoided.

I want to target a very narrow area. It is the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, about the relationship between the planners in the planning authority and the planning contractor in the meeting with councillors. We are told that the proposal is that the contractor will be making the recommendation, but it is unlikely that the planner from the planning authority, who has a relationship with the councillors that probably goes back many years, may not wish to influence events. Whether it is done formally or informally, the planner in the residual planning department might come up with a very different conclusion or recommendation and indicate to the councillors exactly what he or she thinks. That is why I am a little worried about this reference cited by my noble friend on the Front Bench, who said:

“The regulations may make provision about … the investigation of complaints or concerns about designated persons”,

and

“the circumstances in which, and the extent to which, any advice provided by a designated person to a person making a planning application is binding … on the responsible planning authority”.

In other words, can the Secretary of State say, “I require you”—the local authority—“to dismiss any comments, recommendations or views of your own planning department and to accept the views being expressed by the independent contractor”.? I would worry about that because it would completely overturn the principle on which I understand planning operates within local authorities. As I understand it—but it is 40 years since I was on a council—it is normal for the Secretary of State to interfere only on appeal. That provision suggests to me that the Secretary of State can intervene in circumstances which would not be particularly helpful.

I go back to what I said at the beginning of my comments. I am concerned about what happens in the meeting and in the documents that flow between the contractor, the planning officials and the councillors, and about the conflict that might arise. I suggest that that is where the problem will arise and what will sink the whole project.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Young of Old Scone]

My Lords, I am conscious of the fact that noble Lords are dying for me to shut up, because I am probably all that is between them and going home. But I think that this is an important issue—and it is important for two reasons. I rise to promote Amendment 119 in my name and support Amendment 120, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. There are 4 million people at risk of surface water flooding and climate change, and increasing urbanisation will make that worse, so it is a really important issue. More important is the fact that this Parliament agreed the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, which included provisions for sustainable drainage—but the relevant sections have not been commenced. I am very ambiguous about the Government’s habit of not bringing into being the will of Parliament. Instead, they have decided to rely on planning measures through the NPPF and have provided two pages of non-technical standards to guide developers.

The presumption in planning that sustainable urban drainage should be included in new developments is not working. It has created uncertainty for developers and created a diversity of interpretation of what is acceptable. Planning authorities—poor souls—are leaned on to ignore it if developers suggest that the costs of providing sustainable urban drainage affect the viability of the development. Local planners at the moment have neither the expertise nor the time, and cave in under these viability challenges.

As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said, the planning rules include no structure for formal adoption or long-term maintenance of sustainable urban drainage schemes, which has been a problem for years, with schemes being created and then left orphaned with nobody to look after them and make sure that they continue to be safe and effective. Of course, it is not just about sustainable drainage and flood protection. There are also potential additional benefits of amenity, water quality and biodiversity that have not been garnered.

I had the privilege of talking briefly to the Minister about this and she indicated that the Government’s intention was at least to run the scheme on the planning presumption basis for two years while it was monitored. My further inquiries since meeting her have revealed that no body has been charged with keeping these records—so I am not clear that the Government will be able to say at the end of the two-year period that the scheme is or is not working.

So far, the evidence we have been able to glean from people such as members of the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management—of which I should declare that I am an honorary fellow—is that the situation is now worse since local flood authorities took over responsibility for surface water drainage. Noble Lords have heard the figures from the adaptation sub-committee and the quotation from Barratt Developments that about one-third of its developments do not include sustainable drainage.

We appear to be fiddling while Rome burns in anticipation that at the end of two years, we will be better informed, when in fact the figures will not be available to demonstrate whether it is working. We should press for the implementation of Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act. That would fulfil Parliament’s will, cost no more than conventionally engineered drainage systems, help reduce flood risks and the costs of flooding, provide improvements in water quality, biodiversity and amenity and give developers a degree of certainty.

In the interest of brevity the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said she would not list the diverse range of expert bodies. I will list but a few of them: the Institution of Civil Engineers, the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management, the Construction Industry Council and a few others—I have forgotten what the acronyms stand for, so I shall not bore noble Lords with them. We should re-enact your Lordships’ previous support for this provision, which is enshrined in legislation.

I support the interesting Amendment 120, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. When I first read it and was asked to support it, I was slightly wary because it seemed to be a bit bonkers. But, having thought about it and having read it in detail, I think it is one of the more cunning pieces of win-win, incentive-based legislation I have seen for many a long year, in that it would mean that developers would have to think harder about developing more flood-resistant properties and about developing on less flood-prone sites in a way that would not require any cost from them provided they did it well. That is what a good amendment looks like, and I commend it to the Government.

[Lord Deben]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the Committee on Climate Change, and I rise to support these two amendments. They are both based upon advice given to the Government by the Committee on Climate Change. We are talking about a very serious issue. Tens of thousands of houses have been built on flood plains and in circumstances which are more vulnerable than Cockermouth. This is serious. If we go on like this, we will be creating problems which we will have to meet. We cannot avoid it. This is going to happen. Not to do in this Bill what we can do is to avoid an opportunity, to the detriment of very large numbers of people.

The Adaptation Sub-Committee of the Committee on Climate Change told the Government that there are a number of simple things that should be done that could help protect us in future. For example, water companies are not at the moment compulsory consultees to planning decisions, which means that they are in the very peculiar position of neither being able to comment under the statute on a planning decision, nor being able to refuse to connect the houses then built to an inadequate sewer. We have to put this right. When the committee suggested this to the Government, their official reply was that it would be inappropriate to do this. The word “inappropriate” may have been the right word before the floods in Cumbria, but to suggest that it is inappropriate to do this is stretching the English language beyond any possible appropriate use.

My noble friend may be unable to accept these two amendments at the moment, but it seems to me that it would be pretty impossible to explain to the public that we are prepared to continue with a position in which houses are being built without proper and adequate means of getting rid of the surplus water that they create, and without proper protection of the surplus water that is created outside. These amendments make sure that we have modern, sustainable drainage in a form which this House and the other House have already agreed, and which the Government support. Secondly, they ensure that developers have a duty to develop in a way that makes houses resilient to the normal circumstances of life.

I can think of no more moderate or reasonable amendments to put down, and I remind the Minister that they are based upon the advice of the body that spent a great deal of time researching independently what should be done. Therefore, if she is not able to accept them now, I hope she can give us some hope that between now and Report, the Government will take this opportunity to do two very simple things which will save maybe the lives—and certainly the property and the future—of a large number of people.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

I support strongly Amendments 119 and 120, which are important. Before turning to them, I point out that today, we have truncated the last nine groups of amendments to suit the Government’s timetable agenda. Some of us had to concede that because we wanted to ensure that we had two opportunities to debate these amendments, in Committee and on Report; under the proposal made by the Patronage Secretary, that was not precisely the case.

For those Members of the House who have not been following our proceedings and have wondered what was happening this evening—and there will be those who have not—the central issue in this whole Bill has been the fact that it is a skeleton Bill. We have not been able to discuss all the controversial provisions because they are to be introduced later, after Royal Assent, in the form of statutory instruments which we cannot amend. That is the fundamental objection here. That is why all these arguments have taken place.

Amendment 120 would offer at least some security for prospective purchasers of housing. In the event of flooding, at least on the first occasion, the cost of dealing with a property that had been flooded would fall on the developer, not the insurer. Of course, the amendment does not deal with what subsequently happens, when the insurer would carry the liability; but under it, a developer would have to have in mind the potential cost to themselves of failing to design the property they were constructing to deal with the potential for flooding.

I hope this amendment will be enshrined in law, because it seems to me eminently sensible. It contains the phrase:

“the housing developer to be liable for the full cost of flood damage to a new dwelling if such damage occurs within ten years of the property being first sold”.

Of course, the developer can go bankrupt—and then where is the liability? Who then is responsible for paying the bill? In the event that this were enshrined in law, provision would surely have to be made for the developer to buy insurance to cover the possibility of flooding happening at some stage. I presume that the credit rating of the developer would influence the amount of premium payable on the insurance policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

If I have interpreted my noble friend’s words correctly, he tells us that he lives in an area that is quite low lying. We are sitting in an area that is in a flood plain, so it is not at all unusual for areas of high flood risk to be built upon, albeit that London has been built upon for the past 200 or 300 years. Going back to my original statement, the review by Oliver Letwin going forward and the total way in which we approach water management must take on a new meaning. That is not to take away from the noble Lord’s point. I think that my noble friend was making an entirely different point, which is that in some places we build on flood plains.

Where development is necessary in a flood risk area, it must be made safe, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and be appropriately flood resilient and resistant. We have recently seen examples of where building in one place has increased flood risk elsewhere. Where appropriate, developers need to identify through a site-specific flood risk assessment all the flood risks to and from the development. This should accompany the planning application to the satisfaction of the local planning authority. Our planning guidance, which supports the NPPF, is very clear that all local planning authorities are expected to follow the strict tests set in the framework to protect people and property from flooding.

[Lord Deben]

Can my noble friend explain why the Government are not willing at this stage at least to say they will look into the unanimous advice that the Minister has had to insist that it is no longer compulsory that the water authority should link up to the local sewerage system just because a development has been put up? The developer should be responsible for making a connection that is not damaging. Why can we not make such a simple and necessary change to the law?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, my noble friend brings up a really important point, but some of these things will be discussed in the round as we consider how we manage flooding in future. I am sorry—I have lost my train of thought. I wonder whether it is the lateness of the hour. The work of my noble friend’s committee will be invaluable to that thinking.

I come back to the issue of flood resilient construction. Currently, building regulations do not require building work to incorporate any flood-resilience or flood-resistance measures. This is because local authorities can already ensure through plans that measures to address flood risk are incorporated into new development where appropriate. Nevertheless, approved document C of the statutory guidance which supports the buildings regulations promotes the use of flood-resilient and resistant construction.

We recognise the importance of the issue and have asked the Building Regulations Advisory Committee, the statutory committee which advises Ministers on building regulations matters, for its advice on this. I know that the committee has been considering the issues, and we expect to receive its advice shortly.