Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Etherton Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 22nd May 2023 Lords Chamber

I am aware that the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, have amendments in this group, and I am very interested to hear what they have to say. I think I have probably spoken for long enough, so I beg to move.

[Lord Etherton (CB)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my amendment, co-signed by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow—and I am very grateful to him for doing so. The amendment is to Clause 178(4).

Clause 178 is dealing with the vacancy condition, which is one of the conditions for permitting letting or rental auctions by local authorities. My question is probing, to do with certainty. Clause 178 (4) mentions

“Occupation by … a trespasser, or … a person living in premises that are not designed or adapted for residential use”,


but goes on to say that

“this is not to count for the purposes of this section”.

Since the section deals with both what is occupied and what is not to count as occupation, it is unclear what that means. I ask the Minister to make it clear.

I think the intention must be that where a trespasser is in occupation or there is

“a person living in premises that are not designed or adapted for residential use”,

the premises are not to be treated as unoccupied for the purposes of Clause 178(1). That is my understanding. If that is incorrect and it is intended that they should be treated as unoccupied, the amendment provides that if a landlord has taken possession proceedings, they are not to be treated as unoccupied. It is really a question of clarity as to what Clause 178(4) is meant to do here. If the Minister can give a clear explanation from the Dispatch Box, that would help me and may be the end of the matter.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for identifying what I believe to be an unintended consequence in connection with the proposed forced auctions of high street property. I am pleased to add my name in support of Amendment 418.

Following many years of practice as a chartered surveyor, specifically in the commercial property market, I am well aware that one of the most difficult challenges that landlords of vacant property can face is that of the unauthorised or illegal occupation of their premises. Securing legal and legitimate possession from an occupier who refuses to leave is expensive and time-consuming and can easily—and unfairly—add to the long list of bad landlord stories.

If that unauthorised occupation involves residential property, the problems of cost and delay can increase significantly. I appreciate that the clause we are referring to does not refer to residential occupation, but commercial shops are frequently let to sole traders who use an upper floor storage space informally as residential accommodation. It is outside the terms of the lease, but it may remain a fact, so it is worth pointing out that residential occupation comes into this amendment.

Amendment 418 is designed to protect a landlord from enforcement by the local authority of the auction process when they are already doing their very best to secure vacant possession. They are trying to get rid of an unauthorised occupier. Without this possession, it becomes impossible to let the property. Who would conceive of signing a lease for a shop as a tenant with an illegal trader already in place? Surely it is wrong to penalise the landlord who is keen to let their property but is unable to do so. While legal action is under way, that landlord receives no rent and is probably paying interest on a commercial mortgage. They are likely in breach of their rental income covenants with the bank, so may be verging on defaulting on that loan, and are likely employing costly solicitors to pursue legal action for recovery of their property. Yet, by this Bill, they could be accused of keeping a property vacant.

The clock should not start on the period defined as “lying vacant” until the property is vacant and is in the landlord’s gift to be let to a tenant. I do not believe that it is the Government’s intention to auction off commercial premises that are the subject of legal action to recover possession, so I ask the Minister to ensure that, while legal proceedings are under way to secure possession, the landlord does not inadvertently fall into the trap of effective confiscation by the authorities.

This amendment is not a matter of policy or principle. It does not dispute the intention of Clause 178. It is simply a practical matter that, unamended, will lead to confusion and conflict between vested interests, which, I am sure, is unintended.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I apologise that I have not been in Committee in recent sessions; I had amendments on housing. I have discovered that, as a non-affiliated Peer, it is difficult to organise the division of labour when there are so many hefty Bills going through the House.

I have a particular interest in a couple of groups of amendments being discussed today. High streets and businesses are a core levelling-up issue for so many people outside of London. The decline of the high street can illustrate viscerally the feeling of being neglected and left behind. Boarded-up shops and closing community resources such as banks and pubs can be demoralising, making it feel like the heart of a community is being ripped out. Amendments 433 and 434 from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, are important in this regard; she summed up in a compelling way why this is an important group.

A number of the amendments refer to consultations, which are very important. I was interested in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, regarding incentives. They show that we cannot simply declare a commitment to reviving the high street; it is a bit more complicated than that, to say the least.

I want to raise the dilemma that arises when government policies with different priorities, in completely different areas from this Bill, inadvertently make matters worse for high streets. I will reflect on and support Amendment 432, from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, on assessing the impact of pedestrianisation.

Pedestrianisation can intuitively seem like a good idea for high streets—a positive contributor to a community atmosphere, with increased footfall and increased likelihood of people popping into premises and so on. But stop and consider Naz Choudhury who, for many years, ran the successful Temple Bar, a halal Lebanese grill and Indian food restaurant in Oxford, which permanently closed recently. Why did it close? Mr Choudhury blames a certain form of enforced pedestrianisation in the council-imposed low-traffic neighbourhoods, specifically car restrictions in the Cowley Road area of east Oxford. Mr Choudhury says:

“The council’s decision to put these bollards up along Cowley Road was the main reason people don’t want to travel here anymore”.


Obviously, that is a subjective view, but there are a lot of controversies surrounding the Government’s active travel policies, which emphasise cycling and walking over driving. Businesses are saying that policies such as LTNs are having a negative impact on them. In Haringey, where I live, many shop owners say that LTNs are causing them to lose business.

The controversy around LTNs in Cowley Road in Oxford even hit the national newspaper headlines, largely because of opposition by Clinton Pugh, who is the father of the brilliant “Little Women” actress Florence Pugh. Clinton Pugh said:

“The council have literally strangled the life out of the Cowley Road and it is having a very negative effect on businesses.”


Mr Pugh, who is the owner of two or three cafés and restaurants on the road, even put up a banner accusing Oxford of censorship, quoting Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. Rather than talking to or listening to him, the council’s response was to threaten to fine him for not getting planning consent for the banner.

Beyond the celebrity stories, a serious point for this group of amendments on the high street is to note that policies such as LTNs, which I am sure are very well intentioned, can create a type of pedestrianisation that is bad for business. Too often, councils just will not listen to the complaints or look at the evidence. Cowley Road traders became so exasperated that they produced their own business impact survey of the effects of traffic-reducing measures. It revealed that at least eight shops had closed where LTNs are located; that 153 shops had been directly or indirectly affected through a loss of customers and logistical problems with deliveries to businesses and customers; and that business owners reported a decrease in turnover of 30% in some instances, with some claiming 50%. A letting agent said that the tradespeople they use had increased their call-out fee from £45 to £65 due to the time it takes to get around in a van, the extra fuel used and so on. Hospitality businesses are particularly affected. A staff member at a specialist supermarket, which people travel a long way to get to, noted:

“We don’t sell many large bags of rice now because they’re too heavy to take on the bus”.


Something that looks like “Let’s get everyone walking or on the bus, and it will all be lovely and pedestrianised” is actually destroying businesses and having a bad effect on consumers, who cannot get what they want to buy. We can see parallels between pedestrianisation and the removal of free—or any—parking spaces in town. This is a double blow to both shoppers and SMEs alike, again in the name of anti-car, active travel policies.

Oxford traders say:

“We’ve been asking for an independent business impact assessment to be carried out but the council have ignored us, so we had to do our own”.


If we are to have a levelling-up discussion, Amendment 432 would be a sensible way to sort out the pros and cons of pedestrianisation in local areas. In other words, you cannot have top-down policies that undo any possibility of local residents or businesses having a proper say. LTNs illustrate that.

[Lord Etherton (CB)]

My Lords, I apologise to the Committee: I should have disclosed before I spoke that I have an interest as the owner of high street retail premises.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, there is so much that can be said regarding high streets that is very well evidenced, and in fact there is consensus about what does and does not work. Our concern on these Benches is that the various measures in the Bill, even when combined—it is important to see that—probably do not go far enough or are bold enough to really level up or regenerate. However, this is not Second Reading. I am pleased to speak positively to this part of the Bill and to this group of improving and strengthening amendments, which have been well described in appropriate detail by their proposers, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, as has already been mentioned.

I have to confess to becoming mildly excited about the prospect of local government being able to oblige landlords to rent out persistently vacant high street premises through the rental auctions process. As the elected Mayor of Watford, I inherited a high street shamefully branded in a tabloid headline as “Ibiza on acid”, and where the national crime survey showed one of our town centre side streets as one of the worst crime hotspots in the country several years running. Yes, more bad headlines, but more importantly it was backed up by local people’s opinions, experiences and—never to be forgotten—their perceptions. There was much work to be done, and it took years.

Thus I have bitter experiences of first, and most importantly, trying to track down the landlords of vacant premises—in other words, those who have real legal responsibilities and can actually do something and not just pass the buck. It was rarely straightforward, and any improvement that the Government can make to ease that part of the process would be very welcome and undoubtedly strengthen this policy.

For us, the formation of a business improvement district was critical to eventual success, and one hopes that they continue to be supported. In fact, it was the BID team which was able to do much of the footwork that is going to be needed of continuously monitoring vacant units and all the other premises on the high street. Given the skills and capacity issues in local councils that have been mentioned, this is definitely going to further stretch resources, particularly in district councils. Will the Minister reassure us that the Government have plans to target these issues?

On further investigation, we found that there was often a wide range of reasons why properties were empty, many of them legitimate and often complex and challenging. Amendment 426 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, essentially speaks to that dilemma. He may be surprised to learn that I can empathise. I say to him that any good council would and should seek to work with a landlord in the circumstances outlined in his amendment and help and support the landlord in getting the premises re-let. But I recognise that this is not always the case and despair when I hear case studies such as that from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, of when things have clearly gone awry and councils have not listened. I do not believe in being prescriptive about it because I could stand here and tell noble Lords how pedestrianisation revitalised our high street. My instincts are always to say, “Let councils decide what suits their circumstances”, but in the full knowledge that sometimes they mess it up.

What was key was the partnership approach—agents, landlords, businesses, the council and the community working collaboratively to get things to a point where a compulsory rental auction would not be necessary. That would be a measure of its success. But all too often we found that the landlord was not the kind of one described by the noble Earl but a pension group or similar investor with a wide range of holdings and for which a couple of shops in Watford High Street were small beer. For a wide range of commercial reasons it did not “suit their circumstances at the moment” to re-let. I sincerely hope that these are the landlords that this legislation will drive to the table.

The word “community” in my list of partners is important. Amendments 417 and 437 emphasise the involvement of the community, which is the heart of any place, as we know—the hub for getting together to enjoy a wide range of activities and events. In short, it is hard to imagine that a local plan would be found sound if it did not involve a policy for the high street and significantly involve the local community in its formation. Can the Minister confirm this?