Lord Greaves
Main Page: Lord Greaves (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)Department Debates - View all Lord Greaves's debates with the Cabinet Office
Housing and Planning Bill
Lord Greaves Excerpts(8 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greaves
“Limitations on planning obligations
Regulation 123 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (further limitations on use of planning regulations) is repealed.”
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, this is a small issue, in a sense. It is a kite-flying amendment not directly related to what is in the Bill, like many other amendments we have been discussing. However, it is an important issue for local authorities that are affected by it. Regulation 123 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations refers to Section 106 agreements. When the CIL regulations were brought in, it was tagged on to them, almost without anybody noticing—although I complained about the regulation when it came to be approved by this House.
I am challenging not the regulation as such but the bit of Regulation 123(3)(b) that restricts the number of Section 106 agreements within the area of one local planning authority to five,
“which provide for the funding or provision of that … type of infrastructure”.
That means that a local planning authority can have only five Section 106 agreements in place anywhere within its area for one particular type of infrastructure. I hope that the Minister will understand the very specific point I am making. I will come to it in a minute.
I want to be clear that I am not objecting to the requirements of Section 106, which nowadays have to be site specific. It used to be that you could have a planning application at one end of an authority and get some money for a playground miles away at the other end of the authority. That was quite rightly stopped. Agreements have to be site specific—in other words, related to the particular planning application or piece of land, as the Minister said earlier. I am not objecting to the restrictions on pooling Section 106 contributions to build up a pot for large schemes, and there is a limit to how far that can be done. It is just ordinary, small Section 106 contributions that are typically connected to retail developments, housing developments and so on. Again, I am not talking about the affordable housing things that we were talking about this morning.
The limit to five schemes is not logical for four reasons. First, there may well be more than five separate schemes that are relevant or appropriate to particular developments, even though they are of the same type. For example, it may be that Section 106 contributions are being used to support a local bus service—the kind of bus service which is subsidised or supported by the local highways authority under the Transport Act—and a contribution may be made in order to extend the route to serve a particular housing estate or so that it serves the supermarket or whatever. I have had a lot of experience in past decades of helping to support local bus services through this means, at the same time providing public transport to new housing developments or new supermarkets.
It may well be that a Section 106 agreement is required for a public open space, and it is silly to say that you can have only five open spaces if you have seven developments that would benefit from this provision. So there is no logic to it. It came in as part of the restrictions on making Section 106 agreements site specific and stopping people building up big pots, but it is not now necessary.
The second reason is that, because Section 106 agreements are now site specific, there is no reason to limit the number. Logic says that the number should be determined by the number of appropriate developments and appropriate schemes. Thirdly—and here I am talking to some extent against a small authority such as my own—the limit applies per local planning authority, however big or small. So it is five for a huge area such as Northumberland or Cornwall, five for a little authority such as Rutland, five for small district councils and five for big cities. It is an arbitrary number and there is no sense to it.
Finally, it causes particular problems where a local authority has no CIL contributions. Where the level of CIL has been assessed as zero, it cannot be levied. The kinds of councils I keep talking about during this Bill, including my own in Lancashire and lots of other councils in Lancashire and the north of England, cannot levy a CIL because if you levy a CIL, it takes developments completely over the border into being unviable. In areas where developments are only marginally viable on the best greenfield sites, you cannot levy a CIL.
Therefore, the contributions for local infrastructure that come from a CIL are not available in areas of that kind, and those areas are by their very nature probably poorer in different ways than the more prosperous parts of the country that can levy a CIL. So poorer areas do not get the infrastructure levy. Therefore we have to rely on what we can get from Section 106, and this restriction on Section 106 is arbitrary and illogical. I hope that the Government will take it away and have a look at it. They do not have to bring it back in this Bill; they can simply make a minor change to the CIL regulations. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for his amendment. The Government introduced the pooling restriction in Regulation 123 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 in order to ensure that planning obligations are used appropriately. The regulations have encouraged 107 charging authorities to bring forward the levy, which provides greater certainty for developers about the cost of developments and helps those authorities provide certainty to their communities about how their infrastructure needs can be met.
Pooling restrictions limit the use of Section 106 to no more than five for a specific infrastructure levy type or project, as the noble Lord said, but this has helped to incentive the adoption of the levy. Adoption nearly trebled in the year prior to the pooling restriction taking effect in April 2015, and it has continued to grow since. While acknowledging that Section 106 still has a role to play in site-specific infrastructure, the Government launched a review of the levy last year to ensure that it provides an effective mechanism for funding infrastructure. The review is considering, among other matters, the relationship between the levy and Section 106 planning obligations. I shall be happy to ensure that the panel is aware of the noble Lord’s thoughts on the repeal of the regulation. With that in mind, I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Greaves
I am grateful for the last sentence of that reply. I am talking not about pooling Section 106 contributions for bigger projects but about the limit on the number of small projects that can be funded directly linked in a site-specific way to particular developments. The perfectly justifiable intentions of the Government to stop Section106 being an alternative to CIL has caught the small schemes and small contributions in a way that was not intended. That specific point ought to be looked at.
Having said that, the other point is that it is okay having lots of incentives to levy CIL—but not if the consequence of levying CIL is that no development at all takes place. Remember, I come from an authority where getting into three figures of new starts or completions a year is proving very difficult indeed. In one recent year it was in single figures and that is not for the lack of trying to build as far as the authority is concerned. Indeed, in one recent year when 50 or 60 completions took place, they were almost all built by the authority. The private market hardly exists—or has hardly existed in the last few years.
Lord Greaves
Lord Greaves
My Lords, we now move on to the part of the Bill that is about housing development linked to applications for development control under the 2008 Act for nationally significant infrastructure projects. This series of amendments probes the provisions which will take the housing element of such projects—where they are linked to infrastructure projects—out of the hands of local authorities and allow people to make the application for development consent under the infrastructure system and to include the housing provision within that application.
The purpose of tabling these amendments is to ask some related questions. A very useful briefing note from the Department for Communities and Local Government, called the Housing and Planning Bill: Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects and Housing, does answer some of the questions I had in my mind when I tabled these amendments. Nevertheless, some questions remain, and one fundamental issue has a big question mark against it.
Amendment 102CA would name the housing projects which are linked with the infrastructure projects “subsidiary”, which seems to me an appropriate word. It is important that they be seen to be subsidiary or ancillary and not a major part—even if they are 30% or 40% of the reason for the development. Housing ought not to be the reason for the development. Infrastructure projects are the reason for the development.
Amendment 102CC, to new subsection (4B) of Section 115 of the Planning Act 2008, states:
“‘Related housing development’ means development which … (a) consists of or includes the construction or extension of one or more”,
new dwellings. I take it that “consists of” is okay—it “consists of” housing or “includes” housing. What else is there? That is the question. I take it that the “what else” is not the infrastructure, but something else. Therefore, why do things other than housing need to be included?
Amendments 102CF and 102CG challenge the geographical reason for allowing people to include housing in an application for development consent. The briefing note on page five sets out clearly that the Government intend that there will be two reasons for allowing housing development. The functional need ought to be allowed. Paragraph 17 states that:
“Where housing is being provided on the basis of a functional need”,
the limit for the number of houses can be up to 500, which seems rather a lot, even for a functional need. Perhaps the Government can tell us under what circumstances an infrastructure development might also require 500 houses. But paragraph 16 states:
“Where housing is being provided on the basis of geographic proximity to an infrastructure project, the maximum amount of permanent housing that could be granted consent”,
is also 500 houses. I do not understand why the Government are going to allow a national infrastructure project to be put forward with up to 500 houses when the only connection between those houses and the project is geographical proximity: either adjacent or, as my Amendment 102CD puts it, “close to”—the briefing note says up to a mile away.
It seems that the planning permission for new housing estates of up to 500 houses—perhaps most are smaller—is being taken out of the hands of local planning authorities just because the estate in question is next to, or within a mile or so of, a new infrastructure project. I cannot understand the logic of this. I can understand why landowners might want to link them together and perhaps fund one out of the other. Five hundred houses, by any standards, is a big new housing development. It ought to be in the hands of the local planning authority. The guidance sets out that the Secretary of State, in making his decision on the application for development consent, will have to take account of the local plan and the national planning policy framework, and whether it is in a national park or ecologically significant, for example. All these things will need to be taken account of. Local planning authorities do that all the time. However, issues such as design, the relationship between the new development and the existing communities, local highways issues, access, or even Section 106 agreements for new bus services ought to be in the hands of the democratically elected local planning authorities, not put into the hands of the Secretary of State.
There are very good reasons why the national infrastructure planning system exists for national infrastructure projects. There are reasons that I can understand for housing being part of the project—when it is directly related to those projects because it is for people who are going to work there—and it is sensible to put in a planning application for development consent. However, I see no reason at all why local authorities should have this decision seized from them by the Secretary of State simply because a project is next to a new national infrastructure project, even if none of the people living in those houses is going to be associated with, connected with or working at the new development. It seems to be a step too far in the centralisation of the local planning functions of local authorities, and yet another move away from localism to centralism. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, my name is associated with Clause 144 stand part, and I agree entirely with what my noble friend Lord Greaves has said. I regard this as a very important issue because it effectively cuts out local authorities from the planning process on a nationally important infrastructure decision. Simply permitting an applicant to go straight to the Secretary of State to secure approval seems to me to be the wrong approach. What my noble friend said helps us to solve the problem.
Lord Greaves
I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the Government’s position in great detail. Having heard it again, I am even more sure that it is wrong. Sorry about that, but when you find out what things actually mean, sometimes you think they are okay but sometimes it confirms your view that they are wrong. The idea that 500 houses are a minor part of a development, in any area, is nonsense. In terms of their impact on a community and how it operates, 500 houses anywhere are a lot of houses. I accept that if such a development is directly associated with the infrastructure scheme and required for it in a functional way, it is reasonable for one application to take place. However, the only real argument that has been put forward is that it is a good idea to build next to a new infrastructure because new roads and access will be put in. In planning terms, it might be a good idea, or it might not be. In planning terms, it might be a very bad idea because of the disadvantages of living next to whatever the new infrastructure is. Or it might be a very good idea. That is a decision that ought to be taken by the local planning authority. It just seems unnecessary to say that 500 houses that are not related to the infrastructure scheme at all, but are simply next to it, ought to be taken away from the decision-making of the local authority. The only argument that I can think of is that it is again just more convenient and easy for the developers. That is the second time today that I have said that too much of this Bill seems to be about making life easier for developers and blow the consequences for everybody else. I am unhappy as I think it is the wrong decision. We might bring it back on Report; but for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Greaves
“( ) A local planning authority may only be specified under subsection (1) if it so consents.”
Lord Greaves
My Lords, at last we arrive at perhaps the remaining flashpoint in the Bill. I rise to move Amendment 102CL and speak to my other amendments in the group. There are two other very useful amendments from noble Lords in the group.
Clause 145 is a major, very controversial innovation. It may be the first step towards the privatisation of development management and yet it was dumped on the Commons on Report. There was a very short explanation by the Minister, one speech by Clive Betts MP at 1 am and the Minister refused to answer his questions—there was no reply from the Minister.
Here we are in the Lords at the very end of the Bill, at the end of the afternoon on day nine of nine, and we must try at least to give it some intelligent consideration. I have no doubt that the issue will come back on Report anyhow. The Government are saying that this is intended to be a pilot, but the Bill appears to give the Secretary of State untrammelled powers to introduce this provision to any extent he or she wishes at any time in the future, so the question of how it can be limited is an issue that the Committee ought to look at.
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.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I have given the noble Lord the answer that I can. I am sorry that he is unhappy with it. I will go back and have a look to see whether I can provide him with any other information.
The noble Lord will also not be happy with my response to his question on the DPRRC report. I am afraid that it depends on what time the House rises as to whether noble Lords get it before we rise, but they will get it today. On that basis, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, there is a lot there to look at, read and think about. In the last argument there was some confusion between compulsory outsourcing and being forced to be subject to competition. Those are different things. I think the Government are saying that some authorities may have a designated person or persons forced on them in their area, but some clarification would be very helpful. The Bill certainly says that that is possible.
I thank everybody who took part in the discussion. Some were more entertaining than others. The noble Lord, Lord True, took us into the details of planning committees, which some of us have spent far too much time in our lives chairing, being members of or whatever. On the point about the relationship between the committee and its planning officer regarding applications where the committee may overturn the recommendation of the officer, there are applications where it is obvious which way they will go: that they will be rejected, or passed. While people may argue one way or the other, there are no sensible reasons and it is a fairly cut-and-dried case. But in most cases where recommendations are overturned, they are arguable both ways. If the planning committee overturns cases where it is not arguable both ways, it is not a very good committee. It is behaving pretty irresponsibly, really.
Under those circumstances, the reports written by planning officers are balanced. They will put forward the reasons an application has been made and the arguments for it; they will put forward the objections to it and the reasons it might be turned down; then they will come down on one side or the other. If the committee takes a different view and it then goes to appeal, a sensible inspector will look at all the original reports and everything else and he will come to the view that it was a perfectly reasonable decision by the committee.
Lord Greaves
It is a very constructive point. There is time to discuss this part of the Bill further before Report. We are coming back straight to Report, but I do not imagine we will get to Part 6 for quite a while; for several days, anyway. I ask the Government to convene meetings of people around the House to look at the practicalities. If the Government can persuade us that in a practical sense, this will work, or that it might work—that it is worth trying—we can think about practical, working amendments to it. If they cannot persuade us, some of us will want to remove it all. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Greaves
“( ) The Secretary of State may not designate a person who—(a) provides services in a professional capacity to persons in connection with development proposals or applications for planning permission or is employed by or associated with a company which provides such services,(b) is employed or remunerated, whether on a full-time or part-time basis, by persons or companies which undertake development, or(c) has within the past five years been employed by a local planning authority in any capacity that involved dealing with planning applications.”
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I put this in a separate amendment because I wanted it set out and because it is the fundamental thing that people outside the system are going to complain about with regard to private provision of the processing of planning applications. The potential for conflicts of interest is high. The Government say they will produce regulations to stop that and make sure it does not happen. We will see how they do that.
There is a perception of conflicts of interest in a system that, as was said earlier, is already believed by many people to be utterly biased towards large developers and against ordinary people—rightly or wrongly, there is a widespread belief that that is the case. If, instead of being processed by local government officials, planning applications are processed by private companies, people will look for the links between those private companies and developers putting in applications and, whatever safeguards the Government put in, they will find them. They will find family relationships, school relationships, board memberships and so on—all manner of relationships. It is a huge can of worms.
If the Government are going ahead with these pilots, this is a fundamental issue that they have to tackle and do their very best to get right. I doubt they can get it right but it is at the heart of this proposal. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for putting this unexpected discussion before the Committee. I am conscious that there are 11 more groups, which, in the course of a normal Thursday, would need to be discussed in the next hour and seven minutes. Perhaps I can abuse the fact that I am now standing up to say that it would be very helpful if we could have a statement from the Government Chief Whip in, say, 15 minutes, explaining his intentions for the remainder of Committee. It is clearly unreasonable—to the Minister and the shadow Ministers—to be continuing in this way, making such slow albeit quite proper progress, because these are important issues. It would be extremely helpful if we had a statement from the Government Chief Whip about the Government’s intentions for dealing with the Bill because, frankly, this is not a sensible way for legislation to be properly scrutinised by your Lordships’ House.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
The noble Lord’s Amendment 102DC is excessive, not least because local authorities tell us that it cannot be beyond us to work together to design a robust system of checks and balances to maintain professional standards. As I have said, we believe that the private sector could bring valuable innovation and efficient techniques to processing and managing planning applications. That said, it is entirely reasonable and understandable to ask how we will maintain accountability, integrity and professional standards with private sector involvement. Key to this is who makes the decision—who can be a designated person, what applications designated persons are allowed to process, and legal safeguards in the planning system.
I have been crystal clear that responsibility for deciding planning applications will remain with local planning authorities, and they cannot delegate that to a designated person. A designated person will not be able to decide on a planning application. Notwithstanding a separate amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, Clause 146(1)(b) already allows us to specify circumstances where a local authority could take over a planning application from a designated person, including where it has demonstrable concerns about the designated person’s work. Persons designated by the Secretary of State will be expected to meet high professional standards and have expert planning knowledge that would enable them to operate in pilot areas with unique characteristics. We will expect them to demonstrate the ability to engage with local communities and councillors so that they can operate successfully in these pilot areas. We expect to put in place mechanisms to address any failure in standards and integrity, such as removing a provider’s designation, or, as I said a moment ago, enabling poor work to be redone.
Our engagement work with local authorities and the private sector has also highlighted the obligations of Royal Town Planning Institute membership, which was mentioned by noble Lords during discussion of the previous group of amendments. All members of the RTPI are bound by a code of professional conduct, underpinned by a complaints process, setting out required standards of practice and ethics for chartered and non-chartered members. RTPI members are required to adhere to five core principles: competence; honesty and integrity; independent professional judgment; due care and diligence; and professional behaviour. We will look to build these and similar standards into the selection and performance monitoring of designated persons. Crucially, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that a designated person must not be allowed to process a planning application in which they have an interest. Furthermore, after extensive dialogue with local authorities, professional bodies and the private sector, we will set out in regulations the actions and procedures that a designated person must follow in processing a planning application.
I also draw the noble Lord’s attention to Section 327A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, concerning requirements for processing planning applications. A local planning authority must not entertain a planning application where the formal manner in which the application is made, or, crucially, the formal content of any document or other matter which accompanies the application is not compliant with the requirements for processing a planning application. Therefore, an application which has not been appropriately processed by a designated person, or has involved a conflict of interest, could be considered null and void.
I can assure noble Lords that, given the importance of this issue, we will continue this dialogue to ensure that we get the design of the pilots right. I hope that, with this brief overview, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I will. That was extremely helpful and I will read it carefully. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I too want to get home tonight, and if helps the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, I shall not move the next group of amendments, because I think that we have more or less finished the debate on this for tonight.
Lord Greaves
“Review of the plan-making process
(1) Not less than six months after the coming into force of this section the Secretary of State must establish a comprehensive review of the procedures, costs, time-scales and efficiency of the plan-making processes under planning legislation (“the plan-making review”).(2) The plan-making review must invite evidence from planning authorities, users of the planning system, and any other persons.(3) The report of the plan-making review must be sent to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State must arrange for it to be laid before each House of Parliament.”
Lord Greaves
Briefly, my Lords, there were suggestions earlier from the noble Lord, Lord Deben, who is no longer in his place, that the planning system needed an improvement. I apologise for tabling this amendment in a rather strange location in the Bill; that was by accident. I tabled it to suggest that it was time for the Government to pursue an inquiry and reforms to the plan-making system, as opposed to the development control system.
Since then, I have discovered that such an investigation has been taking place. I have a copy of a report which came out a few days ago—I think it was on 16 March—called Local Plans: Report to the Communities Secretary and to the Minister of Housing and Planning from the Local Plans Expert Group. I confess that I have not yet had time to read it, owing to the requirements of research on the Bill, but it is an excellent step forward. I hope that its contents are as good as I am billing them and that we will be able to have a slightly more relaxed debate in your Lordships’ House on this matter, by some mechanism or other, before the end of the Session.
There are defects in the development control system. While nobody is perfect, everybody who gets involved in that system is frustrated by some of the things that have to happen. Nevertheless, it has been my view for a number of years—I have expressed this in your Lordships’ House on a number of occasions—that the main inefficiencies and problems in the planning system are with plan making rather than development control. Plan making is cumbersome, bureaucratic, top-down, top-heavy and not very democratic. Reform is needed, particularly if local plans are to be the basis for planning in principle, so I am delighted by the document that I have received. In order to give the Minister a chance to reply, I beg to move this amendment.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I thank the noble Lord and I will respond very briefly. We recognise that the process of getting local plans in place can sometimes seem lengthy and complicated, which is why we gave a commitment in the productivity plan to bring forward proposals to streamline them. In September last year, Ministers invited an eight-strong group of experts to examine what measures or reforms might be helpful in ensuring the efficient and effective production of local plans. As the noble Lord rightly said, that group published its report on 16 March. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale (Con)
My Lords, after the last half hour, it goes without saying that we have had a long and exhaustive debate on the Bill, so I shall keep my remarks to an absolute minimum, especially as we now turn from the purely built environment, with which the Bill is chiefly concerned, to a few of the people who live in that environment and the problems that footpaths can cause them.
A tiny fraction of a percentage of the 140,000 miles of public rights of way go through the gardens of private family homes. Unfortunately, once they are recorded on the designated footpath map, it is as though they are set in concrete, and they will of course be at the cut-off point in 2026. Even where councils make a mistake, it seems impossible to change their mind. I know of one case where the council confirmed a footpath going straight through a home owner’s sitting room, subsequently saying that it could not correct its admitted error. That is a clear nonsense.
When a footpath goes through a garden, however—which is my reason for putting down this amendment—it does not take much imagination to appreciate that this can cause immense hardship for the owners of the property, effectively causing the loss of the normal use of the garden. I know of at least 25 such cases. Would any of your Lordships be comfortable if your children or grandchildren, or indeed pets, were to be left alone in such a garden? Nor is it beyond the wit of a nefarious character to peer into windows to see whether a house is worth burgling. So there are obvious security, safety and privacy issues. Homes whose owners have spent a lifetime paying off the mortgage can become unsaleable and the owner trapped.
Many of these paths are little used and most of the general public have no wish to go through a family garden. However, local government is required by statute to keep these paths open, in some cases even requiring home owners to remove the gates to their gardens. There are examples of bankruptcy, breakdowns and even suicide, and these will become more frequent as the population grows. This cannot be in the public interest and, to my mind anyway, is against the spirit of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.
The last Government, in last year’s Deregulation Act, pledged to create a presumption in favour of diverting or extinguishing such paths. That is a principle established in, for example, the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, but this goes way over the top. In agreement with the stakeholder working group, Defra is to produce guidance to local authorities on the subject. A small group of affected people belonging to the Intrusive Footpaths campaign has had meetings with Defra and much time has been invested by all parties in trying to improve this guidance. It strikes me as odd, to say the least, that the stakeholder group the Government consulted apparently also has to approve the guidance, and rumour has it that this guidance is to be less forceful than the original working group agreement. I ask the Minister whether that is true. Whether it is or not, it is the opinion of at least three independent specialist rights of way lawyers that it is a matter of legal fact that, no matter what is in the guidance, it will in most cases be rendered ineffective by existing statutory tests, which are to be found in the Highways Act 1980. Guidance cannot override statute and as such cannot on its own deliver the Government’s declared policy objective. To make matters worse, this guidance is not even statutory, which it certainly should be, overriding such existing law that gets in the way of reducing this undoubted problem.
My amendment, however, goes much further than this. It calls for local councils, backed up by the Secretary of State, automatically to extinguish footpaths or divert them to the curtilage of domestic properties, unless they are satisfied that privacy, safety and security, which are the important points, are not affected by the existence of a footpath, bridleway or byway. Whether this amendment is acceptable or not—and I strongly suspect that it is not—a statutory footing for the Government’s policy is essential. I beg to move.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I declare my interest as the vice-president of the Open Spaces Society, as well as my other outdoor activity interests, which are in the register.
This amendment is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The noble Lord makes it sound as though the countryside of England is a nightmare. This is absolutely not true. There are perfectly workable procedures for dealing with the kinds of circumstance described by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. In particular, Defra has found a mechanism through the stakeholder working group, which represents people from all parts of the countryside, from recreation to landowners and other users. This is a mechanism by which changes in the law take place by agreement and consensus. It has been extremely successful, has worked very well and continues to do so. To drive a coach and horses through that at this or at any stage would be very unwise. I hope that the Minister will explain that, apart from anything else, the amendment really does not belong in this Bill.
Baroness Byford (Con)
My Lords, this amendment has my name attached to it. My noble friend has gone into the detail of it, so I will not repeat that. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, knows that we had quite a long discussion on this issue in considering the Deregulation Act. While he said that on the whole people do not abuse it, trouble is still being caused. He may say that this is not applicable in this Bill, but I think that it is. I shall be referring later to towns and cities as well, so I hope that he will stay with me and forbear my support of this.
It was said at that time by the Open Spaces Society:
“We consider that the discretionary power of moving paths should have low priority and we advocate that councils refuse to consider a path change unless there is a clear public benefit. Otherwise they are using their slim resources on a mere power, to the advantage of owners and occupiers rather than the public, instead of on the duty which benefits everyone”.
This is a very difficult situation. I do not think that the amendment is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Clearly there are families who are finding this extremely difficult. It was suggested that the working group would get together and that that difficulty would be resolved, and clearly that has not happened. I support my noble friend in raising the issue today.
I move on to a concern—I have given the Minister notice of it—that has been raised with me on existing public paths, as they are, in cities and towns. Public paths that were incorporated into building developments in the 20th century were often acknowledged and placed on a definitive map as part of the planning process. In towns and cities, however, the Edwardian and Victorian developments often included paths to enable easy foot passages from one place to another. The land over which they pass may still belong to the estate upon which the development was constructed, or may have been sold to individual householders, or acquired by the local authority.
The reason that I raise this today is to make sure that, in the enormously important work that we are doing with the Bill, there will not be reflection later on something that we should have spotted at the time. As I said, I have given the Minister notice and it was obvious to me that the issue raised by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale has not been resolved. I want to ensure that we do not walk into another difficult situation.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I propose to make a minor change to Clause 192, through Amendments 118A and 118B, to enable the power to make regulations in Clause 137 on registers of land to come into force on Royal Assent, rather than two months after Royal Assent. This is a technical amendment that does not alter Clause 137 itself. It means that the power to make implementing regulations could be used sooner after Royal Assent, but the regulations themselves will not come into force until at least two months after Royal Assent. There is no question of local authorities being taken by surprise or being rushed as a consequence of these amendments.
The requirement to hold a register of brownfield sites suitable for housing is linked to our commitment to require local authorities to have registers of what is available, and to ensure that 90% of brownfield sites suitable for housing have planning permission in place by 2020. It makes sense for local authorities to have the tools in place to help them meet this deadline as soon as practicable, and to help them get their registers in place. I beg to move.
Lord Greaves
I think that 70 local authorities are taking part in the pilot scheme. I should declare that one of them is my local authority. Will these regulations apply to that pilot scheme, once they come in, or is that separate?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the regulations will apply to the pilot schemes.