Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 17th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, some five hours ago the first Government Back-Bench speaker was my noble friend Lord Bourne, which begins with “B”. I am the last Government Back-Bench speaker, and my name begins with “Y”. Can I make a plea for some alphabetical levelling up next time?

In the time available I will make two points, one specific and one general. The specific one, which I raised yesterday, relates to the Government’s proposal to make local housing targets discretionary and not mandatory. For nine years on and off I had ministerial responsibility for housing and planning, most of them under the benign but watchful eye of my noble friend Lord Heseltine, whose contribution was the outstanding feature of today’s high-quality debate. Based on that experience, you will never get the homes the country needs if you rely on the good will of local government. It was not local government that made the commitment to 300,000 houses; it was us—the Government. Local government, with its local electorate, will never deliver that target. Look at all the foot-dragging with local plans. It will opt out of the tough decisions unless there is a target.

However, now the Government are proposing to abandon the one lever that they have to deliver that commitment. Assuring people that new homes will be well designed will not take the trick. The objections will come when land is zoned for development, long before any designs are in the public domain. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will change the Bill back to what the Government originally proposed before they backed down in the other place. If not, they run real risks at the next election, not just for not hitting the 300,000 target—we understand about Covid—but for not taking seriously an issue rising steadily up the political agenda, not least the need for more affordable housing, as mentioned by so many noble Lords in this debate.

On a happier note, my general point is that I welcome the motivation behind the Bill. A country with stark inequalities between communities will be an unstable one, and there are strong political, economic and social arguments for levelling up and giving equal opportunities to everyone regardless of where they live.

The first sentence of last year’s White Paper stated that:

“From day one, the defining mission of this government has been to level up this country”.


However, turning that mission into tangible policies is difficult. I and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, discovered this on your Lordships’ committee when we heard that levelling up meant different things to different people, if indeed it meant anything at all. I have knocked on more doors than anyone else in this Chamber.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

All right—I have knocked on nearly as many doors as all the noble Lords in this Chamber. I have never met anyone who said, “George, what I really want is to be levelled up.” They want better schools, shorter waiting lists, crucially with priorities differing from place to place. My noble friend Lord Lucas wants a sixth-form college in Eastbourne, while the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, wants better rail services in the West Midlands. I believe the Government can achieve their objective through a different route: by giving local authorities much more autonomy to reflect those varying priorities than what is proposed, and by making this a much more decentralised country.

This Bill was never meant to be called the levelling up Bill. At the beginning of this Parliament we were promised a White Paper on devolution. That commitment was abandoned in May 2021, when we were told that a new levelling up White Paper would be published later, which would supersede it. The White Paper said:

“We’ll usher in a revolution in local democracy.”


It later made the point that local leaders in other countries have

“much greater revenue-raising powers.”

But there is absolutely nothing about that in the Bill. Devolving greater ability to spend central government money with strings attached is not a revolution in local democracy; it is a step change in local administration.

Let me make a radical suggestion to decentralise and to turbocharge levelling up by empowering local democracy. Over the next 10 years, revenue from fuel duty, some £25 billion, will disappear as we buy electric vehicles. The revenue foregone will be met by road pricing, now made possible by in-car technology—a transition that the Government will no longer be able to duck. However, that revenue should not go to central government but should complement the existing revenue from parking and congestion charges and go to the larger units of local government encouraged by the Bill. This would give local government greater autonomy and a sounder basis of local taxation than the increasingly discredited and out of date council tax, which raises the same amount from a mansion in Belgrave Square as a terraced house in Oakham, in Leicestershire. I would expect this proposal to be welcomed by my noble friend the Minister, as I came across a statement released by the County Councils Network calling for

“Full fiscal devolution to counties to create an extra £26bn in GVA”,


signed by the leader of Wiltshire Council, my noble friend Lady Scott.

In conclusion, rather than rigidly following the targets in 12 centrally derived missions, I honestly believe that more people will believe that they have been levelled up if we go down this route of local democratic empowerment.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 20th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)]

My Lords I will speak to Amendment 28 in my name and thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for adding their names to it. This amendment has one simple purpose: to include in the Bill a mission on access to a healthy environment.

I will provide a few statistics to illustrate perfectly why this is necessary. A report by Public Health England in 2020 found that

“the most affluent 20% of wards in England have five times the amount of parks or general green space compared with the most deprived 10% of wards”.

Similarly, a report published by the community charity Groundwork in 2021 found that fewer than half of those with a household income of less than £15,000 reported green space within five minutes’ walk of their home, compared to two-thirds of those whose income was more than £35,000.

A 2020 Ramblers survey found that just 39% of people from ethnic minority backgrounds reported living within five minutes of a local park, field or canal path, compared to the national average of 57%—a really big gap. These and many other studies and similar reports suggest that in England we have massive inequality of access to healthy green and blue environments near to cities.

Why does this inequality in access to healthy environments in cities matter? It matters because there is an ever-increasing body of research from medical practitioners, psychiatrists and other public health authorities across the world that, even when taking into account socioeconomic factors, areas with more blue and green spaces are associated with higher health and mental well-being outcomes. These include things that cost thousands, if not millions, of pounds each year to deal with through the National Health Service, such as reduced levels of obesity, anxiety and stress-related illnesses, and lower incidences of respiratory and cardiovascular diseases.

There is more: green and blue spaces have been shown to play an important role in social cohesion, bringing communities together and reducing loneliness. They have also been shown to improve cognitive performance, especially in schoolchildren. To go back to many of the debates on the Environment Act, green spaces in cities are known to significantly reduce pollution and the effects of overheating and flooding.

If we have inequality in access to healthy environments, we have inequality in all of the benefits that these green and blue spaces provide in cities, and associated with this are really serious economic implications. For example, in a study last year, Natural England estimated that the National Health Service could save well over £2 billion a year through reduced demand if everyone in England had good access to green space. Indeed, the importance of access to green and blue space has been recognised globally. We signed up to that commitment in the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity in December 2022. The target we signed up to is to:

“Significantly increase … access to … green and blue spaces in … densely populated areas”.


Why should this mission be included in the Bill? Why can it not be delivered, as is being suggested, via other legislation such as the Environment Act and associated policies such as net biodiversity gain and the Government’s new target in their environmental improvement plan? Indeed, this target is

“to ensure that anyone can reach green or blue space within 15 minutes from their front door.”

As I hope I have made clear, access to blue and green space is far broader than just a matter for Defra and ensuring that we protect nature in cities. It is about ensuring that, via spatial planning processes, these healthy environments are in the right places for the right people, so that they can then gain the multiple benefits that many of us already have from access to these blue and green spaces. Some of these spaces, of course, may be delivered by net biodiversity gain and the environmental improvement plan, but neither of these have specific mechanisms closely aligned to the planning process which would enable targeted delivery in the areas most in need—in particular, starting with areas with the lowest incomes and the highest percentages of ethnic minorities.

If the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill is really to deliver and reduce inequalities in England, and to achieve its missions and targets in health, well-being and even education, this is exactly the right place to include an additional mission for equality of access to high-quality blue and green space. By including this in the Bill, planners, local councils and others involved in infrastructure and planning decisions will have to properly take into consideration access to blue and green space and all the benefits that we get with that.

In summary, my amendment has the core objective of reducing inequality in access to a healthy environment by maximising the number of people who live within 15 minutes’ walk of a high-quality natural green or blue space.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I add a brief contribution from these Benches to the excellent speeches that have been made on Amendments 4 and 8. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, that there will be an opportunity later in the Bill to develop her arguments when we come to the amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and others about a healthy environment.

I listened to what the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said on the first group and again on the group we are now debating, and there is a powerful case for addressing child poverty—indeed, all forms of poverty—if one is to genuinely level up. Can I say something which I hope will be helpful to the Government? I think there is a way through. If one looks at the levelling-up missions on page xvii of the executive summary of the White Paper, one will see the mission to:

“Boost productivity, pay, jobs and living standards by growing the private sector”.


It seems that if one developed that section of the mission on improving living standards and focused it directly in the way that has been suggested in Amendments 4 and 8 on children living in poverty—or, indeed, all those living in poverty—one could address the arguments that have been made.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, first, I declare an interest as a leaseholder. Secondly, these are issues that I have raised repeatedly in the House over many years, and I want to put on the record my thanks to Liam Spender, Katie Kendrick and all the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership for their great work on the campaigns here. These broader issues began to get real attention in the House, and in the country, following the tragic fire at Grenfell Tower on the 14 June 2017, which will be six years ago this June. From that, there was resultant attention on building safety. Then, we have had the building safety work done by Dame Judith Hackitt, and we of course wait for the results of the second phase of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry.

After that, attention began to focus on the problems of leasehold as a tenure in itself. These problems have been rumbling away for many years. I first of all say that there are many good freeholders and managing agents—there is no question about that. But, as usual, it is the rogues that are the problem, and we have rogue freeholders and rogue managing agents. In some cases, they are connected, but that is the problem. They see leaseholders as an easy cash cow and that is what we want to address. I hope that we would all agree that this form of tenure has had its day, and that the sooner it is abolished and confined to the history books, the better.

I know that my constant raising of this issue in the House can be a bit irritating for the Government, but for me it is the only way of getting any action. Whatever else I do or do not do, I am quite good at being irritating when I need to be. We need to raise these issues to get some real action. Over many years, I have raised issues and have engaged with the noble Lords, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth and Lord Greenhalgh, who is in his place, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook. Generally, I have received loads of support. Everyone agrees with me: “We’ve got to sort the problem out. Absolutely right, Roy, it is on the Government’s priority list; we’re gonna deal with it”, but we do not actually get much action. We sit here time and time again.

With my Amendments 42 and 43, I hope that we can get some clarity from the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and from the Government, on what we are going to do in the next Session of Parliament. I am also a bit confused; maybe it is me, but I am. We keep being told that this is going to come in the King’s Speech—“Don’t worry about it, Roy, it’s all coming”—but then we are not quite clear about what actually is coming down the track. The Government are not being clear. Is it a Bill to reform leasehold tenure of residential housing, or is it a Bill to abolish this feudal system of residential housing? I do not think that it can be both; it is either/or. We need some clarity.

I will give an example of why I think there is confusion. In a recent article in the Sunday Times, which covered the issues arising from Grenfell, Mr Michael Gove, the right honourable Member for Surrey Heath in the other place, said that he intended to abolish the feudal system for residential housing—wonderful news. On the same Sunday, he also appeared on Sophy Ridge’s programme on Sky News. He could not have been clearer. He made it crystal clear that he intended to abolish leasehold housing before the next general election. He said:

“In crude terms, if you buy a flat, that should be yours.”


He went on to say that leasehold is an unfair form of property ownership.

“You shouldn’t be on the hook for charges that managing agents and others can land you with which are gouging.”


I watched that again today in my office. I agree with all of it. I was really pleased to watch the programme, and it was great to read the article in the paper. But then there was his Statement in the House of Commons, in which he did not quite say that. He talked about reforming leasehold as a tenure in the next Parliament—not abolishing it. The Statement was great and there were some really good things in it, but it was not saying the same thing. I hope to get absolute clarity: is it abolition or reform? At the moment, people are saying different things to different audiences. That is not right. We need to know what the issue is. It is great that a lot has been said about reform, but we must get this right.

I apologise that I could not be in the House this week when my Question was asked. My noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage asked it for me. The Minister could not have been clearer that the intention was to abolish leasehold housing. She answered the Question in about 20 words. Again, this is not what is being heard elsewhere. We need to be absolutely clear as to the intention.

My amendments in this group are intended to help the Government. Amendment 42 sets out what the Government should do within 90 days of laying a statement of levelling-up missions. It focuses on all the issues around the reform that we want, such as tribunal judgments and insurance and forfeiture. There have been scandals about insurance payments. This amendment deals with those. I hope that the Government can accept it, or at least be in discussion with us about what can happen before the next stage of the Bill.

My Amendment 43 talks about abolition. We have two choices. Let us know what it is and let us get it sorted.

I hope that the Government can accept these amendments. If they are not prepared to do so, we have a series of Private Members’ Bills on the green sheets which refer to all these issues. There is the Leasehold Reform (Reasonableness of Service Charges) Bill, the Leasehold Reform (Disclosure and Insurance Commissions) Bill, the Leasehold Reform (Tribunal Judgments and Legal Costs) Bill and the Leasehold Reform (Forfeiture) Bill. The Government could easily adopt these Private Members’ Bills and agree their stated intention without problem. I am sure that they would have the full support of the House. My amendments seek clarity from the Government: is it reform or abolition? Which do they want to do? We do not want to trundle along into the next Session without being clear. Everyone will just become upset and confused. I am sure that the Minister will respond well to this debate. Can he be absolutely clear as to what is going to happen to this Bill in the next Session? We can all then work to make sure that it is delivered. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I have added my name to the probing amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, which he has moved modestly from the Back Benches and which presses the Government on their approach to leasehold reform. This issue was raised on Monday, as the noble Lord has just said.

I will concentrate on proposed new subsection (4) in the amendment. This requires something which I have asked for on many occasions, namely, draft legislation in advance of a Bill. We now know that the next Session of Parliament will not start until the autumn, whereas I believe that the department had been planning to introduce the Bill shortly after the State Opening in May. This Bill was originally planned for the current Session, so gestation should by now be well advanced and a draft Bill should be oven ready.

There are two consequences that flow from the postponement of the next Session. First, the next—and last—Session of this Parliament may be shorter, with less capacity to pass Bills. Bills that might have got a provisional slot in the longer Session originally planned, may drop out if the Session is shorter. This is the equivalent of legislative musical chairs when the music stops. Secondly, there is now time to publish the Bill in draft, to iron out any wrinkles and so accelerate and simplify its passage. I am sure that my noble friend is in favour of this. This would also avoid the risk of getting caught in an early Dissolution next year. I must say that I did not follow the argument deployed on Monday that publishing in draft would “slow the process down”. I would argue that the contrary is the case.

My noble friend may not recently have read the Cabinet Office Guide to Making Legislation, updated last year, which says:

“The Government is committed to publishing more of its bills in draft before they are formally introduced to Parliament, and to submitting them to a parliamentary committee for parliamentary pre-legislative scrutiny where possible.”


It goes on to say:

“While publication in draft does not guarantee a place in the following year's programme, it is a factor that the PBL Committee”—


the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Committee—“will look on favourably”. The reasons are amplified:

“There are a number of reasons why publication in draft for pre-legislative scrutiny is desirable. It allows thorough consultation while the bill is in a more easily amendable form and makes it easier to ensure that both potential parliamentary objections and stakeholder views are elicited. This can assist the passage of the bill when it is introduced to parliament at a later stage and increases scrutiny of government legislation.”


Finally, on timing, the guidance says:

“Draft bills should be published in time to give the committee carrying out scrutiny at least three to four months (excluding parliamentary recess) to carry out its work and still report in time for the department to make any necessary changes before the bill is introduced.”


So we have plenty of time.

Against this recently stated government policy of publishing Bills in draft, the Government have under- performed. They have published one draft Bill for the current Session—the draft mental health Bill—compared with an average of 5.6 Bills per Session for the previous 17 Sessions. It published only two Bills in each of the preceding two years.

The House will excuse my lack of modesty when I say that, in 2012-13, when I was Leader of the House in another place, we published 13 Bills in draft. Here we have not just an opportunity to get this Bill right, but to improve on the less than impressive record on draft legislation. Indeed, not publishing the Bill in draft is contrary to government policy, as I have just explained.

I turn briefly to the substance of the proposed new clause. On 6 December 2022, my noble friend Lady Scott held a round-table meeting on leasehold reform, which was attended by officials and a number of noble Lords. I am very grateful to my noble friend for holding that meeting. We were asked what our expectations of future legislation were. I handed over a very long shopping list. It included existing commitments, such as on collective enfranchisement, but also many of the items in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, such as banning forfeiture and additional measures of consumer protection.

Can my noble friend confirm that the Bill will enact all the commitments that the Government have made in this area—both in their manifesto and subsequently? Can he confirm what the Secretary of State has said that it is the Government’s intention to abolish the outdated feudal leasehold system? In other words, after a given date, will it be illegal to sell a property on leasehold, so all sales will have to be on commonhold?

We need clarity soon, and a draft Bill would give that. Leaseholders thinking of extending their leases need to know whether to wait and take advantage of any new rules on costs of extension, or to play for safety, extend now and then possibly regret it. The same applies to collective enfranchisement. There is an element of blight on the market until such time as the Government can shed light on their proposals.

I hope that my noble friend will reconsider the decision not to publish a draft Bill and show as much ankle as he is able this evening on the Government’s proposals for this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, as we have heard loud and clear from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in his introduction to this group, Amendments 42 and 43 relate to leasehold reform in the context of the levelling- up housing mission. They provide me with a good opportunity to bring the Committee up to date on the Government’s plans for reform in this policy area, and the action that we are taking now. However, I should first declare my interest as set out in the register as the beneficial owner of a freehold property that is subject to a long lease.

At the end of January, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up set out his intention in Parliament to bring, as he put it, the “outdated and feudal” leasehold system to an end. The Government wish to extend the benefits of freehold ownership to more home owners, and that is why we have committed to end the sale of new leasehold houses and to reinvigorate commonhold so that it can finally be a genuine alternative to leasehold. It is why we have limited the charging of ground rent, as my noble friend mentioned, in most new residential leases, which takes away the incentive to build leasehold. It is why we will make it easier for leaseholders to purchase the freehold of their building and take control of their building management by enhancing enfranchisement and the right to manage.

Leasehold and commonhold reform will support the mission to level up home ownership and promote true home ownership for all by fundamentally correcting the power imbalance at the heart of the leasehold system and putting the power into the rightful hands of home owners. The Government’s reform package is advancing this agenda by building on the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act, which aims to make home ownership fairer and more transparent for thousands of future leaseholders by preventing landlords under new residential long leases requiring a leaseholder to pay a financial ground rent.

Furthermore, thousands of existing leaseholders have already seen a reduction in their inflated ground rent costs as part of the ongoing Competition and Markets Authority investigation into potential mis-selling and unfair terms in the leasehold sector. The Government are encouraging developers of all sizes to come to the negotiating table if they have not already.

The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, referred to insurance. There are several issues around insurance, as I am sure he is aware. One of them is that leaseholders are often unable to gain visibility of the costs that make up their premiums, and nor do they have useful routes to challenge these. We will act by arming leaseholders with more information and will ensure that leaseholders are not subject to unjustified legal costs and can claim their legal costs back from their landlord.

The Government are committed to delivering the second phase of their major two-part leasehold reform within this Parliament. I am afraid the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, will have to wait for the detail of the Bill but, as he has pressed me on the question of reform or abolition, I can do no better than refer him again to my right honourable friend’s words. He made clear his intention to bring the system of leasehold to an end.

As part of these reforms, the Government remain committed to better protecting and empowering leaseholders, first, by giving them more information on what their costs cover, as I have alluded to, and, secondly, by ensuring they are not subject to any unjustified legal costs and can claim their own legal costs from their landlord.

My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham sought to press me on pre-legislative scrutiny. At this stage I can simply say that the Government welcome the work and engagement of noble Lords and other parliamentarians to date on leasehold and commonhold reform. We will of course consider how best to involve Peers, Select Committees, Members of Parliament and wider stakeholders in the development of any future legislation.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

Would the best way to achieve the ambition my noble friend has just set out not be to publish the draft Bill?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, we fully understand the desire for urgency in this area. The Minister, my noble friend Lady Scott, has made this clear at this Dispatch Box previously. As I hope my noble friend Lord Young knows, her department is working very hard indeed on this policy area.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 15th March 2023 Lords Chamber

I am not suggesting that all of these can or should be used here in the UK, but they are examples of what can be done when there is real political will to unleash the opportunities for local areas’ social, economic and environmental potential and to reduce regional inequalities. This can be achieved only when pinned to real fiscal devolution. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s reply on the Government’s thinking on this issue, not just on spending decentralisation and structural changes. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I want to make a brief contribution to this debate, because it goes to the heart of the discussion about whether we believe in decentralisation and about the role of local government in a decentralised country.

The levelling up White Paper says:

“We’ll usher in a revolution in local democracy.”


Later on, it states that local leaders in other countries have

“much greater revenue-raising powers”,

a point that the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, has just made. As I said at Second Reading, there is nothing about greater revenue-raising powers in the Bill, and the probing amendment that we have just heard moved puts that right by initiating a broader discussion.

I welcome some of the announcements in the Budget about devolving more powers to mayoral authorities and allowing local authorities to retain more of the business rates, but devolving greater ability to spend central government money and keeping more of their own money is not actually the move towards a more self-sufficient, independent and confident local government that many of us would like to see.

I take this opportunity to briefly restate a suggestion that I made in January. Over the next 10 years, some £25 billion in fuel duty will disappear as we all buy electric vehicles, and the revenue foregone will be met by road pricing, now made possible by in-car technology —a transition that successive Governments have ducked but, I suspect, will not be able to duck much longer. However, that revenue from road pricing should not go to the Treasury or central government; it should complement the existing revenue from parking and congestion charges, where it would logically sit, and go to the larger units of local government which we have been debating today. That would give local government greater autonomy and a sounder basis for local taxation than the increasingly discredited and out-of-date council tax.

There are other ways of raising local revenue, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, touched on a few. However, in replying to this debate, I wonder whether my noble friend can show just a little bit of ankle on the Government’s thinking—whether they are really interested in empowering genuine local democracy by giving the sort of powers implied in this amendment.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to speak briefly to this very good and interesting probing amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Young, who I know has great expertise in local government. We represented different parts of the London Borough of Ealing in different capacities over many years.

The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, has not compared apples with apples but apples with pears. We are a unitary state—we are not a federal state like Australia, Canada, Germany, Italy or France, where they have regional government and a culture of accretion of power to the local level. Therefore, we have to have some central sanction and control of the disbursal of funds. So I do not think that the noble Lord is necessarily comparing the situation that we are in wholly accurately.

However, the noble Lord makes a very astute point about the hoarding of power, particularly financial power, by the Treasury. Any Minister will tell you that, over the years, the Treasury has not wanted to give power away and has wanted to bring in power. The noble Lord is absolutely right that far too much of the funding of core local services is in effect subject to the begging-bowl approach, as enunciated by Andy Street, the executive mayor of the West Midlands.

The problem with the situation that we now have—the disparity of local councils being responsible to their electorate for decisions, in effect, taken centrally—is that central government of whatever party is in power gets the income in and can make those judgments based on its manifesto, but it is local councillors and officers who are accountable and often take the brickbats for failures. For instance, many people have argued for many years about residential real estate investment trusts leveraging private sector money to provide new, good-quality housing for young people in particular. The Treasury has never really advanced that properly, and local government could be very much involved in it. Social care is another area. All Governments should look at tax breaks for providing extra care facilities—in terms of nutrition, housing, exercise and so on—for old people from the age of 60 all the way through to death, as many countries have across the world. That is an example of a central government policy that could also help local government.

I have great sympathy for the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. I hope there is further debate on it. It cannot be right that we cannot follow other modern liberal democracies such as the United States where local authorities and mayors have the capacity, for instance, to raise funds for the issuance of bonds, local infrastructure and capital projects. We have very restrictive financial and legal rules in this country that prevent us doing the same. On that basis, we have begun a good debate and I look to my noble friends on the Front Bench to run with it and, as my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham said, show some ankle, as it is long overdue.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 20th March 2023 Lords Chamber

I look forward to hearing the debate and to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 294, in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, would oblige the Secretary of State to make short-term rental properties a distinct use class for planning purposes. The amendment is supported by the Local Government Association, of which I am, exceptionally, not a vice-president, and is based on changes made to secondary legislation in Wales in 2022.

A common theme running through all the amendments is the promotion of the country’s housing stock as a main home, either by raising the council tax on second homes or by using the planning system to control short-term lets. The planning system is not just about whether or not a piece of land is to be developed; it is about the use to which it is then put. For example, you need planning permission to convert a block of flats into a hotel. These use classes have been used to control changes that may be undesirable, and in a few cases they have been relaxed to promote changes between uses.

The Government have clearly recognised that we have now reached the stage where some form of control is needed if we are to maintain a proper balance between those who need permanent accommodation for rent and those who are making short-term visits. Clause 210, mentioned by the noble Baroness, introduced by the Government on Report and headed “Registration of short-term rental properties”, is a very useful step which I welcome. I also welcome the statements made about it in another place by Lucy Frazer, the previous Housing Minister. It proposes a new registration scheme for short-term lets, but this will not happen for some time, as consultation on the exact design of the scheme will not start until later this year, with decisions and actions later.

A registration scheme is a good first step but we need to build on this, as proposed in my amendment, and see much stronger controls. We need to do that if the planning system is to determine local priorities. We also need to make faster progress; only then will we see a better balance of housing options which will help families and young people who simply cannot find a place to live in some rural areas but also in London. Were she still able to attend, I am sure my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes would be speaking strongly in favour of this amendment.

A balance is important. Short-term lets can provide a useful boost to the local economy by promoting tourism where commercial accommodation is in short supply or very expensive, and they can be a useful source of income for those who do not need their homes all the time—for example, if they are away on holiday. However, we need a balance between second and first homes. My amendment provides a means of meeting that balance.

The Government’s legislation needs to go further by introducing a new use class for short-term rental properties, which, in turn, should be a precondition for the registration of such properties. We may not need to regulate short-term lets across the board, but making them a separate use class, as proposed in the amendment, allows full planning control in places such as seaside towns and the area just mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, where the growth in short-term letting has become a particular issue, or here in London, where there is pressure on the rental market.

There was a 1,000% increase in homes listed for short-term lets nationally between 2015 and 2021. That is 148,000 homes that could otherwise house local families that are available on Airbnb-style lets. In Cornwall, short-term listings grew 661% in the five years to September 2021. The county has roughly 15,000 families on social housing waiting lists and the same number of properties being marketed as housing lets. The noble Earl, Lord Devon, may mention his county, where short-term lets appear to be worsening an existing housing crisis, with nearly 4,000 homes taken out of the private rented sector and 11,000 added to short-term listings since 2016.

Currently, local authorities outside London have no legal means of preventing this loss of private rented housing to short-term lets. Several cases have come to light of people in rented housing in rural areas being evicted so that the property can be let on a short-term basis. In this context, it is worth mentioning the position in London as it shows a way forward. The Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1973 —I declare an interest as I was on the GLC at the time—discouraged short-term lets by saying that the use of residential premises for temporary sleeping accommodation for fewer than 90 consecutive nights in London was a change of use, for which planning permission was required, so London residents face a possible fine of up to £20,000 for each offence of failing to secure planning permission. That position was basically confirmed in the Deregulation Act 2015. I see some advantage in simply extending this London provision to the rest of the country.

Finally, there are issues here that go beyond my noble friend’s department. Holiday lets get mortgage interest relief; residential tenancies do not. Holiday lets have no minimum energy and safety standards, and they qualify for business rates and small business rate relief. We need a cross-government approach to get a coherent and better-balanced policy on this important matter. Of course, I hope my noble friend will feel able to accept my amendment. If she cannot go that far—and I see from her body language that that may not be possible—will she commit to consulting soon on building on Clause 210, with a view to getting that better balance between the use of scarce housing stock in areas under pressure and to helping families for whom private renting is the only option?

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I will address the four amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Shipley and comment on some of the others. We have already heard numerous examples describing why we need to address the issues around empty homes, second homes and properties available for short-term rent. As noble Lords are aware, some parts of the United Kingdom have already introduced measures to tackle some of them; for example, certification of tourist accommodation in Northern Ireland and licensing schemes for short-term lets in Scotland and Wales. Sadly, at the moment, England is being left behind.

I am pleased that at long last the Government are tackling one issue—the way in which some second home owners have gamed the system so that they pay neither council tax nor business rates—but many other problems remain. I live in east Suffolk, close to the popular seaside town of Southwold. With the recent growth in second home ownership and the rapid rise in properties available for short-term rent, of the 1,400 properties, now only 500 have full-time residents, while 500 are second homes and 400 are short-term lets; in other words, nearly two-thirds are not permanently lived in, and this has had a significant impact.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Lords Chamber

The planning clauses of the Bill as currently written will override the stated intention of the Government, which is towards devolution. Centralising planning and preventing it taking account of the voices of local people and their democratically elected representatives, let alone giving ultimate power to the Secretary of State to determine planning policy with no parliamentary scrutiny, is taking it in entirely the wrong direction, back to the dark ages rather than forward to the kind of democracy where people can participate and engage in decision-making, where they feel they have had a say in place-making for the area in which they live and work, and develop the kind of trust in institutions entrusted with planning that will enable wider confidence in the system to level up and regenerate every part of the UK. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 184A and 187A in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Lansley, which ensure that planning decisions are taken in line with an up-to-date plan. An up-to-date plan is defined as one that is less than five years old. I am a strong believer in a plan-led system. With apologies for referring again to my chequered career in government, the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, which I took through the other place, introduced for the first time the primacy of the local plan. Up until then, it had equal weight with other material considerations. That position was confirmed in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

However, you cannot have a plan-led system unless you have a plan. Only 39% of local planning authorities have an up-to-date local plan. The number of plans adopted in 2021 and 2022 are 16 and 13 respectively, which are the lowest annual numbers since the inception of the NPPF back in 2012. The average between 2014 and 2021 was 35. More worryingly, since Christmas last year, 47 local plans have been delayed following the publication of the consultation document over Christmas, as local authorities hope to reduce their housing numbers. This is something I will develop when we get to the group beginning Amendment 207.

There is much in the Bill that I welcome. There are measures to streamline and simplify the plan-making process. I welcome the introduction of commencement orders, the uplift in planning fees and the simplification of the procedure for CPOs. But we need to do more to incentivise local planning authorities to produce up-to-date plans, as well as considering more effective sanctions for those that do not.

These two amendments, in effect, put into law the current guidance from the NPPF, which the Government are not proposing to change. Paragraph 15 of the 2021 NPPF says:

“The planning system should be genuinely plan-led. Succinct and up-to-date plans should provide a positive vision for the future of each area”.


The PPG chapter on plan-making says

“local planning authorities must review local plans … at least once every 5 years from their adoption date”.

That is exactly what Amendment 184A does, so I look forward to my noble friend saying that it has found favour with the Government.

On this subject, I ask the Government whether they have a target for a date by when 100% of England will be covered by local plans. The real problem at the moment is the uncertainty of the planning system. It is a real issue for local planning authorities, developers and local communities. Having up-to-date plans in place provides the certainty that everyone requires if the planning system is to be transparent, if it is to minimise risk and if local communities are to know what the future holds. By providing greater certainty through the requirement for development plans to be up to date, the Government can assist everyone to engage with the system and understand the outcomes. All the amendments seek is to ensure that the Bill reflects the guidance set out in the current NPPF in a paragraph which is not to be changed. The amendments seek to reinforce the fundamental underlying premise at the heart of the English planning system that it should be plan-led and give certainty to stakeholders, particularly local communities.

In passing, I ask whether the Government will now close a loophole in the present regime for five-year plans. Under the current system, local planning authorities can review their local plan under paragraph 33 of the NPPF and Regulation 10A of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, whereby they assess whether the plan needs updating. That process is not subject to any public scrutiny. A local planning authority can simply document the process and resolve through the committee process that the plan does not require a formal update. No one can then challenge that decision and it resets the clock on the up-to-date status of the plan. This means that a local planning authority could underdeliver on housing requirements in the first five years of a plan, simply choose to review the plan using the process I have just outlined and determine that the plan did not need updating. As a result, it would not need to demonstrate a five-year housing supply for the next five years. That simply cannot be right, and I hope that the Government will close that loophole.

While I am on my feet, I will speak briefly to Amendment 221 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, which would enable the Secretary of State to include older people’s housing needs in the local plan. I pay tribute to the work the noble Lord, Lord Best, has done in this area for many years. One-third of local plans have no provision at all for older people, although some 3 million older people would like to move but cannot because of the lack of suitable accommodation. I will amplify the case in a moment, but I begin by asking about progress on the task force announced over a year ago.

On page 226 of the levelling up White Paper from 2 February last year, it says:

“A new Task Force will be launched shortly to look at ways better choice, quality and security of housing for older people can be provided”.


Over 10 months later, nothing had happened. On 22 December the consultation paper said:

“Alongside this, we are also launching a taskforce … This taskforce will explore how we can improve the choice of and access to housing options for older people”.


On 17 February 2023, the shadow Minister for Health and Social care in the other place, Liz Kendall, tabled a Written Question asking the Government when the task force will be launched. The Government’s response did not provide a date and said:

“Announcements will be made in the usual way.”


She then tabled a similar Parliamentary Question on 14 March, which I understand is awaiting a response.

This is not a happy story. I hope my noble friend can explain why there has been this extraordinary delay in the establishment of this important task force. It could address a wider range of issues than just planning; for example, the possible abolition of stamp duty for older people trading down and the role of Homes England in providing affordable homes for rent or shared ownership for older people. It could look at consumer protection issues for older people subject to high service charges. We need an urgent progress report on the task force.

I turn to the amendment. The December consultation paper had a specific question:

“Do you agree that we should amend existing paragraph 62 of the Framework to support the supply of specialist older people’s housing?”


The answer to this is yes. Research has shown that there is demand for some 30,000 units of retirement housing a year, but the current supply is only 8,000. The noble Lord, Lord Best, chaired an inquiry by the APPG on Housing and Care for Older People, Making Retirement Living Affordable. That underlined the need for more investment in the market, focusing on the potential for shared ownership.

The debate on housing often focuses on numbers, such as the 300,000 target. Equally important is whether the make-up of those numbers matches the needs of the population. As England’s demography changes, with the increase in smaller, older households, we are grappling with the legacy of a housing stock configured for a different age. The shortage of accommodation for last-time buyers or renters is impeding the optimum utilisation of a commodity in short supply. To rectify this, we need to focus new build on addressing this imbalance. Because new build is such a small percentage of the overall stock, it needs disproportionate emphasis in five-year plans. One option would be the development of a use class for specialist housing for older people with a specific target; say, 10% of all new units for older people. If one wanted to give this use class a boost, it could be exempt from CIL or Section 106 contributions.

In developing this policy, it is important that older people are not treated as a homogenous group with identical needs, no more than we would treat people with a disability as having identical needs. Planning for the elderly needs to be more granular and assess the various options—for example, retirement or sheltered homes; housing with care, sometimes called integrated retirement communities or supported housing; care homes; and nursing homes—looking at the configurations in each planning area. People do not want to have to move to find a suitable home to retire to.

Then there is the wider benefit if a greater supply of retirement housing can be achieved: significant health and well-being benefits for older people, reduced public spending on health and social care, and an increase in the vibrancy of the second-hand market, freeing up more opportunities for first-time buyers to enter the market. The Bill provides a real opportunity to rectify this imbalance in the nature of our housing stock, and we should take it.

House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 8.31 pm.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 27th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, the main debate on the new plan hierarchy was clearly spelled out in this Chamber last week, but Covid prevented me from joining in, although I listened with interest. I will not waste time going over that debate, but I still want to reiterate certain facts. As was well demonstrated in the debate on the last group, it is a fact that so much detail is still missing and so many important matters are still out for consultation—that is probably why there are so many amendments and why there is so much anxiety around the content of NDMPs. In particular, as was well expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, what will truly be left over for local councillors and their communities to shape their place? The Bill is very strong on the rhetoric of place shaping, but it feels that we are being disempowered to do that.

Before turning to the specifics of the amendment, I will say that it is absolutely clear that the potential for conflict is significant. Without some clarity and legal clout from the Bill—not just ministerial promises that there will be more details in the revised NPPF, or that it will be more clear when we have the NDMPs—what will happen as a result of this is that there will be plenty of work for the planning chambers and litigators going forward. There will be a long transition period—the Government are quite sensibly allowing for that—because this is a new system, so there will be quite some time before we get precedents set, we get used to it and we get to see which way it is going.

The amendments have regard to the obvious potential conflicts between NDMPs and local development plans, and they also question the increasingly all-powerful Secretary of State role and the position of combined authorities. The issues concerning Secretary of State powers have also been well articulated, but, as drafted, Clause 86, which was previously debated, and Clause 87 very clearly—I do not think there is any ambiguity—favour NDMPs over development plans. But they also transfer significant policy-making powers directly to the Secretary of State—this is yet another area of concern and potential conflict because, as we know, NDMPs come with no minimum public consultation or primary parliamentary scrutiny requirements. Despite the Government’s previous assurances that this undemocratic effect was not the intention of the clauses, no legal safeguards have been introduced, so this is an area in which we would certainly hope to see movement from the Government.

My first question for the Minister on this group is on the issue of local plan soundness, as it seems to me that a lot of conflict could and should be avoided if both the NDMPs and the local development plan are very clear about what they are trying to achieve, where the boundaries of their scope are, and where one might take over from another—I was envisaging the Venn diagram and hoping that there was not very much in the middle. It seems highly desirable that the overlap should be almost impossibly small, or as limited as possible, so can the Minister confirm whether a plan would be found sound under the new regime if it contained policies that were at variance with NDMPs?

The proposed introduction of gateway checks, which is an excellent suggestion, would seem to indicate that the intention is, on the one hand, to allow both parties an opportunity to point out unacceptable variance, or, on the other, for the local planning authority to present its evidence as to why local policies should deviate from the NDMPs and therefore receive advice and engage in constructive dialogue. From the thrust of the questions of the NPPF consultations and the subsequent Written Ministerial Statements, it seems that local variance is both expected and accounted for—good.

If that is the case, why do we need new subsection (5C), and why can we not just accept the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor? It is very definite and legally tight—too definite and legally tight to allow for circumstances when it might be absolutely legitimate to give the local plan precedence. Is that deemed to be a bad thing by the Government? If not, under the current system, in which decisions are now weighed and balanced, surely a degree of leeway is desirable—the more so, as has already been mentioned, as the main criticism around NDMPs is the worry that they will set a low floor and stifle ambition and innovation, which has always been, in the main, local authority-led. New subsection (5C) might sound definite, final and firm, and therefore intended to reduce conflict—but at what cost? Could there be unintended consequences?

If the Government do not accept that proposal, the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, provides a more nuanced response to a very complex issue to allow for a time when the NDMP may not necessarily be “Top Trumps” because it is appropriate in those local circumstances. I believe that the weight of new subsection (5C) does not allow that for that discretion, so we will certainly support that amendment. As to the discussion of the word “significant”, I respectfully suggest that planners, inspectors and litigators have always weighed up, and probably always will weigh up, these words. It is part of their bread and butter, it is what they do all the time, and this will be no exception.

Amendment 187 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, is a natural extension of that same logic. She can envisage times when a local plan can and should take precedence, especially if it relates to the additional responsibilities in a larger geographical area. On these Benches, we believe that there is real value in the Government incentivising, encouraging and supporting local authorities to work together to get a larger—and, dare we use the word, regional—spatial strategy of that sort. In effect, we would not want any barriers to be put in the way of that, because there is far more at stake in a local area, such as economic growth, than just meeting housing need.

The noble Baroness’s Amendments 192 and 195 are an interesting extension of this dilemma. I wonder whether her Amendment 193 could be logistically challenging, as the Secretary of State would have to actually hear and know about every single challenge and conflict. But the principle of a feedback loop regarding conflicts seems a good one, particularly during a period of transition, as all this will all new and very different territory for everyone. I think we would all like to know where the pinch points and places with the most disagreement are and, more importantly, how they are being resolved. We will be interested in the Minister’s thoughts on this thread of feedback, reporting, learning and, presumably, revising.

Amendment 187B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, seems very sensible. If the Bill is, as we hear all the time, to truly make the system a plan-led system, it absolutely makes sense that local plans must and should be up to date. My concern, particularly now, is with the removal of the tilted balance and planning by appeal, plus the supremacy of NDMPs. Can the Minister explain how the Government intend to incentivise councils to keep their plans up to date? I cannot see how that will be done, as there appears to be no disincentives to do otherwise.

We will support any amendment to insert a process for the Secretary of State to designate and review a national development management policy, including minimum public consultation requirements and a process of parliamentary scrutiny, as has been set out in the Planning Act 2008 and is already deemed necessary for national policy statements. If local authorities are rightly required to consult on such policies when preparing local plans today, in future it must be right that Secretaries of State be held to account by the public and Parliament in a similar way. As with national policy statements, we ask that Parliament be required to scrutinise NDMPs and that the public be allowed to consult on proposed changes to them.

There are loads of possible advantages of NDMPs, and there seems to be a general acceptance of this in principle, but the devil will always be in the detail. The unprecedented level of central control for planning that they introduce means that safeguards are needed to maintain local consent. These amendments touch on only a few areas of potential conflict, and we had plenty in the previous group. We have yet to touch on street votes versus local plans, neighbourhood policy statements versus the rest, and—one matter that is starting to come to the fore—the turning of supplementary planning documents into supplementary plans and all that this will entail. Those are debates for another day.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I want to add a short footnote to the excellent speech made by my noble friend Lord Lansley, and to try to understand in what circumstances the conflict that we have been debating can arise—that is, the conflict between the local plan and the national development management policy.

Page 294 of the Bill—I appreciate that we have not got quite that far yet—describes the process that a local authority must go through when it prepares its local plan. New section 15CA(5) states that:

“In preparing their local plan, a local planning authority must have regard to … any observations or advice received from a person appointed by the Secretary of State … other national policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State”.


If that process has been gone through, the local plan should already be consistent with the national development management policies—it would have been spotted. So is it the case that the only time a conflict can arise is when, subsequent to a conforming local development plan having been adopted, the Government actually change the policy? Is that the only time that a conflict can arise? It cannot arise if a plan has gone through the process under the current NDMP.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Crisp (CB)]

My Lords, in moving the amendment in my name, I am very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham, Lord Blunkett and Lord Stunell, who have added their names to my amendments in this group. I very much look forward to their contributions today.

Amendment 188 sets out that:

“The Secretary of State must ensure that national planning policy and guidance are designed to secure positive improvements in the physical and mental health and well-being of the people of England.”


There is currently no provision for promoting health and well-being in planning legislation and guidance. Even in the key paragraph 20 of the National Planning Policy Framework, where the Government set down requirements on strategic policies in local plans, there is no mention of promoting health and well-being but simply a reference to the provision of healthcare facilities. This seems to be a very old-fashioned view of health which equates health with healthcare.

If nothing else, the pandemic has accelerated public understanding that health in the broadest sense, and well-being, are central to place-making, communities and the levelling-up missions. Our homes and neighbourhoods deeply influence our health, for good and for bad, and this all influences our life chances. If we want to level up and create the circumstances in which people can flourish, health and well-being must have central roles in our planning system.

I recognise that this is a big change. The amendment is very carefully worded to say “designed” to secure positive improvements. This is not just an add-on: it places health and well-being at the heart of the system. There is an opportunity here to create the conditions for levelling up and for people to flourish. We can use the planning system to ensure that we are providing healthy environments and healthy homes that are fit for purpose.

I refer briefly to the amendments in this group that are not in my name. They cover very similar territory. While I will not speak to them, I support them.

I turn to Amendments 394 to 399, which are specifically about healthy homes. I will briefly explain the background to these and why I think they are necessary, before going into some detail.

I am delighted that the Government recognise that housing and health are key to levelling up, and that, in the Minister’s letter to Peers on 27 January, she wrote that the Government support the objective within the Healthy Homes Bill. However, she went on to say that this is dealt with by existing laws and/or alternative policy. With respect, I do not believe that that is the case. There is no overall statutory duty with regard to healthy homes, and it is clear to all of us that existing laws and guidance are simply not producing the results that we all want. There is some existing policy—for example, in the National Planning Policy Framework—that addresses some of these issues, but even this is not mandatory and can be set aside by local decision-makers.

More directly, we can all see that existing policies are not working—we need only to look at some of the results. I have a photo book, which I will send to the Minister, of some of the worst examples around the country. I am happy to send it to any other noble Lord who wishes to have a copy. It contains examples of some recently developed homes. Many of them are permitted developments with, for example, redundant office blocks on industrial sites providing appalling accommodation, but this is not just about PDR.

It is reasonable to ask, and I have been asked, whether the requirements proposed in these amendments will add cost. The argument goes that you could perhaps get a larger number of homes for the same sort of money. But that is the wrong question. This is not about higher or lower cost or quality. The purpose is to eliminate homes being developed that are simply not fit for purpose. It is not about the relative cost.

I know that there are other objections around this being extra regulation, although this is not the principal barrier to development generally. I have met with high-quality developers around the country and looked at how they are developing homes and neighbourhoods. There is very little in this that they are not already doing, and they have internal processes to ensure that it happens. More generally, for the regulation system as a whole, I believe that an overarching requirement to promote health, safety and well-being will help align planning and building regulations better and could be used to reduce complexity.

Turning to the detail of the amendments, I think they provide a very sensible structure. I do not claim credit for it; it was proposed by Dr Hugh Ellis of the TCPA. In essence, they set out a duty on the Secretary of State to secure health, safety and well-being in new homes in accordance with 11 healthy homes principles, which the Secretary of State can then establish the policy on. This is not set in stone but can change from time to time as appropriate and can be interpreted differently by the Secretary of State for different areas, such as country and town areas. There is also a duty to report on progress. The key point is that this is all mandatory and that it should be reported on regularly.

Amendment 394 would introduce a duty on the Secretary of State to secure healthy homes. Amendment 395 would require the Secretary of State to prepare a policy statement explaining how the healthy homes principles will be used. Amendment 396 sets out the principles. Amendment 397 would require a draft of the statement on interpretation to be available to Parliament for possible comment. Amendment 398 describes the effect of the statement on different authorities. Amendment 399 would require the Secretary of State to publish an annual progress report.

I commend these amendments to your Lordships as a way of securing new homes that are fit for purpose, which would also enhance health and reduce the burden on the health and care system, because we should note that unhealthy homes, far from being a cost-neutral or light-cost option, cost the NHS roughly £1.4 billion every year. Most importantly, the amendments would provide homes that offer a secure foundation for the lives of individuals and families, helping them to thrive. They would also play a significant role in levelling up. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 188, headed as it is by the noble Lords, Lord Crisp and Lord Young, sounds like an advertisement for a supermarket lettuce. Along with the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Stunell, I supported the Healthy Homes Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, on 15 July, along with many other noble Lords who all spoke in favour at Second Reading. When the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, replied to the debate, after expressing his disappointment that the Government were not supportive of his Bill, he said:

“I will take the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and look for opportunities for this in current legislation.”—[Official Report, 15/7/22; col. 1707.]


He then did what did not always happened when I was Chief Whip in another place: he followed my advice. His amendments would simply insert his Bill into this one, so today we have an opportunity to build on what was said on that occasion in July and take the debate forward.

I looked again at what the Minister said in reply to that debate:

“The Government oppose this Bill, not because they take issue with the premise of noble Lords’ arguments, but rather because they believe that the problems highlighted in the Bill are already being dealt with via alternative policy routes … Many of the proposed healthy homes principles are already covered by the National Planning Policy Framework, which sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these should be applied. The NPPF must be taken into account by local authorities in the preparation of their development plans, and it is a material consideration in planning decisions.”


She went on to say:

“We are intending to review the NPPF to support the programme of changes to the planning system. This will provide an opportunity to ensure that the NPPF contributes to sustainable development as fully as possible.”


So two options are available. One is to do what the amendments would do and incorporate the Healthy Homes Bill into primary legislation. The other—and I hold no negotiating brief for the noble Lord, Lord Crisp—is for the Government to undertake that the revised NPPF will incorporate the relevant commitments in Amendments 394 to 399.

Those amendments build on what is already in the NPPF. In the Minister’s own words:

“The social objective focuses on supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities by fostering well-designed, beautiful and safe places with accessible services and open spaces. More specifically, the framework is clear that planning policies and decisions should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places. This should support healthy lifestyles, especially where this would address identified local health and well-being needs.”


The Minister went on to say:

“This means that all plans should promote sustainable patterns of growth to meet local need, align growth and infrastructure, improve the environment, mitigate climate change and adapt to its effects.”—[Official Report, 15/7/22; cols. 1702-03.]


But that is not a million miles away from what is in the noble Lord’s amendments. The Minister may want to reflect on the precise wording and have a dialogue with the noble Lord, but her objective of mitigating climate change, which I just referred to, is not a million miles from proposed new paragraph (f) in Amendment 396, that

“all new homes should secure radical reductions in carbon emissions in line with the provisions of the Climate Change Act 2008”.

If my noble friend the Minister has “resist” on the top of her speaking notes, is she prepared to discuss with the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, how his agenda can best be taken forward?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I briefly follow-up on that question which the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has left hanging.

We seem to have several moving parts here. I do not want to detain anybody any longer than necessary. We have the guidance of the NPPF, and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has outlined its current impact on how local plans are developed. We now have the statutory NDMPs. Eventually we will get used to that acronym, I guess. Earlier this evening, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, told noble Lords that she thought that the occasions of conflict between the NDMPs and local plans would be very rare, so rare that they did not need referencing but, on the other hand, possibly so onerous that it would be burdensome to make every one be referred back to your Lordships.

However, the political context of the NDMPs is of trying to retrieve a situation that was created last year by multiple changes in direction within the department, and by Ministers, about what they wanted local plans to achieve. Do they want them to achieve a very large number of houses, no houses at all, or as many houses as the local area thinks are appropriate?

All that will be resolved when—eventually—the NDMPs are published, because that is when we will be told what the Government intend local plans to produce. At that point it seems foreseeable—I say only foreseeable, not certain—that there will be areas of conflict between the citizens’ assemblies brought forward by the noble Baroness’s amendment and the common consultation process that we have traditionally followed, as the local plan emerges and the NDMPs dictate a different course of action. Where does the guidance to which the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, referred fit into that? Which fits into what and at which part?

In an earlier debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, also said, perhaps not with the conviction that I had hoped to hear, that, in the event of a neighbourhood plan being more up to date than a local plan—hence in date—it would stand up against an NDMP central government directive. I would be delighted if that is true, but I would be substantially surprised if she says that she did say that; I must have misheard something.

We have some moving parts here, and it is a terribly inconvenient time of the day to resolve those difficulties. A lengthy letter may be the solution, but I just pose those questions. This is the fundamental way in which the current Government are aiming to square a circle out of their national planning policy. Whether they want more houses, where they want them and how fast—all those things—are driven by what comes out of local plans, and they will be framed by what is in the NDMPs, which are not published. Forgive me if I am jumping to a conclusion here; perhaps the planning management policy that comes out will say, “It is okay, guys; do your own thing and send your local plans in when they are ready”, but I have a feeling that that is not the context in which they are being drawn up.

Anything that the noble Earl or the noble Baroness can say to clarify that situation, either this evening or in a subsequent written report, would be gratefully received on this side, because we are baffled and bemused by how this is all supposed to hang together, as things stand.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 209 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley and myself but, before I do, I will speak briefly to two amendments mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor.

Amendment 198 is about deliberative democracy or citizens’ forums as they are sometimes known. When I, as somebody who has been a councillor and an MP, first heard of this, I was slightly suspicious of this alternative form of problem-solving. It struck me as slightly random and unaccountable. But the more I looked into it, with the help of Graham Allen, the former Labour MP who championed the cause of deliberative democracy, I began to change my mind. The Government have actually been funding three experimental projects using deliberative democracy—one in Dudley looking at the future of two shopping centres, one in Cambridge looking at how to solve congestion, and one in Romsey looking at how to solve problems around a local bus station. It struck me that these were actually ways of complementing and reinforcing local democracy, rather than substituting it.

At a time when democracies are struggling to retain public confidence, we should look at every possible means of refreshing democracy in a way that is relevant to the modern world. This is what that amendment wants. Like others, I have been to planning meetings where people have been shouting at each other; there must be a better way to find a way through. I look forward to working with the noble Baroness who moved this amendment, as she obviously has considerable experience. Perhaps the Minister will let me know, following the three trials funded by the DCMS, whether her department will engage with the Local Government Association to see how we can best take that debate forward.

I am afraid that I disagree entirely with Amendment 223 and the suggestion that the adopted plan should be up for review after a local election. The one thing going through this debate since it began is the need for certainty and clarity about the local plan. It has to go through a process to become adopted. If there is a local election just after it has been adopted and control changes hands and it is up for review, what then is the status of that local plan? I very much hope that my noble friend will resist, perhaps more politely than I have done, the suggestion in Amendment 223.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich]

I shall speak very briefly in support of the group of amendments, on none of which would I dare wish to claim to be an agnostic. I particularly support Amendment 207 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Best, to which my colleague the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford has added her name. The amendment addresses the important role of local authorities to consider older groups’ housing needs when developing local plans. Together with Amendment 221 from the noble Lord, Lord Best, these changes to the Bill would deliver a more effective response to the shortfall in appropriate housing for older people at all levels of government.

The Mayhew review for future-proofing retirement needs recommended

“closer working between planning and social care departments to ensure the need for retirement housing with access to care is factored into local authority plans”.

This amendment would be a step towards making that kind of joined-up thinking and development a reality.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I was going to make the shortest speech in this debate, but the right reverend Prelate has set such a high bar that I do not think that I can clear it.

I have added my name to Amendment 207 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and Amendments 215 and 218 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley. The reason why I can be brief is not because the amendments are not important—I think that Amendments 215 and 218 are the most important amendments to the whole Bill—but because we touched on both subjects in earlier debates, in what the noble Lord, Lord Best, referred to as a dress rehearsal. In those earlier debates, I set out as best I could the cases for doing more for older people and building more homes.

In the debate on my Amendment 221 on older people, I was very critical of the delay from the Government in setting up the taskforce for older people, which was actually trailed two years ago, but nothing happened until last month. A week after I raised this with the noble Lord, Lord Best, a chairman was appointed, and I hope that there will be a similar positive response to all the other speeches that I am going to make on the Bill.

In a nutshell, the problem that the noble Lord, Lord Best, outlined is quite simple. The pace of demographic change in this country and the growth of more smaller older households has resulted in a huge imbalance in the housing stock that we have, which has been built up over many decades. To get a better balance, which is the thrust of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Best, we need to do more than we have done so far—and we have heard a wide variety of suggestions. He suggested that a percentage of new homes should be focused on the needs of older people, or specific sites should be earmarked for older people, or there should be a separate use class for specialist housing for older people. My noble friend Lord Jackson suggested a stamp duty exemption; others have suggested an infrastructure levy exemption for older people’s housing. Without repeating the speech that I made last time, I hope that the Government will accept that we need to do a bit more than we are doing at the moment if we are to get a better balance between the needs of the population and the housing stock that we have. We need to promote mobility so people can move into the new homes built for older people.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 20th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to start this day in Committee by moving Amendment 240. I shall also speak to the other amendments in this grouping.

I am very grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who apologises for not being here today. This amendment has the support of the Bicycle Association, Bikeability Trust, British Cycling, Cycling UK, Living Streets, Ramblers and Sustrans. I think you can say that that support basically includes the Better Planning Coalition. Its purpose is to ensure that the various walking and cycling network plans and rights of way drawn up by county councils or combined authorities are incorporated into local planning authorities’ development plans and are reflected in their planning decisions. This would help to safeguard land for new walking and cycling routes or rights of way, including disused railway lines, improve existing routes, and ensure that developments connected with existing or new walking, wheeling or cycling networks with secure development contributions are introduced. This came to a head within the last six months, when National Highways was caught filling in disused railway bridges with concrete to prevent them from being used in the future as footpaths or cycleways, for example. I am grateful that there has been a pause put on that. I hope that it stays a pause, because it was a very stupid decision with no benefit whatever.

This amendment addresses the problems of local planning authorities that sometimes, wittingly or unwittingly, frustrate a higher tier authority’s aspirations for walking, cycling and rights of way by not recording these network aspirations in their development plans. That means that they are not safeguarding the land for these networks or to connect new developments with existing networks for secure developer contributions to implement or upgrade specific routes. There is much discussion going on about all these issues, but it is very important that this covers what is happening now and what might happen in future. The biggest problem is when we have two-tier authorities—county councils or combined authorities, and district councils. In one case, one part of a unitary authority commissioned Sustrans to assesses the feasibility of reopening a disused railway line as a walking and cycling route, while another part of the same authority gave permission for a housing development which blocked the route. There is no point in doing this; it wastes a lot of time and seriously affects the people who want to develop cycling or walking routes.

Local transport authorities have a duty to prepare a statutory local transport plan. They are also responsible for drawing up one or more non-statutory local cycling and walking infrastructure plans. That is all a bit of a mouthful, but really important. Usually it is the same body, but for each one it is required to draw up a statutory rights-of-way improvement plan for its area. We probably all have examples in our own areas of rights of way not being taken very seriously—and we will talk about that later—but all these things need co-ordination.

The Government have argued that our concerns about this lack of co-ordination would best be addressed through the NPPFs, rather than through legislation. My worry is that the current NPPFs, which are still in proposed revisions, mention these local cycling, walking and infrastructure plans only in passing, leaving out the right-of-way plans altogether. This results in developments being granted permission without taking into account the need for walking and cycling or improving these links. I call it active travel—it is a bit shorter. I am sure that the Minister will take this amendment seriously, and I hope that she gives me a nice positive response to it and says that perhaps we can have further discussions and see what happens.

My Amendment 470, on electric vehicle charging, is quite a short amendment. It requires a change to the Electricity Act, for the Government to facilitate or accelerate the rollout of electric vehicle charging points for domestic and commercial customers. We have discussed this in your Lordship’s House quite a few times. A few statistics really worry me, frankly. First, the Government have a target of 300,000 public charging points by 2030, and there is a long way to go before we get there. Interestingly, a Written Answer from the Minister on 29 March to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Warwick, stated that the number of installations were 8,600 public charging, 71,000 electric vehicle home charge schemes, and very few electric charge point sockets and grants, while workplace had 15,000.

Another telling Written Answer, to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, on 21 March, stated that

“the majority (around 75%) of electric car charging happens at home, as it is often cheaper and more convenient for drivers.”

I am sure that the Minister is right, but the problem is: how many people have home charging? I expect many noble Lords here have home charging, if they want it, but there are an awful lot of people in this country who park on the road and, if they want to charge their cars, they will have to get it off a lamppost.

Another Written Answer from the Minister said that there was no national data on how many lamppost chargers were available. If we do not know how many are available, we do not know who wants them, and we do not know where the public ones are, where do you charge your heavy goods vehicle or coach? Who will fund them? Most important of all, what about the regulation of chargers? There is a lot for the Government to do to meet their target of 300,000 charging points by 2030.

Finally, I support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, on the same subject. I am sure that she will tell us a great deal more of it. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, in this debate on transport, it is a pleasure to follow in the slipstream of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and add some footnotes to his speech on Amendment 240.

Before I turn to the amendment, I will say a word about the target of 300,000 EV chargers. Some chargers are fast chargers and some are slow chargers. At some point, we need to define more accurately the division of those 300,000. If they are all slow chargers, that will not do the trick. If they are fast chargers, we may not need quite so many. So a bit of granularity on that target at some point would be welcome.

Researching for this debate, I came across a government document stating that

“continuing growth in road transport and consequential environmental impacts present a major challenge to the objective of sustainable development. Traffic growth on the scale projected could threaten our ability to meet objectives for greenhouse gas emissions … and for the protection of landscapes and habitats”.

I should have recognised it instantly, as it was in a document that I published nearly 30 years ago when I was Planning Minister. It was PPG13, which offered advice to local authorities on integrating land-use planning and transport. Its object was to reduce reliance on the car by promoting alternative means of travel and improving the quality of life.

I note in passing that I referred to the then Government’s policy of increasing the real level of fuel duty by an average of at least 5% a year—a policy now very much in the rear-view mirror—and also my commitment to introducing electronic tolling on motorways. Back in 1993, I was clearly a little bit ahead of the game.

Amendment 240 could almost have been lifted from PPG13. It promoted development within urban areas at locations highly accessible by means other than the car, and it supported policies to improve choice for people to walk, cycle or catch public transport, rather than drive between homes and facilities that they need to visit regularly.

I also came across an article in the Independent from 10 July 1995, when I became Transport Secretary and continued my campaign. In an open letter to me, Christian Wolmar wrote:

“When your appointment as Transport Secretary was announced, the whoops of joy from cycling campaigners could be heard across the nation. The notion of having a Transport Secretary who is not only an active member of Friends of the Earth but also an active cyclist and tandem rider was beyond their wildest dreams”.


So, the Minister will not be surprised that, as middle age taps me on the shoulder, my commitment to environmental means of transport is undimmed.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, set out the case for the amendment, which I believe is even stronger than it was in the 1990s. I will not repeat it. I understand from the Government’s response to a similar amendment in another place that, instead of an amendment to primary legislation, the objectives to the amendment should be incorporated in a revised NPPF, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has just said. My response is that I tried that and it did not work. We need to be more assertive.

Paragraph 1.10 of PPG13 said:

“If land-use policies permit continued dispersal of development and a high reliance on the car, other policies to reduce the environmental impact of transport may be less effective or come at a higher cost”.


That is exactly what has been happening, as the Government’s own publication, Gear Change: A Bold Vision for Cycling and Walking, published in 2020, recognised. Despite the exhortation in that PPG and, I suspect, many other PPGs since, we have not seen the transformation in planning for transport that is required. We continue to build housing with little or no public transport provision, or where it is impractical to get to school, the shops or work without jumping into a car. We must up our game and cease relying on guidance.

The amendment also addresses the problem touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that has arisen in two-tier authorities, where, typically, the county council is the transport authority but the district council is the planning authority: if you do not have the commitment to walking or cycling networks recorded in the district plan, this can then frustrate the county’s ambition to promote cycling and walking networks—clearly an undesirable outcome.

The challenge to my noble friend, who I am delighted to see is replying to this debate, is to convince me that we should continue to rely on guidance, as I suspect my officials advised me to do in 1993, despite the evidence that it has not brought about the transformation that I aspire to. I wish her every success.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I am pleased to speak to a number of amendments in this group, to which my name is attached. This is, of course, a group of transport-related amendments. Like the noble Lord, Lord Young, I am very pleased to see that we have the Transport Minister here to respond in detail to us, because all the warm words on levelling up are meaningless without decisive action to improve transport infrastructure and services. Poor transport facilities almost exactly mirror the overall picture of the social divide in our country: poorer areas have poor public transport and poor transport infrastructure generally.

There is a reason why London and the south-east are the richest parts of the UK: they have the transport links to service the areas well, and one reinforces the other. I say that while recognising of course at the same time that there is poverty and disadvantage amongst the most privileged.

I start with Amendment 240, to which I have added my name. The noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Young, have spoken in some detail, and with greater information than is necessary for me to repeat here today. But I want to endorse the fact that this has to be about broadening access to the activities of cycling and walking and safeguarding our rights of way: for many decades, we have been accustomed to the gradual erosion of the practicality of safe walking and cycling, and the erosion of our rights of way on footpaths. The car has been king for a very long time. If we are going to truly improve the quality of our lives and the lives of the generations to come, we need a much broader and more informed approach. In my own local area, I notice the cycleways that disappear into nothing at key junctions and so on. It is a skilled business to provide really good cycling and walking facilities.

Turning to Amendment 468, the intention here is to prioritise the requirements for disability access at rail stations. Progress on this has been painfully slow—way too slow. I use this opportunity to praise the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and my noble friend Lady Brinton, who raise these issues time and again in the media and in this House. We live in an ageing society, and we should be much more encouraging to those people who are less mobile but who want to travel by rail or bus. So this amendment goes way beyond the simple issues of wheelchair access, access for those with sight impairment and so on. It is about access for people who are less agile.

However, treatment is far from being on an equal basis for those people in wheelchairs. As a regular rail traveller myself, I watch this week after week. Despite huge efforts by the staff, there is still so much further to go. We have to ensure that people do not have to book way ahead in order to be able to make a simple journey.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak particularly to my Amendment 438, but I will preface my remarks by saying how much I have appreciated this debate and the contributions from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds. We have explored this issue in a comprehensive and useful way, and I greatly appreciate that.

I draw noble Lords’ attention to the Affordable Housing Commission report, which came out in the middle of Covid and was therefore buried and forgotten by everybody. The AHC report, which noble Lords can find via Google or their favourite search engine, was a pretty big effort, thankfully funded fully by the Nationwide Foundation—the Nationwide Building Society’s foundation—with a secretariat from the Smith Institute; I had the honour of chairing this. The report is a pretty meaty document and worth those who are interested in this subject following through, but that was a great debate on those amendments, and I support the essence of all of them.

My amendment 438, to which the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has kindly added his name, seeks to remove from the statute book an obnoxious, offensive legislative measure which has hung over local authorities since the passing of the Housing and Planning Act 2016. I reiterate my declaration of interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Back in 2016, I was the LGA president and along with allies from all parts of the House, including the noble Lord, Lord Porter, with his local government expertise, and the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, we fought—unsuccessfully—to remove these awful sections from the 2016 Act.

What does this part of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 say, and why is it so troublesome? The key section imposes obligations on local authorities to sell their most valuable council housing when tenants move out, rather than reletting the property. It does so by requiring local authorities to pay a levy to the Secretary of State equivalent to the market value of the best council housing when it becomes vacant, multiplied by the estimated number of vacancies for the next year. To raise the money to pay this levy, local authorities would obviously have no option but to sell their most valuable homes. Most of the proceeds from these compulsory sales go straight to the Secretary of State, who, in a convoluted twist, would use the money to compensate housing associations for selling properties at large discounts to their tenants under an extension of the right to buy.

The effect of this extraordinary measure, had it ever been implemented, would have been highly damaging both for local authorities trying to meet the acute need for social housing in their areas and for the families desperately waiting for a home. Council housing would be further stigmatised and labelled as only for those with no hope of anything better, and with fewer re-lets, pressure on the remaining council stock would be even more intense than it already is.

Buyers of the housing which councils would be forced to sell would very often be private landlords who would let to similar occupiers but would charge market rents, thereby imposing twice the burden on the Exchequer for tenants in receipt of benefits. I was glad to catch up with the latest statistic from the noble Lord, Lord Stunell: that 50% of properties sold under the right to buy have been moved into the hands of private landlords and, obviously, let at rents that are twice as much, if not more.

To add insult to injury, the 2016 Act also empowered the Secretary of State to top up this raid on council resources by requiring local authorities to raise the rents to market levels for any tenant foolish enough to increase their income above a fixed level. The extra rent would not go towards management and maintenance of council housing but instead would be remitted to the Secretary of State as a windfall for the Government.

I moved an amendment opposing the measure and it was carried by a huge majority in this House. I even featured on the BBC documentary on the work of the House of Lords. Although it remains in law, it is another ingredient in the 2016 Act that thankfully has not seen the light of day.

Returning to the compulsory sales of higher-value council housing, as is addressed by the amendment, we can now see what a disaster this would have been—but the offending measure remains on the statute book. In reality, this sword of Damocles hanging over councils is no longer a major threat since Government Ministers have made it clear that they have no intention of using these draconian asset-stripping powers. Indeed, I am confident that Ministers understand the imperative for more, not less, social housing provision.

It was, no doubt, the work of an enthusiastic but naive special adviser coming up with a cunning wheeze to extract the cost from local authorities of securing new right-to-buy sales by housing associations. Today there would be little appetite for such shenanigans which would reduce the stock of available social housing, following the right to buy’s removal of 2.8 million council homes and the subsequent higher costs of using the private rented sector instead. Indeed, the right to buy has now been abolished in Scotland, and Wales is following suit.

Councils have welcomed the Government’s recent move enabling them to retain 100% of right-to-buy receipts for 2022-23 and 2023-24. With long waiting lists for social housing and the private sector becoming more and more unfeasible for many households, that announcement should support councils trying to replace the homes sold through right to buy. It would be helpful if the Government completed this change and made it permanent rather than just for two years. On this theme, I hope that the Government will finally agree to councils having the ability to set right-to-buy discounts locally as part of the Bill’s emphasis on devolution.

The time has surely come to be rid of this 2016 misguided measure to strip local authorities of their best housing assets. The LGA and others have been waiting for a legislative opportunity for the Government to enact their clear intention to have nothing to do with this defunct legislative device. The Bill provides that opportunity, and I think everyone in local government and in the world of social housing will breathe a sigh of relief to see this expunged from the statute book. I commend this amendment.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to intervene briefly to put this debate in an important context. Before I do so, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Best, on eventually achieving the victory which he sought when the 2016 Act was going through; it was not the best piece of legislation on housing that Parliament has seen. I agree with what the right reverend Prelate said—that we should unfreeze the local housing allowance or, if we cannot, increase the discretionary housing grant, to enable those who find that they cannot meet the rent to have more support.

I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, that “affordable” is a misnomer, but there is a fundamental choice that we have to make, which is: the higher the rents, the more social houses you can build; and the lower the rents, the fewer social houses you can build. That is simply because of the way that social landlords are funded. A Government decide to have a capital fund available for new builds. A Government of a different persuasion may have a higher figure than the current one but, whatever that figure, the number of houses that can be built is dependent on the rent levels which the social landlords can charge.

A Housing Minister has a choice: you can have lower rents, social rents or genuinely affordable rents, but you will get less output. When I had responsibility and was faced with this spectrum, I went for slightly more output but slightly higher rents, to meet the demand for new houses and to build more houses that would last 60 years. I recognise that others may choose to go the other way on the spectrum, but you cannot get away from the fact that this is the choice. If you want to have affordable rents reduced to social rents, the consequence is that you will have fewer houses. I make this intervention at the end of this debate just to put it in a slightly broader context.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I have two amendments in my name that I wish to speak to briefly. However, prior to that, I say that my noble friend Lord Stunell made an important point about how all the amendments here are trying to resolve the issue of what is affordable. So-called affordable homes are those built by the commercial sector as part of a development—a planning obligation—yet the challenge for us all is to provide homes at a social rent, which is roughly estimated as 50% of the market rent.

It is a tragedy for this country that successive Governments seem to have abandoned provision of homes for social rent in any large numbers. Local authorities have been severely constrained in building their own social housing, and the provision of homes for social rent has largely been left to housing associations. We then come to the conundrum which the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, just rightly pointed to—that the capital that housing associations receive from government depends on their flow of rental income. Therefore, do you have more or less? Either way, everybody agrees that there are insufficient homes for social rent.

About 30 years ago, my authority had 42,000 council houses at social rent—it now has 21,000. That is the scale of what has happened. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Stunell is absolutely right that about half of them are now back in the market as private rented properties at a higher rent for folk but without any of the support packages provided for homes for social housing rent within either a local authority or a housing association. That is a huge challenge that this country needs to tackle. One of the key factors in levelling up is a decent home—it is in the levelling-up missions. Millions of people in our country do not live in an adequate, safe home appropriate for their family, and we need to address that scandal.

On affordability, my noble friend Lord Stunell expertly laid out the issues, and I do not wish to say anything, except that obviously I totally support him. I wish to raise one issue about affordability that is a bit of a side issue. It seems that any property built as part of a commercial development which is deemed affordable should be affordable in perpetuity. My own council adopted that policy—I have to say as a result of pressure from my own party there—so that, when the house is bought, the 80% factor remains. The least the Government could do is to include that as part of a definition of affordability.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

248: Clause 99, page 108, line 34, at end insert—
“(3) If there is conflict between street voting on development and the development plan, a determination must be made in favour of the development plan.”Member’s explanatory statement
The outcome of a street vote may conflict with the development plan. The amendment provides guidance on how to resolve this conflict.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, we come now to the clause in the Bill dealing with street votes, which has generated a substantial number of amendments, of which mine is the lead amendment. It seeks to ensure that a street vote cannot conflict with a local plan. This clause was not in the Bill when it was introduced in another place: it was introduced on the second day of Report. The Government have said that Clause 99

“is intended to encourage residents to consider the potential for additional development on their streets, and support a gentle increase in densities, in particular, in areas where additional new homes are needed”.

I expect the Minister will describe the provisions of the clause in more detail, so I will not spell them out.

We have heard the expression “gentle densification” several times from the Secretary of State; it is something he clearly approves of. I will need some clarification before I lend it my approval, for this reason. Michael Gove was in another place, as I was, when the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, then John Prescott, the Secretary of State, came up with a similar policy of promoting suburban development and the development of back gardens. Those with long memories will remember that all hell broke loose. On 7 March 2007, the Daily Mail thundered:

“Thirty thousand gardens every year ‘torn up’ due to Prescott's policies”.


My party was whipped to vote on a Friday for a Private Member’s Bill to block the policy. Greg Clark, the then shadow Minister, wanted gardens to be reclassified as greenfield sites, and he took up the cause because local authorities were powerless to stop gardens being built on. When my party won the 2010 general election, Greg Clark, then the Minister, ordered changes to planning rules that meant gardens will no longer be seen as brownfield land, ripe for development. Crucially, it meant that stronger powers were available to local authorities to block “gentle densification”.

I just mention that to put this proposal in a broad historic and political perspective and to suggest some caution before we endorse it. Normally, and indeed given the controversial background to this proposal, innovation such as this, in the planning world, would be preceded if not by a Green Paper then at least by some form of consultation to gauge its practicality and effectiveness. This would involve the LGA, the Royal Town Planning Institute and, of course, the public. Nothing of the sort ever took place. This policy emerged from a think tank and was fast-tracked into primary legislation, overtaking on the way some well thought-out and badly needed policies on housing reform, in sharp contrast to the normal process of policy formation. I believe that the Government are adopting a high-risk strategy and, rather than going straight into primary legislation, they should test the proposal in the usual way and then consider how best to proceed. There is nothing particularly urgent about this, and we need to get it right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

I am so sorry I omitted to reply to the noble Baroness; I will write to her. It is a question I ask officials myself. It is an issue which will be decided in the consultation because, as she rightly said, there will be instances where a street, as such, does not exist. For example, you might have a small community of houses where the owners or residents may wish to apply under this procedure. In short, this is an issue to be determined under the consultation.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the hour is late, and we are less than half way through the targeted groups for the day, so I will be as brief as I can in winding up this fairly lengthy debate. I note that all those who spoke to their amendments had at some point held elective office, either as councillors or in other place—and, in some cases, both. That may explain the lukewarm—I think that is the best adjective I can use—reception for this proposal. The conclusion I draw from this is that the role of a think tank is to think and to come up with radical policies; the role of government is not to fast-track those into primary legislation but to subject them to critical scrutiny and consultation, and then progress to the next stage. The more I listened to the debate, and the more I heard my noble friend the Minister use the word “consultation”, the more I have come to the conclusion that, while I said in my opening speech that this was a policy in the process of gestation, it is in fact the size of a pinhead, as far as I can see, when it comes to movement towards delivery.

I will now pick up some of the points raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, struck a note of caution about the policy and agreed with me that it was okay to have street votes as a process of feeding into the formulation of a district plan, but she wanted more clarity and asked for assurances about conservation areas for which an assurance was not given. She asked relevant questions about the role of tenants, voting thresholds and declaration of interests. As I understand it, a short-term tenant will have a vote, but the owner, who is not in the property at the moment, will not. There are a lot of issues behind entitlement to vote, which I will come to a moment.

I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, was a Minister in the DCLG in 2010, when the Prescott policy of not-so-gentle densification was overturned—his head is stationary, so I do not know whether he was or not; now it has moved vertically, indicating that he was indeed in the department then. He made the point—I will come to it in a moment—about the priority of the neighbourhood plan. One of the worrying things that my noble friend the Minister said in his reply was that, where a neighbourhood has gone through the whole process of consultation, and has developed and had approved a neighbourhood plan, and then within that neighbourhood a street comes up with a proposal which is in conflict with it, the street vote has priority because my noble friend was unable to accept the amendment.

The same applies to my amendment. When one has gone through the whole process of formulating a district plan, residents throughout the district feel confident in the outcome. They then find that it can be overturned by a street vote. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, again highlighted the potential for neighbourhood conflict, which is one of the things that really worries me about this. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister, whose patience and tolerance have been extended to the extreme over the past hour and a half. I note that he did not reply to the points that I made about the DPRR report, which made some scathing criticisms and suggested that whole sections of this Bill should be removed. Nor did he indicate when the Government might reply to that report.

My noble friend said that the street vote could go ahead with the support of residents, but we do not know what is meant by “support” or “residents”. As I read it, there will have to be an assessor; it will have to go through a process. My understanding is that an inspector—probably from the Planning Inspectorate—would be appointed to assess it. We did not get an answer to the question of who pays for the PINS inspector who is going to assess the proposal. The ratepayers will have a vote, but it is not quite clear who will exercise that vote on behalf of the business. If there is one very small business and one huge business, do they both have one vote? Who exercises it?

The conclusion that I draw from this is that the best thing for the Government to do is to drop this clause. Frankly, the Bill is far too long; this is not urgent; there is no great demand for it. That was quite clear from what my noble friend said whenever he was asked a question: “This is subject to consultation”. We should have had the consultation before we had the legislation. Although I will withdraw my amendment, I suspect that if I did not, I would win the vote quite comfortably on the basis of the exchanges that we have had so far. In the meantime, however, I thank all noble Lords, and particularly my noble friend. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 248 withdrawn.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 24th April 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

267: After Clause 106, insert the following new Clause—
“Local authorities and development management services(1) A local planning authority may set a charging regime in relation to its development management services.(2) In setting the amount of a charge under subsection (1) a local planning authority must secure that, taking one financial year with another, the authority’s income from charges does not exceed the cost to the authority of delivering the development management services for which the charges are imposed.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment would allow local authorities to develop a planning fees schedule that would enable the full costs of delivering its development management services, including the processing of planning applications, to be recovered.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 267 is in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. This amendment has the support of the LGA and it would enable local authorities to charge planning fees that met the cost of providing the service, but would prevent them making a profit from it.

One of the themes of our debates on the Bill has been the importance of local authorities providing up-to-date plans. Indeed, my noble friend has made the point that up-to-date plans are more likely to produce the increases in housing that the country needs. But if we are to do that and have up-to-date plans, we need properly resourced planning departments. We also want to see planning applications promptly processed so that development can go ahead, again to meet housing need. That requires properly resource planning departments, but we know that they are all under pressure. Of the respondents to the Home Builders Federation’s recent SME development survey, 92% said that lack of resource in local planning authorities was a major barrier to growth—up from 90% in 2021.

Planning departments will also need to respond to proposals in the Bill, which has 47 clauses that relate to planning. They are going to have to get up to speed with that if they are to succeed in the Government’s ambition to improve the planning system. They are going to need to digitise and streamline the planning process. They will have to understand the implications of the NDMP and the new NPPF. They will have to deliver the new environmental assessment procedures and the new procedures on heritage and for neighbourhood plans, along with other changes to the planning system that we have been debating—not to mention the implication of street votes.

At the moment, planning fees do not cover the cost of processing planning applications. According to the LGA, council tax payers subsidise the planning system to the tune of £180 million per annum—money that could be spent on social housing. I know that the Government are consulting on an increase, but there are two problems. First, even if granted, the increase will not meet the gap or give us the well-resourced planning departments we need. Secondly, it will not enable individual local authorities that have active planning departments to set fees that cover their costs.

Recently, the Government have tabled Amendment 285C, but I am not sure that it addresses the problem. That amendment will allow certain bodies to charge fees for advice in relation to planning applications. My noble friend will explain what that means; I suspect that it is a response to Amendment 283 and will enable bodies such as the Environment Agency and Natural England to charge for advice on planning applications. In any case, the wording of the Government’s amendment would not cover the ability for local authorities to charge fees for the processing of planning applications, because it refers to the ability to charge fees for “advice” in relation to applications, and, of course, the authorities can already do that.

However, there is a wider principle at stake here. This Bill was going to be called the “Devolution Bill”. The Government want to decentralise and give local authorities the ability to respond to local needs, so here is a golden opportunity to put that policy into practice. I was rereading the foreword of the levelling-up White Paper published in February last year. It said:

“We’ll usher in a revolution in local democracy”.


It seems to me that here is a good opportunity to put that ambition into practice.

Finally, this central control sits uneasily with the freedom local authorities have to set building control fees, which are part of the same planning family. That is an anomaly I find difficult to explain. There is no central government control over parking charges, school meal costs, rents or swimming pool tariffs. Why are the Government so insistent on retaining control of planning fees? I ask my noble friend whether she is prepared to relax the Government’s vice-like grip on local authority. I beg to move.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, in the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, who cannot be here this week, I will introduce her Amendment 283, to which I and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, have added our names. As it is her amendment, I will not do what I normally do and speak off the cuff. I have some notes from her, and I will, unusually, read from them.

A number of statutory consultees receive requests to provide expert information and opinion on planning applications and other planning cases. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, just mentioned some of them. The main statutory consultees include Natural England, the Environment Agency, the Health and Safety Executive, Historic England and Highways England.

The volume of planning application requests has increased by 38% over the six years up to the financial year 2021-22. It is estimated that this trend will continue. Natural England alone received almost 18,000 requests in the last financial year. In 2019 the main statutory consultees estimated the total cost of providing this advice at approximately £50 million. Obviously, costs will rise with volume.

Amendment 283 inserts a provision into the Town and Country Planning Act. It would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to allow statutory consultees to charge developers and others for the provision of such advice and information about planning applications and other planning cases put forward by developers and others to local planning authorities. This provision would bring the cost-recovery arrangements for the majority of planning applications under the Town and Country Planning Act, in line with the proposals in Clause 118, which will allow cost recovery in the case of nationally significant infrastructure projects.

Amendment 283 lays out what particular provisions the regulations may make, including who should pay, how much and when. It also defines an “excluded person” who cannot be charged, unless that person is the applicant for the planning permission. Broadly speaking, in at least the first instance, it seems that the charges would be for the planning applicant or developer to pay, and charges would not be levied on the planning authority. It is all very straightforward and essential if our hard-pressed statutory consultees are to provide a prompt and efficient service to both planning authorities and applicants in the face of the growing case load.

The Minister has ostensibly agreed, as the Government have laid what seems like a similar amendment, Amendment 285C. However, proposed new subsection (3)(b) in the government amendment could be interpreted as prohibiting a statutory consultee charging fees to a planning applicant in respect of the provision of advice to a local planning authority by any route. It could even prohibit current scenarios where a developer is willing to meet those costs under a voluntary agreement, for example under a planning performance agreement or a service level agreement. If that is not the intention in proposed new subsection (3)(b) in the government amendment, the ambiguity needs to be removed.

It would be good to have confirmation today from the Minister that the Government intend to ensure that the statutory consultees can recover their costs. I ask the Minister whether she might be prepared to meet the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and other interested Peers between now and Report to identify a mutually satisfactory and unambiguous version of these two amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

May I ask the Minister to clarify one issue? I have listened very carefully to this debate but there is an issue that I have not fully understood. I heard her say that prescribed bodies will be able to secure cost recovery, but she has not said that local planning authorities will be able to recover their costs. She said that there could be an increase in the fees they are allowed to charge following the consultation, but that is not the same thing as permitting cost recovery; indeed, a lack, as yet, of a definition of cost underpins this whole debate. To my way of thinking, there is the immediate cost of administering and managing a planning application, with all the costs that may apply to that application. However, there is also the cost that a local planning authority might have in terms of the provision of IT services to the planning system, web services, office costs, heating, lighting, and so on—essentially, the overhead cost. As the Minister is going to think about all these issues, I hope very much to hear that the Government will consider full cost recovery for local planning authorities. However, as I say, I have not yet heard that during this debate.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who has taken part in this debate. There have been a lot of Youngs involved, and I will try to respond on behalf of both of them. Let me say straightaway that I very much welcome the government amendment, and I am sure that, in her absence, the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, would also do so.

On the rest of it, I had hoped that, with this group of amendments, we might have found a chink in the Government’s armour that has been deployed throughout our debates. I am disappointed that we have not been able to make progress, and I know that the Local Government Association will also be disappointed.

I am grateful to all those who took part. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, made the valid point that the flat rate prescribed by the Government simply does not reflect the costs to a local authority of a complex planning application that spans a number of years; that point was not adequately dealt with.

I was most concerned to hear what my noble friend Lord Moylan said about developers offering to second to an overstretched planning department a planner who might assist them. That is rather like me saying to Test Valley Borough Council, “I understand your electoral department is under some pressure; I would like to second a returning officer to the forthcoming election”.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

If my noble friend will allow me to say so, I did not suggest that they were offering to second somebody but to fund a planning officer who would be recruited from the pool of available planning officers.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. None the less, the principle that he ended his speech with is still valid: a local authority should not be dependent on the good will of a developer to process that developer’s planning application. That goes against most of the codes of independence for local government.

In response to my amendment, my noble friend the Minister said that she could not accept it because of the uncertainty that might confront developers and the costs might be too high. But the charge under my amendment could only reflect the costs. A local authority could not charge a fee as a deterrent if it was not substantiated by the underlying cost.

As for uncertainty, what developers, housebuilders and any planning applicant want is for their application to be processed promptly and efficiently by a well-resourced planning department. That is their priority. I do not think that uncertainty about future fees comes into it, or it is right down their list of priorities.

Also, I do not see how this central control of planning fees sits with the whole language of the Bill, which is about empowering local authorities and giving them more autonomy to reflect local needs. It appears that, despite all that, we cannot trust them to set planning fees. I think the Government’s stance on this group of amendments sits uneasily with their whole philosophy, but, while I reflect on what to do next, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 267 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for introducing this group of amendments, for setting the scene for this important debate on building safety, and for putting forward his own solution. I will try to respond to his exhortation to do some heavy lifting.

The question underlying this debate is simple. Have the Government done enough to tackle the problems arising from the Grenfell tragedy or do we need to build on the Building Safety Act 2022 in the light of experience to address unresolved issues? I will argue that further action is essential.

I begin by recognising the progress that has been made by the Government. Some leaseholders have been given legal protection under the Act. Most developers who have been asked have agreed to pay up—well done to the Secretary of State—and the major lenders have agreed in principle to offer mortgages on blocks of flats with safety issues, although this does not seem to be reflected in practice. Good progress is being made with high-rise blocks that are owned by local authorities and housing associations. I know that my noble friend and her predecessor are sympathetic to those who have been in touch with them to discuss the issues that remain.

However, there is still a mountain to climb. A recent survey by the End our Cladding Scandal campaign in last month’s Inside Housing magazine found that

“only 21.8% of leaseholders in dangerous blocks have seen remediation work start. For 44.1%, a date has not even been identified for work to begin … and only around 10% expect them to do so within the next 12 months”.

As the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has just said, hundreds of thousands of leaseholders face an indeterminate wait for complex remediation, and they cannot move in the meantime.

On top of the estimated 3,500 high-rise buildings which need remediation there are between 6,000 and 9,000 medium-rise buildings which need life-critical safety work. While 43 of the UK’s largest developers have signed up, this covers only about 1,000 blocks. What about the rest of them? Some 90% are reliant on support from the building safety fund, which is slow to release funding, or from leaseholder contributions or from freeholders. The Government’s funding stream for medium-rise blocks is not yet open for bids, but when it is it will cover only cladding removal, despite these buildings having other problems and serious compartmentation defects which need to be fixed. Non-cladding works can push costs up to £100,000 per flat.

The Government’s response, if there is no developer to sue, is to charge the building owner, if the building owner has a stake in the building worth £2 million. However, this involves a complex remediation order under the Act. Can my noble friend say how many have been secured? Initial hearings for a remediation order for blocks in Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park were adjourned in February and are unlikely to commence this year. It is a long and legally complex process. Those who then enforce the process—the fire authorities and the local authorities—must at times deal with intransigent developers, who then challenge the assessment of what work is necessary, building in further delay and cost. Some large freeholders are claiming to have net assets of less than £2 million per building, as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said, or that they are not part of a wider group, meaning that they are not liable under the so-called waterfall provisions. We have seen the unedifying dispute with the well-resourced railway pension fund.

Furthermore, even if you get a remediation order, freeholders are liable only for the costs of qualifying leaseholders. Again, as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, pointed out, if the non-qualifying leaseholders—the buy-to-let landlords—cannot afford their contribution then remediation of the block simply will not go ahead, and you have deadlock. If the freeholder does not have the funds to pay, the leaseholders must pay up to the cap, which is £15,000 in London, with the balance coming from a yet to be determined government pot; work will not start until this is established.

The position is even worse for those in blocks under 11 metres, whom I and others tried unsuccessfully to protect last year when the Bill went through. They are non-qualifying leaseholders and so have no protection and face uncapped bills. The Government have said these should not need work, as blocks below 11 metres are, in their words, on the whole safe, but the guidance that has been issued says otherwise. At least one building under 11 metres, in Romford, has identical cladding to that at Grenfell Tower—the primary cause of the rapid fire spread. An assessment under PAS 9980, which is the UK national standard, unsurprisingly reached the conclusion that the cladding should be removed. The developers have no liability for work under the Act or indeed under the remediation contract with the Secretary of State, so no help is available to the leaseholders. That is simply indefensible.

In several cases, insurers are insisting on work on buildings under 11 metres going ahead or they will withdraw insurance cover. That leaves the owner with no choice at all. They are actually excluded from the duty to pursue alternative routes for funding; they simply pass the costs on to leaseholders. Against that background, the fire at Richmond House—below 11 metres—burned it to the ground in less than 11 minutes.

Here is quote from a letter from a leaseholder in one such building:

“I am a leaseholder in a building well under 11 metres. We are three storeys high with 10 flats. We are therefore excluded from any support from the Government, yet our freeholder/managing agent is taking us to court on Friday to ask them to agree to us having to pay for the cost of remediation—a £26,000 service charge in 2022 per leaseholder. We are told the freeholder does not have the means or obligation to pay for these works that we need to reduce the annual insurance premium. We are told that the only way to pay for these works is via the leaseholder and that we will be legally responsible to fund the money and pay it upfront so that the management agent has the means to pay for works.”


There are also reports of other leaseholders in buildings under 11 metres being forced to pay for remediation as a condition of continued insurance cover.

Last year, I was promised a case-by-case review of these blocks, but the evidence presented to the Select Committee in another place on 13 February this year said:

“We have not seen any progress with the case-by-case review in respect of under 11 metre buildings”.


The position for leaseholders in blocks of flats who have followed the policy of successive Governments and enfranchised by buying the freehold is also indefensible. Despite repeated commitments given to me by the Minister at the time that they would be treated as leaseholders and would therefore be entitled to protection under the Act, the Bill treats them as freeholders and penalises them for enfranchisement. This is what I was told in Grand Committee by the then Minister:

“They are effectively leaseholders that have enfranchised as opposed to freeholders. I hope that helps”. [Official Report, 28/2/22; col. GC 262.]


My amendment to deliver that commitment on Report was resisted, and enfranchised leaseholders remain outside the protection available to other leaseholders.

There is an enfranchised block in Manchester with serious non-cladding defects, and there was a fire in a flat there last year. The enfranchised company, which is actually the leaseholder, is required by law to resolve these as soon as possible. Government policy is that blocks should enfranchise, but those who do are excluded from protection.

Looking at the picture as a whole, three years on from funding being made available, only 28 eligible buildings had been signed off by the Building Safety Fund by the end of last month, out of a potential 3,500 or so buildings eligible for support. In the meantime, most leaseholders are still unable to sell and move on with their lives. Despite six high-street lenders announcing in January that they would offer mortgages on flats with issues as long as the leaseholder protections were in place, this is just not happening on the ground. In the meantime, insurance costs have soared and service charges have escalated.

Freeholders and managing agents are refusing to withdraw service charges for items such as waking watches in buildings covered by the Act, but which were issued before the Act came into force. They also rushed to issue fresh demands on leaseholders before the Schedule 8 protection came into effect on 28 June last year. Leaseholders incurred the substantial costs of waking watches and increased insurance before the Act was implemented, but clause 6 of the final contract with developers excludes this. If money is to be recovered, the leaseholders have to litigate.

There are also early reports—the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, may have touched on this—of conveyancers saying they will no longer accept instructions to work on sales of leasehold flats in buildings of any height. That is because certain lenders—I have heard Nationwide mentioned—are imposing requirements on them to check the statements made in landlord and leaseholder certificates, which they are unable to do.

The original proposal of the Select Committee in another place was that there should be a comprehensive building safety fund, fully funded by government and industry, and the Government should establish clear principles regarding how the costs should be split between the two. Where we are sits uneasily with commitments given by Ministers last year. Last year, Michael Gove said:

“leaseholders are shouldering a desperately unfair burden. They are blameless, and it is morally wrong that they should be the ones asked to pay the price. I am clear about who should pay the price for remedying failures. It should be the industries that profited, as they caused the problem, and those who have continued to profit, as they make it worse”. [Official Report, Commons, 10/1/22; cols. 283-84.]

The then Minister wrote to noble Lords on 20 January last year, when the Building Safety Bill arrived in your Lordships’ House. Under the section headed “Protecting Leaseholders from Unnecessary Costs”, he said:

“The Secretary of State recently announced that leaseholders living in their homes should be protected from the costs of remediating historic building safety defects”.


Then there was the Statement on building safety made in the other place by the Secretary of State on 10 January last year:

“First, we will make sure that we provide leaseholders with statutory protection—that is what we aim to do and we will work with colleagues across the House to ensure that that statutory protection extends to all the work required to make buildings safe”. [Official Report, Commons, 10/1/22; col. 291.]


As I have tried to show, where we are falls well short of the commitments given, but it is not too late for the Government to act. My amendment is a peg on which to hang the debate. I end with the two questions I started with. Are the Government satisfied with the current position? If not, what do they propose to do about it? I know my noble friend is sympathetic to the case I have made. I know that many leaseholders are watching this debate and hoping for a positive reply.

[The Lord Bishop of Guildford]

My Lords, for six years in the early 90s I was a priest in Notting Hill, in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, and had never lived in a place where the vision of levelling up was quite so necessary and quite so localised. The very wealthy were often living cheek by jowl with the very poor, and meanwhile, on looking north from one of our churches was the unmistakeable sight of a brutalist 24-floor block of flats on Grenfell Road, which 25 years later was to become the scene of an unspeakable, though sadly not quite unimaginable, tragedy.

Making buildings safe for leaseholders has since become a priority for the Government, which is to be welcomed. As the noble Lord indicated, this support remains both limited and partial, creating a new distinction between the haves and have-nots of leaseholding when it comes to the most basic of principles: that the homes in which we live, work and raise our families should be safe. I happened to meet one of those have-not leaseholders this morning, for whom insuring his flat, let alone selling it, has become virtually impossible.

My friend Graham Tomlin, the Bishop of Kensington during the unfolding of those terrible events in June 2017, has written movingly in this regard. He speaks of how a “pattern of moral compromise” had become embedded in parts of the construction industry, as revealed by the public inquiry into the Grenfell tragedy. He goes on to suggest a firming up of the responsibility of developers to make good their work, along the lines of the amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. His insights have been fed into the second of the five basic principles of the Archbishops’ housing commission: that

“Good housing should be sustainable, safe, stable, sociable and satisfying”.


One of the very few cases I still vividly remember from my original legal training is the landmark decision in Donoghue v Stevenson in 1932, which involved a Mrs May Donoghue discovering a decomposed snail at the bottom of her bottle of ginger beer, and a Mr David Stevenson, the owner of the ginger beer company. This famous snail resulted in a bout of gastroenteritis for Mrs Donoghue and a rather hefty fine for Mr Stevenson, while simultaneously forming the surprising basis of our modern law of negligence, and of a duty of care which does not depend on a direct contractual relationship between the parties involved. So how odd and morally indefensible it is, more than 90 years on, that the construction industry has been able to allow metaphorical snails to slide into its ginger beer bottles: to be negligent, bordering on reckless, when it comes to basic principles of safety, without a straightforward system of remediation which places responsibility where it patently lies.

The noble Earl’s amendments seem both right and practicable in that regard, given the idea of a levy to the remediation fund, which helps to answer concerns about affordability. Developing new confidence in the construction industry and driving up its standards will also help to protect the long-term reputation of the industry itself, which can be only a win-win for all concerned, or at least for all committed to the vision of good housing rather than a race to the bottom. I therefore support the noble Earl’s amendments and the principles behind them in this crucial area of our national life.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 3rd May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, forgive me: I do not have an amendment in this group and I do not want to delay the point when we arrive at my further amendments, but I want to say something about green-belt policy. I am glad to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, because I come from outside Cambridge and she lived in Cambridge, at one time, and now lives now in Oxford, if I am correct. Looking at the green belt by reference to Oxford and Cambridge is an interesting way to approach these things, and I want to do it by reference to the Cambridge green belt in particular.

After the noble Baroness left Cambridge, we lived with precisely the consequences that she described. For 25 years, until about 2000-01, all the development that was required for Cambridge was happening in villages outside Cambridge and generally beyond the green belt. There are many people who will say that it is all very well to talk about reviewing the green belt, looking at green-belt land and whether it should be in or out the green belt, but they are not politicians and they do not have to live with the consequences of reviewing the green belt. Well, I was a politician when we agreed to review the green belt in the run-up to the strategic plan review in 2006, if I remember correctly. Not only did we review the green belt and sustain that through an examination in public, but we successfully reshaped the green belt around Cambridge such that, in the years since, a much larger proportion of the development that is required for Cambridge has happened in the green belt. Some of it has actually delivered access to the countryside that was never available before.

That firmly focused our minds on the purposes of the green belt. For example, we retained green corridors running into Cambridge. Those familiar with Cambridge will realise that, if they come into the centre through Trumpington, they will continue to see countryside reaching right to the centre of Cambridge itself. That was not lost. However, the review acknowledged the requirement for the release of land not primarily for residential purposes but for the purpose of building the Cambridge Biomedical Campus. If we had not reviewed the green belt, the biomedical campus south of Cambridge, around Addenbrooke’s Hospital and what is now Royal Papworth Hospital, and their related research institutes, would not have been able to be built. That would have been an immense loss to the UK economy and life sciences sector.

The point I am making is that understanding when to retain the boundaries of the green belt, when to review them and under what circumstances that review should conclude that the boundaries should be changed is a vital part of planning policy. We should not leave it out. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, and other noble Lords remember from other debates that I am firmly of the opinion that this legislation should be used to give a stronger statutory basis to the environmental purposes of planning, including—one of my earlier amendments did this—in respect to nature recovery and biodiversity gain.

However, I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, that I think it is inappropriate to extend green-belt purposes to the features that she has in Amendment 295, because that would create a different statutory basis for planning policy on green-belt land, as opposed to greenfield or any other available land for development. It would entrench the idea that there is something different about green-belt land from other land.

Of course it is permanent, but I remember back in the early 2000s when I asked what permanent meant in relation to the green belt. The answer, I was told, was 25 years. If it is permanent now, we are talking about land that should stay in the green belt until 2050, more or less. That is when we are supposed to achieve net zero—in fact, before then, as our Green colleagues regularly tell us and would tell us now if they were with us. We have to think about the consequences we expect for our land use strategies if we are to achieve net zero between now and 2050.

For example, I have mentioned Cambridge City Council’s environmental assessment before it commenced the review of its local plan. It showed that it requires a significant increase in the density of development in urban areas and development to be focused on public transport corridors. Let us look at where the public transport corridors are, for example around London. I come from Essex: if you go out into the countryside on the Central line, you go through the green belt, but you do so on a public transport corridor on which there is effectively no development. We have to look very carefully and ask whether that is sustainable. The principle of sustainable development is at the heart of planning, and the boundaries of the green belt should be subject to the principle of sustainable development and assessed against the purposes set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.

As I mention the NPPF for the 98th time in these debates, it would be jolly helpful for the Government to tell us what precisely they plan to say in the NPPF and in the national development management policies in future. I come back to chapter 13 of the draft NPPF, which has two parts to it: one is effectively about setting policy for the green belt, which is about setting its boundaries, and the second is about the policies that should apply to the determination of an application for development within the green belt. The latter should be a national development management policy and the former should not: it should continue to be part of what is effectively the overall guidance from the Secretary of State for plan making. My noble friend sent me a letter following a previous debate but did not clarify precisely that division. I think we need to know, as a very clear example of what is or is not an NDMP. It is an important basis for our future debates on Report.

I am sorry that Ministers thought it appropriate to propose a change to the NPPF to include the sentence:

“Green Belt boundaries are not required to be reviewed and altered if this would be the only means of meeting the objectively assessed need for housing over the plan period”.


I do not know why they have inserted it and I do not see the benefit of it. In those local authorities that consist very largely of green belt—and there are some—it will effectively remove from them the obligation to play their part at all in the provision of housing to meet assessed need. I suspect that the same will be true of the requirements for employment and commercial-related development. As I see it, this has no place. Sustainable development should be the principle, and this sentence effectively absolves those local planning authorities of the responsibility to pursue sustainable development in their areas. I hope that, even at this stage, when they look at the responses to the NPPF consultation, Ministers will recognise that this is inappropriate language to use in relation to green-belt boundary setting.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, this short debate has revealed that tension at the heart of planning policy and, indeed, political debate: what is the relative priority for environmental imperatives on the one hand and for housing on the other? What the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, described as covering land with concrete is, for some people, providing families with decent homes. That is the balance we have to make.

The noble Baroness, Lady Young, opened this debate by asking what the green belt is for. Her amendment outlines nine criteria and purposes for the green belt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, came up with some more criteria. I turn that question the other way around: if a piece of land meets none of the nine criteria in the amendment or those mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, but happens to be designated as green belt, should it remain designated? I am all in favour of expanding the green belt if it meets these criteria and others, but there are bits of the green belt that fulfil none of them.

My noble friend Lord Lansley referred to the document put out on 22 December on reforms to national planning policy. One of the questions was:

“Do you agree that national policy should make clear that Green Belt does not need to be reviewed or altered when making plans?”.


The answer is that I do not agree. As my noble friend said, that gives a let-out, but it also prevents the optimum use of land that is needed for housing.

I hope that, if we do come up with positive policies and descriptions of the objectives to be fulfilled by the green belt, we will look very critically at bits of the green belt that do not meet those criteria. There have been award-winning housing schemes built on what were green belts. We may need more of them if we are to hit our target of 300,000 homes a year. Along with my noble friend Lord Lansley, I think that there are other considerations to take into account when striking the appropriate balance between the environment on one hand and the need for decent homes on the other.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this important debate. At least, I think I thank them all. There are one or two I probably do not agree with. The noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Young of Cookham, amply showed how the polarisation argument about green belt is quite corrosive. It cannot be either/or; it has to be both. We have very little land in this country and we are asking more and more of it, so we have to find ways to meet all the needs for land effectively. That is the subject of another amendment that I have tabled to the Bill. In particular, I hope I misunderstood the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, who seemed to imply that if green belt did not meet the broader criteria, other than just urban sprawl reduction, that was a good reason for building on it. In my view, we should be asking: how do we get this land, which is primarily for the purpose of restraining urban sprawl, also to do other things while it is at it?

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

I hope I did not give that impression. I made it clear that as long as land met one of the nine objectives, of which protecting against urban sprawl is only one, in my view it should be green belt. My point was that if it met none of them, what was it doing being classified as green belt?

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that clarification. I hope that there are not huge numbers of pieces of green belt that do not meet at least the urban sprawl criterion. I very much look forward to the work that the noble Lord, Earl Howe, outlined. We do go back a long way. On one notable occasion, on the eve of the 1997 election, he saved my bacon comprehensively and I shall say no more about that right now. He knows what I am talking about.

I disagree with him that we should not see the required provisions in statute rather than just in planning guidance, but I hope that the NPPF consultation inclines in the direction of boundary review, just not only for the purpose of meeting housing targets. The boundary review should be an exception rather than an opportunity.

I very much appreciate that Defra and DLUHC are working together on how we link green belt provision with access, biodiversity and woodland creation. It is a pity that we cannot get further information about that now and I hope we might see more before Report. I commend the two departments for working these issues out together because there has been inadequate linkage between them on some of these issues in the past. I suppose that what I am taking from the Minister is that there is some hope for jam tomorrow. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 18th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, we move on to Part 5, “Community land auction pilots”. This was not in the Bill when it went through Committee in the other place so it has not really had any proper scrutiny.

We are asking: why legislate for pilot schemes? Once again, as I mentioned under the part of the Bill concerned with the infrastructure levy, surely it makes more sense to run pilot schemes before legislation is brought forward, not to put them in the legislation. For example, although we on these Benches were very unhappy with the introduction of voter ID, as the noble Earl the Minister knows, at least the Government spent a couple of years running pilot schemes on it before bringing the legislation forward. Can the noble Earl explain the thinking about the process that is being followed, in this case, of putting pilots in the legislation instead of running them before the legislation comes before us?

As we all know, currently, when planning permission is given for new homes, the land in question can increase in value by over 80 times. The vast majority of this goes to the landowner and other players, with very little being captured by the local authority. Community land auctions would give councils the tools to capture much more of the value uplift, which they can then spend on local priorities such as improved infrastructure and better public services. In theory, this sounds like a really good idea but, as always, the devil is in the detail. We need to understand properly how this would work in practice. What will the impact be on developers and how will they react? What consultation took place between the Government, local authorities and developers before this proposal was put in the Bill?

Under Amendment 362, in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock, the objective of community land auctions would be to support sustainable development. I am not going to go into all the reasons for that again now. We have had lots of discussions about why it is important that the Bill focus all the time on the sustainability of the development that will take place as a result of some of its provisions, so I do not need to highlight that any further.

Under Amendment 365, in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock, any relevant combined authority would be given the report to scrutinise. It is very important that we enshrine liaison with local authorities as part of the Bill, and I hope we will be able to do that.

There is also a stand part debate on Clause 127. I will be interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, discuss the purposes and mechanisms of community land auctions. It would be useful to hear about the relationship between community land auctions and the plan-making process, and how they will fit in as the process takes place. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to the proposition in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Lansley that Clause 127 should not stand part of the Bill. My noble friend and I are job-sharing for much of this section of the Bill.

This clause deals with pilots for community land auctions, which aim to give local authorities the ability to benefit far more greatly from new development than they do under the current system, even as proposed in the Bill. Basically, it takes the principle behind Section 106, the new homes bonus, CIL and the infrastructure levy a stage further, but in doing so it risks compromising the integrity of the planning system by moving more towards the sale of planning consents.

The Explanatory Notes to the Bill are normally quite helpful, but the 10 lines on the background to CLAs, on page 126, do not explain what is going to happen. As I understand the proposal, a landowner can name the price at which he is willing to sell his land to the council—it would probably be agricultural land, but it could be industrial land—which then has an option to purchase the land at that price. The price will be somewhere between the current value and the hope value with planning consent. The local authority then develops its plan, and if that land is deemed suitable for housing development, it buys it at the option price and resells it to the developer, pocketing the difference. I assume the Government hope that many landowners will take advantage of the scheme so that the local authority has a choice and the ability to choose best value. I think it clear from that scenario that the local authority has a financial incentive to designate land for development over which it has an option, in preference to land over which it has no option but which may be more appropriate for development. I will return to that in a moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, the process will not be as my noble friend has described. The simplest way I can describe this is that community land auctions will be a process of price discovery. In the current system, local planning authorities have to make assumptions about the premium required by a reasonable landowner to release their land for development. For Section 106 agreements, this manifests itself through viability negotiations between the local planning authority and a developer. As these can be negotiated, there is a higher risk that, in effect, higher land prices lead to reduced developer contributions, rather than contributions being fully priced by developers into the amount that they pay for land.

For the community infrastructure levy and the proposed infrastructure levy, a levy rate is set for all development within certain parameters. When setting rates, the local planning authority has to calculate how much value uplift will occur on average, and has to make assumptions about landowner premiums and set a levy rate on that basis. The actual premium required by individual landowners will not be available to local planning authorities and will vary depending on individual circumstances. If the local planning authority makes an inaccurate assumption about landowner premiums, they may either make a lot of sites unviable by setting too high a levy rate, or else they will collect much less than they might have done otherwise by setting too low a levy rate.

Under the CLA process, landowners bid to have their land selected for allocation in an emerging local plan, as I have described, by stating the price at which they would willingly sell their land to the LPA for development. The offer from the landowner, once an option agreement is in place with the LPA, becomes legally binding. The LPA can either exercise it themselves, thereby purchasing the land, or auction it to developers. The competitive nature of CLAs incentivises landowners to reveal the true price at which they would willingly part with their land. If they choose to offer a higher price, they risk another piece of land being allocated for development, in which case they will not secure any value uplift at all.

I do not want to prolong the debate unnecessarily, so I will respond to my noble friend in writing on the other questions I have not covered.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for the very patient way he dealt with the argument I put forward. I will take him up on two points. First, he said that the Government will consult local authorities about this. Surely, before introducing primary legislation on a major planning system, they should consult the local authorities first, rather than after the Bill has gone through. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, I think he said that when the local authorities were drawing up the plan they could take into account the financial benefits. I think that is moving towards what he subsequently deplored: namely, the sale of planning permission.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

The extent to which those financial benefits can be taken into account will be set out, as I mentioned, in regulations. My noble friend makes a fair point, but parameters will be set around this. On the issue of prior consultation, which the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, also raised, one can take two views: one is to go through the process that my noble friend advocated, and the other is to say that the integrity and workability of the scheme is such that we can afford to come to this House and the other place first before launching a pilot. Our view is that it will be perfectly satisfactory to take that course.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 22nd May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and thank him for the lead he has taken on this issue. I was pleased to add my name to his Amendments 456, 457 and 458.

I recall our debate on the regulations that were introduced during the pandemic. We were assured that this was a temporary reduction in the notification required and in the rights of local people to object. We all understood that this was an emergency, that businesses were fighting to survive and that restaurants and pubs were doing their best to carry on providing a service at a time when it was clearly unsafe for people to be gathering inside, even if the Government had allowed it. However, there was a debate about this and as I said, we were assured that this this would be temporary.

These amendments are a modest way of ensuring that residents are still given a reasonable opportunity to object to such applications. To this day, the usual way in which people find out about planning applications is via a local notice attached to a lamp post. Most people are not sitting at home scanning council websites on the chance of finding a planning application that applies to their area. Most people object because they see a notice on a lamp post, or their neighbour tells them about it. If you have sight loss, for example, you will need longer to ensure that you are aware and can write in response, because it is not as easy as it is for people with good eyesight.

Therefore, Amendment 457 is particularly important because it would remove approval by default, which is an indefensible approach to local planning. Amendment 458 is important because it would ensure that street furniture is not left cluttering up the pavement, where people fall over it. Also, as the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, has just pointed out, guide dogs have difficulty. I have a neighbour with a guide dog and if cars are parked on the pavement, the dog takes him around them or stops. So, life is made much more difficult.

Finally, public understanding of smoke drift has been transformed in the last decade. As a keen viewer of old television series, every time I watch them, I realise how different our view and tolerance of other people’s smoke is nowadays, compared with 10 or 15 years ago. What is in these amendments is well within accepted and reasonable expectation, so I support them.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I have enormous sympathy for the case made by my noble friend Lord Holmes and very much hope that the Government respond as positively as they can.

The background to my Amendment 459, to which Peers from other parties have added their names, is the arrangements made during the pandemic to support the hospitality industry. In the interests of progress, not all four of us will be speaking, and it is good to see today’s Marshalled List down to a mere 68 pages for this last day of our debate. Noble Lords may recall that during the pandemic, when it was not possible to go into enclosed premises such as pubs, arrangements were made to grant pavement licences. When the Business and Planning Bill, which introduced this concession, came before the House in 2020, I added my name to a cross-party amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, saying that a condition of licence would be that outdoor seating areas were required to be 100% smoke-free, paralleling the arrangements inside the premises.

Noble Lords across the House supported that amendment, but sadly it was not accepted by the Government, who instead inserted a requirement in the legislation that

“the licence-holder must make reasonable provision for seating where smoking is not permitted”.

Amendment 459 would reintroduce the requirement for all pavement licences to be smoke-free, which was the view of your Lordships’ House three years ago. This would contribute to the Government’s ambition to make England smoke-free by 2030—an ambition we are currently on track to miss by nine years, according to Cancer Research UK. The current temporary requirements, which are being made permanent in this Bill, would mean that councils have two options on smoking: to implement the national condition to provide some smoke-free seating, or to go further and make 100% smoke-free seating a condition of licence at local level.

Since then, two-thirds of the public, polled in 2022, did not think that the current legislation went far enough. They wanted smoking banned from the outdoor seating areas of all restaurants, pubs and cafes. Fewer than one in five opposed such a ban. That was a large sample, of more than 10,000 people, in a survey carried out by YouGov for Action on Smoking and Health.

Some councils are already doing what the public want, with 10 councils in England introducing 100% smoke-free requirements. These are a mixture of Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem-led councils in counties such as Durham and Northumberland, cities such as Newcastle, Manchester and Liverpool, unitary authorities such as Middlesbrough and North Lincolnshire, and metropolitan boroughs such as North Tyneside, South Tyneside and the London Borough of Brent. Therefore, in response to the point about practicality made by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, practicality has already been well established by those local authorities.

When we initially tabled our amendments, the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government wrote to Manchester City Council, the first council to introduce the requirement for pavement licences to be 100% smoke-free, warning it that this would damage local hospitality businesses and could lead to the loss of thousands of jobs. We do not know whether that letter had the approval of Health Ministers. However, the experience from Manchester and elsewhere shows exactly the opposite: that these bans have proved popular with the public, leading to high levels of compliance, and have not been shown to cause any decrease in revenues. At the time, I reluctantly agreed to the Government’s decision to include the current smoke-free seating requirements, which, while better than nothing, do not go far enough. The current system is not only much more complicated to implement than a blanket ban; it ensures that non-smokers and children continue to be exposed to tobacco smoke, which is both toxic and unpleasant. Of course, those who work for these establishments cannot go elsewhere and will continue to be exposed to smoke.

The Local Government Association of which, uniquely, I am not a vice-president, supports our amendment for 100% smoke-free pavement licences on the basis that

“it sets a level playing field for hospitality venues across the country and has a public health benefit of protecting people from unwanted second-hand smoke … If smoking is not prohibited, pavement areas will not become family-friendly spaces”.

That is why Dr Javed Khan’s independent review of smoke-free 2030 policies, commissioned by the Department of Health and published last year, recommended that smoking be prohibited on all premises, indoors and out, where food or drink is served, as well as a ban on smoking in all outdoor areas where children are present. This 100% smoke-free pavement seating has strong cross-party support from Peers across this House. When the regulations were extended in 2021, the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, tabled an amendment to regret that the regulations were not revised to take account of the evidence of the benefits of 100% smoke-free pavement licences. That amendment was agreed by 254 votes to 224.

Last year, the Government announced several new tobacco control measures and said that in place of the long-promised tobacco control plan to deliver a smoke-free 2030, tackling smoking would be core to the major conditions strategy currently in development. The measures announced today are welcome but fall far short of the comprehensive approach that Dr Khan made clear was essential if we are to achieve a smoke-free 2030. When my noble friend sums up, can she confirm that the Government intend to bring forward further measures to reduce smoking in the upcoming major conditions strategy? We should now take this opportunity, provided by this amendment, to move towards implementing Dr Khan’s recommendations for all hospitality venues to be smoke-free indoors and out—a small but important step towards a smoke-free 2030.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, last week, my esteemed colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, asked whether I would support his amendments on pavement accessibility. I trusted him completely so I said, “Yes, of course, I would love to support them”. Then I read them and, actually, they are quite tough and strict in places, but the more I read them, the more I liked them. I particularly liked Amendment 450, which is about taking bits of the road—I love that idea—and reducing the space for traffic, as well as Amendment 459 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and others, because that is so tough on smoking and I loathe smoking. I support many of these amendments. Obviously, I support all the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. There is, perhaps, some space to bring in the fact that cars park on the pavement. I hate pavement parking and I hate loads of rubbish bins being heaped up on the side of pavements because they inhibit free access.

My local shopping street has gone absolutely bananas with this, and it has changed the whole feeling of the street—it is so much more friendly. At the moment, only the Co-op, Iceland and Boots, I think, do not have tables and chairs outside them, with people eating, drinking and having fun. I am all in favour of this section and look forward to Report, when I would be happy to vote on many of them and perhaps even sign up to them as well.

--- Later in debate ---

That is why we think further action will be necessary, so our Amendment 477 requires the Government to pass a dedicated devolution Bill. We must surely give CCAs, by right, powers which include but are not limited to, housing, energy, childcare, public transport, skills, training and development. Most of the provisions of the Bill have been introduced without sufficient consultation with the sector, which is why the second part of our amendment requires that a new devolution Bill introduce a framework of co-operation between CCAs and the Government based on mutual respect. I beg to move our amendment.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I will add a very brief footnote to the speech we have just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor. Amendment 477 asks for a devolution Bill. In a sense that takes us back to the beginning.

In September 2019, at my party conference, the then Chancellor announced that there would be a White Paper on English devolution. The Queen’s Speech in 2019 said that the Government would publish a White Paper on

“unleashing regional potential in England”.

The following year the then Minister, Simon Clarke, said in answer to a Parliamentary Written Question on 9 July that

“our English Devolution and Local Recovery White Paper will set out our plans for expanding devolution”.

It was hoped to publish that in autumn 2020.

After that, the line went dead. In 2021, it was announced that the plans for strengthening local accountable leadership would be included in the levelling up White Paper—so what was initially going to be about devolution morphed into being about levelling up. There is inevitable tension between devolution, on the one hand, and levelling up, on the other. Devolution is about pushing decisions down to the local level; levelling up is about ironing out the differences between regions, which, inevitably, means more central control. This dilemma has gone all the way through the Bill, and indeed through the White Paper—it was not the White Paper on devolution, it was the White Paper on levelling up. There are some powerful words in the foreword by the then Prime Minister:

“We’ll usher in a revolution in local democracy”.


But we have not seen that.

To take a very small example, I proposed a very modest amendment that would enable local planning authorities to recover the costs of running the planning department—something that at the moment is set nationally. Far from ushering in new local democracy, that decision has to rest in Whitehall. Instead of pushing spending down to the local level and letting local people get on with it, we have all the pots people have to bid for: the levelling up fund, the pothole action fund—which, I think, has now been added to that list—the future high street fund and the towns fund. The thing about all those funds is that the final decision is taken centrally, not locally. So the question I pose to my noble friend is: when it comes to devolution, is this it? Is this all we are going to get?

We are approaching the end of a Parliament, and there may not be time for fresh thinking, but I agree with the thrust of what the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, said: we are overcentralised and need to push decisions down locally. To do that, we need a buoyant source of local revenue, which local government does not have at the moment. When I looked at Amendment 477, the word “devolution” caught my eye. I felt that somebody ought to draw attention to the tension between levelling up, on the one hand, and devolution on the other. To my mind, there is too much about levelling up but not nearly enough about devolution. I suspect that, at some point, whoever is in control in the next Parliament will have to come back to devolution.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Young, for reminding us how we got to where we are. He was absolutely right on every single point he made. This is terribly important, and I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for giving us the amendment. If I have one criticism, it is that I am not sure we are yet at a Bill stage. Although it says “draft legislation” in subsection (1) of the proposed new clause—I understand that—I personally favour a royal commission or something that would actually look at the nature of local government and central government powers.

The noble Lord, Lord Young, has rightly identified the difficulty of devolving and at the same time levelling up, which, as he said, requires a greater element of centralised control. I have said several times over the course of this Bill, and before, that you cannot run England out of London; with 56 million people, we are steadily learning that. One of the reasons we are having these constant changes in the Government’s intentions for Bills is that they do not know either what they want to do—so, in the end, the Civil Service carries on and Ministers carry on trying to move forward.

There are elements in the Bill which are very important in assisting us down the road of greater devolution, and they lie in the combined county authorities. The more we have combined county authorities—much though I do not like the centralisation which can result, because they do not have, for example, a Greater London assembly; they do not have a structure such as that to underpin them—the more we will have a move away from Whitehall.

I do not want to say any more about that; I welcome what the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, has proposed in this amendment. I think we should note what the noble Lord, Lord Young, said about the overall situation that we are in, but I hope that the Government and the Minister will see the importance of trying to bring all this together, because inevitably we are going to come back to this on Report anyway, as we look at the first parts of the Bill that, in Committee, we debated many weeks ago. I welcome the amendment and I hope the Government will see that there would be benefit in moving us forward, not just with structures like the combined counties but actually with real devolution of real things.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th May 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I am sure that we are all disappointed that we will not hear from the noble Lord who also sponsored these amendments—

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

There is a convention that, if you speak in a debate, you have to stay until the wind-ups. Sadly, I have a commitment that means that that would not be possible. I endorse everything that has been said.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

We are grateful to the noble Lord, and we will miss him for the rest of our deliberations.

We have had many interesting debates on the issue of housing during the discussion on the Bill, from the need to introduce the decent homes standard into the privately rented sector or to address much more urgently the need to improve the energy efficiency of our homes. But I would argue that these amendments are particularly critical, not least during the cost of living crisis, as they deal with the really important issue of evictions and homelessness. Of course, they come at a time when there is huge pressure on temporary accommodation, given all the additional demands being made—not least, in housing refugees. We know that local councils are massively stretched and are using bed and breakfasts and hotels well beyond the legal limit.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 18th July 2023 Lords Chamber

Even in Committee, I do not think we looked at this issue properly. On page 431, in Schedule 12, under general regulations, the Government included a new provision that says that they may make provision treating the community infrastructure levy as if it were the infrastructure levy. All the flexibilities that are required are available in this Bill. We do not know yet what the infrastructure levy and new delivery agreements will look like, but they could incorporate many of the best features of the community infrastructure levy and the best features of Section 106—but they absolutely will require local authorities to have a charging schedule and require those additional developer contributions substantially to increase the availability of affordable housing. On that basis, it would be very remiss on our part at this stage to remove Clause 129 or Schedule 12 rather than giving us the opportunity to have those improvements in the structure of developer contributions. So I am afraid that I shall not support Amendment 68.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I add a brief footnote to what the noble Lord, Lord Best, said in speaking to Amendment 71, to which I have added my name, and to what my noble friend Lord Lansley has said about Amendment 311. I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Best, and my noble friend said about the willingness of Ministers to listen to us throughout the process. The government amendments respond to the concern that we all expressed in Committee about the potential loss of affordable homes.

I shall pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Best, about the so-called viability loophole. What has been happening is that well-resourced developers, half way through a scheme, have turned to the local authority and said, “It’s no longer viable—and, by the way, we cannot build the affordable homes which were due to be built right towards the end of the scheme”. That left the local planning authority with the nuclear option of pulling the plug on the whole scheme or allowing it to go ahead and at least getting the open market houses. At the time, Shelter did some research, which showed that the use of viability assessments in 11 local authorities across England contributed to 79% fewer affordable houses being built in urban areas than would have built if the original agreement had been adhered to. Following that controversy, the Government introduced guidance and tightened up the rules in 2018; the new rules limited the use of viability assessments to reduce affordable housing to exceptional circumstances, such as a recession or similar economic changes. That was a step in the right direction.

My concern, which was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Best, is that government Amendment 76 seems to go back on the 2018 changes and revert to the position that generated all the criticism about viability. I note in passing that the technical consultation criticised the current Section 106 agreements by saying that the

“planning obligations are uncertain and opaque … they are subject to negotiation (and can be subject to subsequent renegotiation), can create uncertainty for communities over the level of infrastructure and affordable housing that will be delivered”.

Is that not exactly what Amendment 76 does in referring to a development being economically unviable? It seems that what the Government are doing is virtually guaranteeing that no development will ever lose money, while the developer benefits from any gains above expectation. The levelling up Select Committee’s report expressed the same doubts last week.

I want to say a final word on Amendment 311, to which my noble friend Lord Lansley spoke. On 17 March, the Government published their technical consultation. It ran to 91 pages and asked 45 questions; it is not an easy read. The consultation ended on 9 June and the document said:

“Following the closure of this consultation, the government will assess responses. In doing so, a response will be issued that summarises the themes that emerged, before issuing a final consultation on the draft regulations after the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill achieves Royal Assent”.


This means that we are debating Schedule 12 in a vacuum because we do not know what its structure will be. I am afraid that this is a feature of too much in this Bill.

When it published its report, Reforms to National Planning Policy, the Select Committee in another place picked up the same point. It also said that we are going to have real issues if we run the infrastructure levy and Section 106 in tandem, leading to arguments and complications. I was not wholly reassured by what the Minister in the other place said in response to the Select Committee’s query:

“If they say that it is too complicated and ask to change things, we will consider that”.


I am not sure that that is a great step forward.

So, on both issues—viability and the absence of the structure of Section 12—I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to provide the House with some reassurances.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I will intervene briefly. I declare an interest as a chartered surveyor with some involvement in the development process.

I want to speak to the factor that links Amendments 71 and 94 and follows on from what the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, has just said. I have been in the past a technical operator of the dark arts of development appraisal. I would be much less charitable than the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, in my comments about exactly what goes on here; for instance, how land values under option agreements are arrived at and how, with a click of a mouse on a proprietary development appraisal computer package, the matter can then adapt to a viability test for the local authority’s community infrastructure levy or Section 106 contribution purposes. Noble Lords would be astounded at the way in which a yield change here and a cost base there, as well as the adaption of a timeframe or the alteration of a contingency allowance—I mention just a few means—can be used to alter significantly the entire outcome and colouration of what is claimed on the back of it. Further, all this is done by using the same primary data inputs and, unsurprisingly, there are two factors that developers will never reveal to you if they can get away with it. One is the land value that they paid, coloured as it is by all sorts of associated costs before it gets as far as a planning consent; the second is their construction costs, which are entirely opaque.

Alongside all this and of much longer standing is what I describe as the commoditisation of residential property, which started in the 1990s. It has since financed ever more of the items society wishes to have, in terms of affordable housing, infrastructure, schools et cetera. But that policy has created a consistent and ever more bankable asset within an enhanced lending sector. This results in the very unfortunate situation of driving up house prices and creating a model that is less than satisfactory. Core to this is the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell—transparency. Without it, none of this will be demonstrable to anybody, at any time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 95, I will speak also to Amendments 97, 287 and 293, which address recommendations in the report of your Lordships’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on community land auctions—CLAs. I declare my interest as a landowner.

These procedural amendments will change the power of direction in Clause 133(1)(a), which allows the Secretary of State to direct that a local planning authority preparing a local plan may put in place a CLA arrangement. We are changing this, so that local planning authorities wishing to pilot a CLA arrangement should instead be designated by CLA regulations. These regulations will be subject to the negative resolution procedure to allow for an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny of the selection of local planning authorities to participate in community land auction arrangements. We agree with the argument put forward by the DPRRC that the negative resolution procedure is more appropriate than the affirmative, because it will not lead to the delay of the implementation of CLA arrangements.

The policy intent of these amendments is to allow for the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny over the selection of prospective piloting authorities. Any potential piloting authorities will need to actively volunteer to participate in CLA arrangements; they will not be forced to do so. These amendments remove any reference to a power for the DLUHC Secretary of State to direct in Part 5, and make associated changes to Clause 231 to ensure that the negative resolution procedure will apply to the new regulation-making power in Clause 133(1). I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 96 and 98 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Lansley.

In answering a question last week, the Minister, my noble friend Lady Scott, said that the levelling-up Bill was a large one; she gave that as a reason for dropping the repeal of the Vagrancy Act. My amendment directly addresses that concern by deleting eight pages from the Bill: those introducing the untested concept of community land auctions, parachuted into the Bill at a late stage in the other place, hot from the bubbling vat of a think tank, without the normal process of cooling and maturing.

I say again how grateful I am to Ministers for their patience in discussions on CLAs and for the very comprehensive six-page letter received yesterday, addressing some of the concerns that I have spoken about.

One would have thought that a novel concept such as this one would have been subjected to some consultation before it appeared in the Bill: first, with those who have to operate it—namely, the planning authorities—and, secondly, with those who represent the landowners, who have expressed deep reservations about the proposal. So we were surprised to hear the Minister say, in winding up the debate in Committee:

“We will consult on community land auctions shortly”.—[Official Report, 18/5/23; col. 430.]


Over the weekend, I was reading the guidance issued in April last year for civil servants who are charged with developing policies such as this one. It says:

“Engaging with stakeholders as soon as possible gives them the opportunity to understand what’s being asked of the service team and why. It’s also a chance to build trust and understanding of each other’s needs and ways of working and lets them plan their time and involvement with the project”.


Clearly, that engagement with the stakeholders simply has not happened here. I am not blaming the civil servants; Ministers clearly insisted on this clause going in. The guidance then adds a warning to civil servants to

“think about what your users need, not what government thinks they want”.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 4th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Southwark]

My Lords, I also rise to speak to Amendment 198 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, whom it is an honour to follow this evening, the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, who sends her apologies that she cannot be here to take part in this debate.

The urgent need to address declining health in the United Kingdom, as well as the widening health inequalities associated with this, cannot be overstated. We have heard many times about the staggering difference in healthy life expectancy, which was already up to 19 years before the pandemic. We must not become numb to such statistics or the reality that underlies them. Amendment 198 is about using the opportunity that this Bill provides to reform the planning system and thereby enable practical action by local authorities to tackle these disparities.

The social determinants of health are familiar and better understood than they have ever been. We know that where we live and the environment that we find ourselves in can have a significant impact on our health and, in extreme cases, fatal consequences. If we are serious about tackling health inequalities, our planning system is a key and necessary lever for better outcomes. By designing spaces better and putting in the right features that are proven to improve health and well-being, we can make huge improvements to the state of health. As we have heard, local planners can improve this in a number of ways, including site allocation, working with developers to improve applications and setting a vision for what facilities are in an area. This amendment would give planners a framework to deliver in each and every neighbourhood infrastructure that boosts everyone’s health and well-being.

When a similar amendment was debated in Committee, the Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said that the National Planning Policy Framework

“contains policies on how to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places”.—[Official Report, 27/3/23; col. 77.]

However, the fact that these policies already exist makes a strong case for this amendment, for the simple reason that little has changed. We are still building housing where the basics are not right, such as estates where there are not even any pavements. The National Planning Policy Framework is clearly not a strong enough tool for what we want to achieve. If we are to level up our health, we need to level up our planning system; that means being clear about our priorities within it right across the country.

In a report published by Sustrans, the custodians of the National Cycle Network in 2022, 64% of planners said that they needed more robust regulation or guidance to prioritise health and well-being. A statutory duty to reduce health inequalities in the planning system will give planners the levers that they need to consider health outcomes in a bespoke way that suits local areas, without these being forgotten amid the other requirements that must necessarily be followed.

I also support the “healthy homes” amendments—Amendments 191A, 191B and 286—in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, who has already spoken. They seek to use the role that planning can play in reducing adverse health outcomes by preventing the creation of inadequate housing, which is an all-too-present reality in the current pressure to build more housing.

In conclusion, I hope that we will consider giving planners these tools today, as while we wait the gap, not only in life expectancy but in healthy living, is increasing. To deny these amendments is to store up dangerous and expensive problems for the future. The answer to increased housebuilding lies elsewhere.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I have added my name to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and commend his tenacity in pursuing this issue through his Private Members’ Bill and all the stages of this legislation. I shall add a short footnote to his speech.

After the debate in Committee and the very helpful meeting that we had with Ministers, on 25 May the Minister wrote a comprehensive nine-page reply taking the objectives of the amendments one by one and outlining how, in the Government’s view, existing provisions reflected them. We can discuss whether there is total alignment between current provisions and what is in the amendments, but the letter asserting this and existing statements from the Minister in our debates indicate that there is not a lot of distance between what the Government say that they want and what is proposed, which would help to bridge the gap that the right reverend Prelate has just referred to.

The letter dated 25 May said: “Following on from our meeting, I thought that it would be helpful to set out where the principles of healthy homes are already being considered and addressed through existing laws, systems, policy and guidance”. I want to make two points, picking up the key objections to the amendment that were made by my noble friend Lord Howe in his reply to the debate on 27 March. He said, referring to the noble Lord, Lord Crisp:

“Where we had to part company with him—and, I am afraid, must continue to do so—was on the extent to which new legislation should duplicate legal provisions already in place, and, to the extent that it does not duplicate it, how much more prescriptive the law should be about the way in which new housing is planned for and designed”.—[Official Report, 27/3/23; col. 76.]


On the first objection, I would prefer “consolidate” to “duplicate” to describe the impact of the amendments. Annex A to the letter dated 25 May explains that the relevant policies in the amendments are set out in no less than 11 groups under the heading “Healthy Homes Principles”. These groups in turn referred to 28 different chapters or clauses in building regulations, design codes, the NPPF, planning legislation and orders. The amendment brings all those provisions together under one overarching umbrella and provides what is currently missing: namely, a clear statement of government policy on healthy homes all in one place, breaking down the silos between all the government departments involved—the Department of Health and Social Care, the Home Office, the Department for Transport, the Department of Energy and Climate Change, Defra and DLUHC. The 28 different references would then have a coherence which is lacking at the moment and which would be embodied in the statement that the Secretary of State has to make, underlining the commitment to healthy homes.

The second objection was that the amendment was prescriptive. However, the wording of paragraph 4 in the new schedule proposed in Amendment 191B gets round that objection in that it uses “should” instead of “must” throughout. The only compulsion is in paragraph 1, which obliges the Secretary of State to prepare a statement in accordance with the proposed new schedule. The groundwork for this has already been laid by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp.

I hope that my noble friend will reflect on these points and that his customary emollience will go one step further into acquiescence.

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 280. I thank my supporters, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Lansley. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her engagement with me on this issue over recent months and for her letter outlining the position of the Government.

I will focus on the changes to the amendment since we were in Committee, where we highlighted the magnitude of the issue of embodied carbon, with 50 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalents a year—more than aviation and shipping combined, so it is a significant amount of emissions. When we consider the effort and investment that is going into some of these other areas, it points towards the need to do a lot more on embodied carbon.

We also set out that industry is ready. On an infrastructure-related bid that I am currently working on for the private sector, we are looking to set targets for embodied carbon and assess it in the design phase, something that we now do almost as a matter of course. However, regulation needs to catch up, to ensure that this is applied consistently and to seize the wider sustainability and economic benefits of this change applying across the whole of industry. Our amendment focuses purely on the initial reporting stage, whereby industry will be mandated to report embodied carbon for all new construction projects above a certain size; the subsequent stage, using data gathered in the initial stage, would be to set out actual regulated limits for embodied carbon in buildings.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 6th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

I apologise to the House for that. The amendment aims to address the problem of local planning authorities unwittingly, and I think occasionally intentionally,

“frustrating a higher-tier authority’s aspirations for walking, cycling or rights of way networks”.

We must not forget the rights of way, because you cannot walk or cycle if rights of way get blocked. The problem is in not recording those network aspirations in authorities’ own development plans,

“thereby failing to safeguard land for those networks, to connect new development with existing networks and/or to secure developer contributions to implement or upgrade specific routes”.

I will give examples. It is probably worse with two-tier authorities. Where the local transport or highway authority, which is usually a county council or combined authority, is not the same body as the local planning authority, you can have this example, which Sustrans exposed. The alliance says that

“one part of a unitary authority commissioned Sustrans to assess the feasibility of re-opening a disused railway line as a walking and cycling route, yet another part of the same authority then gave permission for a housing development which blocked that disused railway line before Sustrans had completed the study. In another case, planning permission was granted by a local planning authority for development which adversely impacted a section of the National Cycle Network (which Sustrans manages), with planning officers unaware of the existence and importance of this walking, wheeling and cycling route”.

This is confusing for local authorities, especially when they are probably very short of resources, as many noble Lords have said on previous amendments. I think the Government believe that our concerns about lack of co-ordination would best be addressed through the NPPF, but that does not mention it, and it omits other things altogether. Unless we get something here that links granting planning permission with taking account of adequate provision for walking, cycling and rights of way, we are in trouble.

I will give one other example before I conclude. In a recent case in Chesterfield in Derbyshire, the local planning authority considered a housing development close to the town centre and railway station. The council officials pressed for the development to include walking and cycling routes to facilitate access to, from and through the development, and obviously to and from the station. However, when the committee was due to consider the application, the developer made a submission claiming that the walking and cycling routes would render the developments economically unviable, and the councillors accepted that view without really challenging it. I have cycled on many cycle routes that probably suffer from the same failure by a developer to provide a proper, sensible route, because it tried to persuade the planning authority that it would be all right on the night, and it is not always.

I hope that the Government will support this amendment. Active Travel England is involved in this, and I certainly welcome what it is planning to do. However, it will often be consulted only at a later stage, and it would be much better if the relevant authorities’ walking, cycling and rights of way network plans were clearly shown in development plans from the outset.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 199 on cycling in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and I will follow briefly in his slipstream, if I may.

I am grateful to the Minister for the Teams meeting that she held on this subject at the end of last month to find common ground. Throughout our debates on the Bill, the Government have suggested that our objectives could be better met through NPPFs rather than through legislation. But throughout the debate there has been some scepticism about that, as there is ample evidence that leaving things to guidance does not actually produce the results.

The NPPF guidance on cycling was last revised in 2018, but there is a real problem with that guidance, and I hope that my noble friend can give me some assurance. One paragraph of that guidance said:

“Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe”.


This paragraph makes it very difficult for local planning authorities to refuse developments whose location or design fails adequately to support walking, cycling and other sustainable transport modes. If we are to rely on future NPPFs, can my noble friend give me an assurance that that provision will be removed, because it stands in the way of many of the Bill’s objectives?

The final point raised in the Teams meeting was one that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has just mentioned: the conflict between upper and lower-tier authorities. At the meeting, my noble friend was good enough to say that she would have another look at this and would perhaps be able to respond on it.

I very much welcome what has been said—that Active Travel England is now a statutory consultee—but it would be better if it could be involved at an earlier stage of the proposals, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, rather than at a later stage, when it would be difficult to retrofit the provisions for cycling that we would all want to see. I hope that my noble friend the Minister is able to provide some reassurance on those two points.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, in view of the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, I will be much briefer than I intended, so we might ramble around a little.

On Amendments 193 and 194 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, I absolutely understand his points and will await the Minister’s answer on the reasons for that omission from the Bill. I have to confess to the noble Lord to having made the assumption that they would be in the Bill. In fact, reading through this section, I thought “Why are people putting down these amendments? Aren’t they what people already do in a good local plan?”, so I am grateful for his attention to detail.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

195: Schedule 7, page 347, line 38, at end insert—
“(6A) The local plan must be designed to secure that the supply of housing through development in the local planning authority’s area meets or exceeds the requirement for housing during the plan period which would be derived from the housing targets and standard method prescribed in guidance by the Secretary of State as applicable at that time.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require a local plan to meet or exceed the housing need for the authority’s area as specified by Government targets.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 195 in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Lansley, the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman.

For me, this is the most important group of amendments in the whole Bill; they go the heart of the question of whether one of the basic responsibilities of government is to ensure that the nation is adequately housed. I hope that it is common ground that there are some core functions of central government that it should not opt out of: ensuring that the country is well defended, that the streets are safe, that families have a basic income, that children are well educated, that there is access to a decent health service and that people are adequately housed. These are either provided centrally by government—defence, health and income support—or mandated to be provided by others, in the cases of policing, education and housing.

Basically, what happened last December was that housing was deleted as one of those core functions. It was done not as a considered act of policy but as a reaction to a group of Government Back-Benchers who were threatening to rebel. As a former Government Chief Whip, I am well aware of the importance of party cohesion—but not at any price. Yes, the nominal commitment remained with central government—the 300,000 housing target—but, crucially, the means for the Government to secure that target was removed. The targets became advisory, not mandatory: a starting point and not a destination.

The way the system has worked for as long as I can remember—going back to the days of the GLC in the 1960s, and to the 1980s when I was a Minister and SERPLAN—is that central government has formed a view of how many homes the country needs. It has looked at household formation, life expectancy, broader demographic trends, regional policy and net inward migration, and then come up with a global figure. That has then been divvied up between the planning authorities, after consultation, to underpin a credible national housing policy.

It should be immediately apparent that this is not a process that can be left to the discretion of local councillors. They look downwards to their electorate, to whom they are accountable, while national government has a broader responsibility. For example, left to their own devices, local authorities would make no provision for migration, which is a responsibility of national government. The noble Lord, Lord Best, will develop that point. As I have said repeatedly in this House, you cannot rely on the good will of local government to provide the homes that the country needs.

Before the policy was reversed, we were falling well short of our target. New homes granted planning permission declined to 269,000 in the year to March, down by 11% on the year to March 2022. After the reversal, the target becomes less achievable. The starkness of the climbdown was revealed in an article in the House magazine by Theresa Villiers, who referred to her amendment in the following terms:

“This was backed by 60 MPs, and in response, the secretary of state brought forward significant concessions to rebalance the planning system to give local communities greater control over what is built in their neighbourhood. That includes confirming that centrally determined housing targets are advisory not mandatory. They are a starting point, not an inevitable outcome. Changes have been promised to make it easier for councils to set a lower target”.


I believe that my colleagues in the other place have misread the politics. Yes, there is a risk of losing a few votes from those who do not wish to see development in their area—we saw the consequences of that in a by-election in Chesham and Amersham—but there is a much greater risk of losing far more votes in a general election if we are seen to be a party that is insensitive to the needs of those who need a decent home against a background of lengthening waiting lists, more use of temporary accommodation, rising rents in the private sector and home ownership becoming more difficult.

Our opponents in the main opposition party have spotted this weakness and will continue to exploit it until we put things right, which is what the amendment seeks to do—restoring what was government policy when the Bill was introduced, before the policy was ill-advisedly abandoned in December. There is a strong case for giving the other place an opportunity to reflect on this policy change now that we have seen its consequences. My noble friend Lord Lansley will develop that point.

The consequences were made clear in a unanimous report, published in July, from a Select Committee with a government majority. It said:

“The Government’s reform proposals include making local housing targets advisory and removing the need for local authorities to continually demonstrate a deliverable 5-year housing land supply. We have heard evidence from many stakeholders that these measures will render the national housing target impossible to achieve”.


It also said:

“This uncertainty has resulted in 58 local authorities stalling, delaying, or withdrawing their local plans to deliver housing—28 of those since the December 2022 announcement. Contrary to the Government’s objective of facilitating local plan-making, the short-term effect of announcing the planning reform proposals has been to halt the progress of local plans in many areas”.


Several authorities have stated that the reason for delaying their local plans is that they are waiting for the outcome of consultations. On that subject, the report concluded:

“In many cases, this will be on the understanding that they will no longer be required to meet their local housebuilding targets”.


The report further concluded that

“it is difficult to see how the Government will achieve its 300,000 net national housing target by the mid-2020s if local targets are only advisory. The Government has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate how the policy of removing mandatory local housing targets will directly lead to more housebuilding”.

Before tabling this amendment, I did what I could to press the Government to think again. My noble friend has answered countless Questions on the 300,000 target; she can look forward to another next Tuesday. She has been generous and patient with her time in many meetings. I have seen the Secretary of State and his special adviser, and my noble friend Lord Lansley and I have seen the Housing Minister—all to no avail. Far from this amendment being contrary to government policy, it is essential if the Government are to meet their manifesto commitment of building 300,000 homes a year. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will think again. If not, I propose to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a long and good debate, and I will not detain the House with a long summing up. I will deal first with the core defence that the Minister has just laid out, namely, that the way to get more houses is to have more up-to-date local plans. That argument was considered seriously by the Select Committee in the other place, which said this about what the Minister has just told us:

“We are sceptical of the Minister for Housing and Planning’s confidence that greater local plan coverage will result in more housebuilding. If there is no longer a requirement for up-to-date local plans to continually demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, and if housing targets in local plans are to be made advisory, then it does not necessarily follow that more local plan coverage will result in the same increases in housebuilding as under the current NPPF”.


In one paragraph, I am afraid that it demolishes the main defence that the way forward is through more local plans.

I am grateful to everyone who has taken part in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Best, pointed out that the Government’s target is very modest by international standards and explained how the imperatives of local politics will always require local councillors to go for a lower target rather than a higher one, so it would not be fair on local councillors to leave this in their hands.

My noble friend Lord Lansley made an important constitutional point that the major changes were made to the proposed NDMP after the Bill had completed its stages in the other place. It has not had an opportunity to consider these major changes in housing policy and will not unless this amendment is carried. He also made the point that housing has risen up the agenda since the rebellion last December, and there has been some evidence of a movement of opinion within the governing party down the other end.

I am grateful for the support from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, who pointed out the statistics were going in the wrong direction. I was disappointed by the response from the Liberal Democrat spokesman. Only one thing is clear: if we do not carry this amendment, we will get fewer targets. The Government say they want more houses but, again, I quote from the Select Committee report:

“it is difficult to see how the Government will achieve its 300,000 net national housing target by the mid-2020s if local targets are only advisory”.

I was Housing Minister to my noble friend Lord Deben. If I had gone to him and said, “It doesn't matter how many houses we build”, I am not sure that I would have stayed in my post for very long. Numbers matter. Any responsible Government must look ahead: how many schools, hospitals and homes do we need? It is not an irrelevant consideration. That is why my party had a clear manifesto commitment to build 300,000 houses a year.

Yes, we should do more about brownfield sites, but if every brownfield site in England identified on all the local authority brownfield registers was built on to full capacity, this would provide for only just under one-third of the 4.5 million homes needed over the next 15 years.

I am grateful to the Minister, who has been very patient. She has not been able to move in the direction that I had hoped, so I want to restore the position to what it was when the Bill was introduced, before the Government amended housing policy in December. I want to enable the commitment of 300,000 houses that we gave at the last election to be met, and I want to give the elected House an opportunity to consider the major changes in government policy announced since the Bill was introduced. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 6th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 205 and will speak to the seven other government amendments in this group. In doing so, I thank your Lordships’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for its scrutiny of the Bill, which has informed these amendments in my noble friend’s name.

Amendments 205 and 206 will replace the Henry VIII power to add to, remove from or amend the list of excluded areas under new Section 61QC with a power to specify or describe additional excluded areas in regulations. Amendments 207 and 208 will replace the Henry VIII power to add to, remove from or amend the list of excluded development under new Section 61QH with a power to specify or describe in regulations additional excluded development. Amendment 211 removes the power to make regulations excluding the application of Schedule 7A to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in relation to planning permission granted by a street vote development order. This power will permit modification only of the application of statutory biodiversity net gain requirements. These amendments address specific recommendations made in the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.

In addition, to address the general points made by the committee, Amendments 209 and 210 will also remove the remaining Henry VIII power in new Section 61QI to add to, amend or remove requirements from the list of requirements that planning conditions requiring a Section 106 obligation must meet, with a power to prescribe additional requirements in regulations. Amendment 213 specifies that the three new regulation-making powers replacing the Henry VIII powers will be subject to the affirmative procedure.

I hope these amendments demonstrate the seriousness with which the Government take the question of appropriate delegation and the recommendations of your Lordships’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I commend them to the House.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 212 and 214 to 216 in my name. Earlier today, I spoke on what I regard as the most important clause in the Bill, and I will now speak briefly on what I regard as the least important clause, which is perhaps why there was a mass exodus before we reached this group.

We return now to the subject of street votes, on which I expressed my views forcefully in Committee. The ensuing debate on my amendments exhibited little enthusiasm for this policy—indeed, there was a large degree of suspicion and scepticism from those who spoke, all of whom had a background in local government, which would have to operate the policy.

I think it would be fair to say that a number of key questions remained unanswered, as the policy was clearly work in progress. For example, neither in the debate nor in the letter that my noble friend subsequently wrote was he able to say what a “street” was, what the policy might cost or who would pay. It turned out that a short-term tenant in a property would have a vote, but the owner would not. A street vote could overturn a recently adopted neighbourhood plan or district plan, and there would be no requirement for affordable housing. Many questions were answered with the reply that this was a matter for consultation.

My noble friend Lord Howe shipped a fair amount of water when he wound up the debate on 20 April. He wrote to me after the debate on 10 July and, although I would never accuse my noble friend of insincerity, when he ended his letter by saying that he “looked forward” to considering this measure further with me as we moved to the next stage of the Bill, he may have had his tongue in his cheek.

In a nutshell, the policy of allowing street votes to determine planning applications was shoehorned into the Bill at a late stage: on Report in the other place. It was fast-tracked from the bubbling vat of a think tank into primary legislation, with no Green Paper and no consultation with the LGA, the TCPA or the public. On the way, it displaced the placeholder in the Bill for the abolition of the Vagrancy Act, which, by contrast, had been extensively consulted on and had all-party approval.

Not only is the policy heroically unready for legislation, but it sits uneasily with the thrust of the Bill, which is to inject certainty into the planning process. The LGA has opposed it and it was panned by the DPRR committee, which wanted whole sections of the clause removed—which has not happened, although I welcome the changes that my noble friend has announced.

I was confused by the explanatory notes to government Amendments 205 and 206, which seem to contradict each other. Amendment 205

“confers a regulation-making power on the Secretary of State to specify or describe other areas to be excluded from the remit of street vote development orders”.

Amendment 206

“removes the power to add, amend or remove an area which is excluded from the remit of street vote development orders”.

I am sure there is an explanation and I would be happy to get it in a letter, but the amendments, however interpreted, reinforce the original objection of the DPRRC, which said of these clauses:

“A common thread runs through them all: in each case, we consider that the power relates to matters that are too significant in policy terms to be left to be determined by regulations”.


The power in one of the amendments could, in effect, designate the whole of England as excluded from the remit of street vote development orders and at a stroke cancel the policy.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 13th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the House of my relevant interests as a councillor and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

Throughout the debates on the Bill, we have all agreed on the importance of having a plan-led approach to development. Therefore, an effective local authority planning service is key to implementing timely decisions on planning applications. The House of Commons Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Select Committee issued a report on planning reforms earlier this year. The report stated that the National Audit Office found that local authority planning services had been cut by £1.3 billion over a 10-year period to 2020, which equates to a 55% reduction in service spending. That is from the National Audit Office, so we cannot argue with those figures.

A Local Government Association survey in 2022 found that 58% of councils had trouble in recruiting planners—and, in county councils, that rose to 83%. The Royal Town Planning Institute estimates that one in 10 planning officer posts are not currently filled. From my own experience in my council, I know that senior planners are enticed into the private sector, leaving councils less well equipped to deal with complex applications. The enormous stress on planning services has the consequence of putting an additional delay on development, which adds programming problems for housebuilders and developers of commercial units. Amendment 235 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham—who I thank for adding his name to an amendment on issues that we both raised separately in Committee—would insert a new clause to address those practical issues. It would enable a local planning authority to set a level of fee that covers the costs of a planning application.

I appreciate that the Government have agreed to increase planning fees by 35% for major applications and by 25% for all other applications. Of course, that is a step in the right direction. However, nationally set fees fail to take into account regional differences in costs; they also fail to reflect the actual costs of dealing with very complex developments, either very large housing sites or commercial developments.

This national approach to fee setting results in council tax payers subsidising complex planning applications. That cannot be right. The stark fact is that 305 out of 343 local authority planning departments had a deficit totalling £245.4 million in 2020 and 2021. That is a huge sum, where council tax payers are subsidising housebuilding developers, for example, who are well able to meet the costs of a planning application in full.

In addition, of course, there are the Government amendments that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has spoken about this morning, which are a good step forward in conceding the argument made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, about statutory consultees being paid for the work that they do—that is right and proper. But this adds to the bill that local authority planning services have to pay and it adds to the cost. All in all, there will be additional costs for the work being done. I think that the Government have made some concessions to the principle that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has asked about and I support that. I wish that they had gone further, as she argues, but it is one step in the right direction.

I will of course listen carefully to the response from the Minister to Amendment 235, but I feel strongly about this issue. It is not a matter of principle; it is a practical amendment to enable local authority planning services to provide the service that they are required to do and that they want to do, but for which they need the funds to do. If the Minister is unable to concede that principle, I will be minded at the appropriate stage to test the opinion of the House on this matter.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 235, which I proposed in Committee and to which the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has just spoken. Since Committee, the need for it has become more urgent, as reflected in the report of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Select Committee in July, which concluded:

“The Government’s reforms to national planning policy will fail if local authorities lack sufficient resources to implement them. The package of support which the Government has outlined does not go far enough to address the significant resourcing challenges which local authorities currently face”.


I support the amendment for two reasons. First, I do not believe that the Government should be controlling the fees charged by planning departments, as a matter of principle. They do not control other local authority fees—building regulations, parking fees, library charges, school meals, swimming pool charges—so why planning? A national cap does not reflect the different circumstances of local authorities.

The case for relinquishing control is made stronger by the aspirations in the levelling up White Paper, with its commitment to

“usher in a revolution in local democracy”.

The revolution is stopped in its tracks by the notion that local authorities should not be free to recover the costs of their planning departments.

In reply to my amendment in Committee, my noble friend the Minister said that

“having different fees creates inconsistency, more complexity and unfairness for applicants, who could be required to pay different fee levels for the same type of development. Planning fees provide clarity and consistency for local authorities, developers and home owners”.—[Official Report, 24/4/23; col. 1003.]

Let me briefly dissect that. As far as local authorities are concerned, they are the ones who sponsored my original amendment. They have since confirmed their continuing support with this statement:

“We support this amendment. Planning fees do not cover the true cost of processing planning applications. In 2020/21, 305 out of 343 local authority planning departments operated in a deficit, which totalled £245.4 million”.


As far as developers are concerned, they already have to cope with myriad different local plans and can well manage different fees. What the developers want are well-resourced planning departments that can effectively process their applications quickly. One of the reasons for the disappointing housebuilding performance is planning delays. The amendment addresses that. As for home owners, I do not think that they know that planning fees are set centrally and they are used to local authorities having different charges for libraries, parking, allotments and the rest. I do not think that they would mind if fees were set locally, as long as they got a good service.

Secondly, I do not think it right that council tax payers should have to subsidise the planning system—the hidden subsidy referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. There are more important calls on those resources, underlined by the financial problems facing Birmingham City Council. The Minister told us that the Government were consulting on increasing the fees, but in the words of the Local Government Association:

“We welcome the Government’s commitment to increase planning application fees. However, our modelling has shown that even if all application fees were uplifted by 35 per cent, the overall national shortfall for 2020/21 would have remained above £80 million”.


In his opening speech, my noble friend referred on several occasions to full-cost recovery for provision of services. That is exactly what this amendment does.

I conclude by quoting the Times, which recently, on 7 July, summed up the position:

“Britain’s planning system is grinding to a halt, with four out of five big applications now being delayed by up to two years.


Official figures show that more than half a million new developments have been delayed during the past five years as threadbare planning departments struggle to cope with even routine cases.


Industry experts said the delays were exacerbating the housing crisis, with developments now taking up to three years to get started. Councils are supposed to give developers a decision on big projects within 13 weeks, but the latest official data shows that only 19% of applications were processed in this time over the past year, down from 57% 10 years ago … Developers say that performance is damaging efforts to tackle the housing crisis and other government priorities such as installing wind and solar farms. They warn that unless the government insists on proper funding for planning departments, the housing crisis will worsen as councils will always choose refuse collections over planning when allocating scarce resources.”


The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has made a powerful case and I hope that the Government will reflect in their reply on the further measures that are now needed.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, before I talk about the amendments, I take this opportunity, on Back British Farming Day, to pay tribute to and celebrate our wonderful farmers across the country—a big thank you to them.

I draw noble Lords’ attention to my interests in the register: I am now vice-president of the LGA, vice-president of the District Councils’ Network and a serving councillor in both Stevenage and Hertfordshire.

As the Minister mentioned, the government amendments in this group are technical and consequential and I do not intend to comment on them other than to link some of his comments to the other amendments.

My noble friend Lady Young’s Amendment 227A is a sensible proposal that those organisations charged with providing supporting advice to planning applications should be able to recover fees for that advice directly from applicants. For too long, the weight of providing specialist advice has fallen on the public purse or on the budgets of hard-pressed third sector organisations, as my noble friend outlined so clearly. Anyone looking at this from the outside would consider that to be unreasonable. I hope that the Government will consider my noble friend’s amendment and take it seriously. Indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said that there should be full cost recovery for NSIPs. We need to think about that amendment and the one that I will talk about in a moment and how we create a level playing field in this respect.

Amendment 235 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Young, seems to me the no-brainer of the Bill. For many years, the LGA has been campaigning for local authorities to be able to charge full cost recovery in relation to the actual cost of processing applications. A government report proposed this in 2010, following a consultation by Arup that demonstrated the extent to which councils are undercharging for planning under the current fixed-fee system. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, quoted the figure, which was from 2021; I expect that it is a lot more now and probably way over £250 million a year.

Of all the problems in the planning system, this seems the simplest to resolve. Over time, it would enable authorities to recruit the number of planners that they need and it would shift the cost burden of planning from the local taxpayer to the developer, who, after all, will receive the benefit of the application. I can only quote from my experience of a major town centre regeneration scheme. There were two years of planning discussions on the scheme and then literally a vanload of papers for the application when it came in, and we have just three planners in my local authority. That shows the kind of pressure on the system. Local authority budgets are more hard-pressed than they ever were, so it is hard to imagine why the Government would not accept that full cost recovery should be a basic principle of planning and that it is up to local authorities to charge their own costs.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 13th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, I shall also speak to the other amendments in this group that are similarly in my name, and I will give more than a nod to the other amendment in the group.

When it comes to pavements and pavement licences, the Bill has done nothing for pedestrians, those with access needs or those who simply want to rely on the primary purpose of the pavement. The primary purpose of the pavement is to get from A to B, be that for work, leisure, hospital appointments or whatever it may be—to go about one’s business on a clear, uncluttered, maintained pavement. I will not speak to all the amendments in this group but I ask the Minister to respond to all of them because each in turn raises important points when it comes to our ability, as members of our local communities, to use the pavements in our area.

The amendment that I want to spend most time on is Amendment 252, which addresses the consultation period when businesses seek to acquire a pavement licence to run part of their business on the pavement in front of their properties. The Government argue that this consultation period has been doubled from seven days to 14 from the Business and Planning Act we passed during Covid. In fact, what has happened is not a doubling of the consultation period but a halving of it, from 28 days in the Highways Act, which was always the period before Covid.

The seven-day consultation period is the wrong comparator to look at. When we debated the Business and Planning Act, it was clear that we were considering the balance between the needs of businesses and those of the local community. The need of businesses at that time was to acquire a pavement licence and to be able to have a business at all, as a consequence of the social distancing rules under Covid. That is in no sense the comparator now, which is simply, as it was pre Covid, for a business to extend its services on to the pavement, thus having additional business, not just a business or no business.

So it seems completely clear, fair and equitable, balancing the needs of businesses with those of all the members of the community, that the consultation period should revert to what it was pre Covid, in order to enable all members of the community to engage in a consultation when such pavement licences are sought. There are obvious and particular accessibility needs for certain groups within a community, and it is self-evident that to halve that consultation period from 28 days to 14 effectively excludes many people from participating in that consultation. Effective exclusion from consultation does not in any sense sound like levelling up.

In Amendment 252 I propose what I believe is a fairer compromise: to take the 28 days down to 21. The Minister may well argue, “What’s the difference between 14 days and 21?” It may well be the difference between individuals and large sections of our community being able to participate in that consultation and their being effectively excluded from such participation.

I will touch briefly on Amendments 256 and 257, which are linked in respect of the question of access and enabling people to travel from A to B, as the pavement was always intended to do. What is the Government’s problem with simply requiring businesses that may well have gained a licence to tidy up and pack away furniture from the pavement when it is not in use? Similarly, when it is in use, there should be some form of reasonably costed demarcation, be it tactile markings or physical barriers, to surround that seating area, which would benefit both those using the pavement and those using the seating area.

I fear that the Minister does not have much for me today, but I am afraid that in those circumstances the Bill will lead to a less accessible pavement. It will lead to people finding it increasingly difficult and sometimes impossible to access their local area and get where they need to go. It will mean local authorities missing out on potential income from the additional profits that businesses will be able to make on those pavements—when I say “those pavements”, I think we all agree that they are our pavements that our taxes have paid for.

I urge the Minister to think again and strongly to consider the amendments, not least the ones concerned with accessibility and the one that refers specifically to consultation, which would enable all the members of our community to participate fully in the question of whether they believe a pavement licence is good for their local community. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I commend the speech of my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond. Obstructions on the pavement are an issue not just for those with a visual impairment but for a wide variety of other users of the pavement. He rightly calls for a better balance between the needs of business on the one hand and the needs of pedestrians on the other, and he deserves a sympathetic response from the Minister.

Amendment 258, in my name and that of the noble Lords, Lord Faulkner and Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, would introduce the requirement for all pavement licences to be smoke-free and so to contribute to the Government’s worthy ambition to make England smoke-free by 2030—an ambition we are currently on track to miss by nine years, according to Cancer Research UK. The House has previously expressed strong support for such a measure. Under the current pavement licensing rules, councils have two options on pavement smoking: to implement the national condition to make reasonable provision for seating where smoking is not permitted, or to go further and make 100% smoke-free seating a condition of licences at local level.

I have previously welcomed the current requirement, secured only after pressure from Members in both Houses who objected to the original proposal, which had no provision for non-smokers. But, although where we are is better than what the Government originally proposed, it does not go far enough.

When this amendment was debated in Committee, my noble friend Lord Howe defended the current arrangement, stating that

“it is important to allow local areas to make the decisions that are right for them”.—[Official Report, 22/5/23; col. 661.]

I note in passing that, when I asked for that flexibility this morning on planning fees, my noble friend robustly rejected it. Although I understand the principle behind this position, in practice it places a significant burden on councils, which must provide reasonable justification for introducing a smoke-free condition on a case-by-case basis.

This is the point made by local councillors from the London Tobacco Alliance, who this week have written to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, calling on the Government to introduce a national 100% smoke-free pavement licence condition. This would reduce the amount of bureaucracy faced by councils and help to protect non-smokers, especially children and of course those who work in the hospitality industry, from toxic tobacco smoke.

This amendment is also supported by the Local Government Association, the cross-party national membership body for local authorities, which has said that 100% smoke-free pavement licensing

“sets a level playing field for hospitality venues across the country and has a public health benefit of protecting people from unwanted second-hand smoke … If smoking is not prohibited, pavement areas will not become family-friendly spaces”.

Under the current system, implementation of smoke-free conditions is highly inconsistent across the country, meaning that non-smokers, children and hospitality staff will continue to be exposed to second-hand smoke. That is why Dr Javed Khan OBE’s independent review of Smokefree 2030 policies, commissioned by DHSC and published last year, recommended that smoking be prohibited on all premises, indoors and out, where food or drink is served, as well as a ban on smoking in all outdoor areas where children are present.

This recommendation has strong public support, with two-thirds of the public polled in 2022 saying they wanted smoking banned in the outdoor seating areas of all restaurants, pubs and cafés. Fewer than one in five opposed a ban. This was a large sample of more than 10,000 people, carried out by YouGov for Action on Smoking and Health. Some councils are doing what the public want, with 10 councils in England introducing 100% smoke-free requirements. The experience of these councils shows that smoke-free seating has proved popular with the public, leading to high levels of compliance, and has not been shown to cause a decrease in revenue.

When South Tyneside Council surveyed opinion on 100% smoke-free seating among local café proprietors, it did not receive a single objection. A number of proprietors were very supportive of the more consistent approach, which is easier to comply with and requires little or no enforcement. The director of public health in South Tyneside said:

“Creating and supporting smokefree environments benefits individuals, the wider community and businesses—supporting those trying to quit the habit, promoting positive role modelling for children and young people, and reducing the harm from second-hand smoke”.


This amendment is an opportunity to implement Dr Khan’s recommendations and take a small but important step forward towards a smoke-free 2030. I hope that my noble friend, who took a keen interest in preventative medicine when he was a Health Minister, feels able to support this modest but popular amendment. If, by any chance, the dreaded word “resist” is at the top of his folder, can he say whether primary legislation is required if, in the future, the House wants to revisit this issue if we do not achieve this progressive measure this evening?

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

I express support from these Benches for the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, which he put very cogently. Pavement licences were introduced in the pandemic but have become a feature of our high streets, so we must make sure that approaches are inclusive, addressing the needs of those with disabilities or those, for example, with children in pushchairs.

I put my name to Amendment 258 and I am pleased to be speaking in support of it. It is led by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, who made the usual very strong case. It is disappointing to see that the Government have not taken the opportunity presented by the Bill to make all pavement licences smoke-free, as recommended—as we have just heard—in last year’s Khan review of tobacco policies. This is despite the clear majority of adults in England supporting a smoking ban in outdoor seating areas of restaurants, pubs and cafés. In areas such as Manchester, where 100% smoke-free pavement licences have been implemented, they have had great success and have been very popular among businesses and those using these facilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, in Amendment 248 my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond brings us back to the use of roads adjacent to pavements that have been granted a licence. I can assure him that there are already clear processes by which a local authority can consider the pedestrianisation of a street, including to facilitate outdoor dining, with vehicular access a relevant consideration in those processes: this is not an issue that will be glossed over. Pavement licences can then be granted if the conditions are seen to be right and, in recent years, we have seen the success of this in practice across the country.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, returned to the question of new powers for local authorities to charge for the use of the pavement. She is probably aware that the Business and Planning Act 2020 does not give local authorities a specific power to charge ongoing rent for the use of the pavement, and the aim behind that measure is to support businesses by making it significantly cheaper to gain a licence, compared to the previous route. The measure fully funds local authorities’ costs for providing this service: we are not looking to impose additional costs on businesses at a time of rising costs.

My noble friend’s Amendments 249 and 250 concern the fees to be charged for pavement licensing. The Government feel very strongly that we must keep costs reasonable and consistent for businesses. At a time when their costs are rising, we should not place additional financial burdens on businesses still recovering from the pandemic. The fee caps in the Bill have not been arrived at by accident but are the result of close work with local authorities, businesses, leaders from the hospitality sector and communities. They reflect the actual costs of processing, monitoring and enforcing pavement licences. I also make the point, on Amendment 250, that the direct attribution of profit to the granting of a licence would not be a simple matter.

As for my noble friend’s proposal in Amendment 253 for deemed rejection rather than a deemed granting of a licence in the event of no decision being made within the determination period, I say to him that it would not be right to punish applicants for delayed local authority decisions. Deemed consent encourages local authorities to make decisions while ensuring that the local and national conditions which would otherwise have applied are applied and can then be enforced, including by the removal of the licence.

My noble friend’s Amendment 251, changing the start of the consultation period to the time at which a receipt has been sent to the applicant, would add an additional and, in our view, unnecessary step and potentially delay the process.

Amendments 252 and 255 would likewise increase both the consultation and determination periods that apply. We have listened carefully to the views of local authorities, communities, businesses and other concerned organisations and believe that our proposals strike the right balance, protecting the ability of everyone to be heard while ensuring that businesses receive a decision in a reasonable timeframe.

I turn to my noble friend’s Amendments 254 and 256 dealing with the free flow of pedestrians and the conditions which may be imposed by a licence. The Business and Planning Act 2020 already requires that local authorities take this into consideration, preventing licences being granted where they would preclude entry on to or passage along the highway, or normal access to premises adjoining the highway. On Amendment 256, the Act already provides powers for local authorities to impose conditions such as these, and we are anecdotally aware of local authorities having done so. As such, we do not consider that specific reference to the discretion for local authorities to do so is needed. These are rightly matters determined locally.

The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, suggested that the Government’s wording in this area was not quite tight enough. We have made it clear in the pavement licence guidance that, when setting local conditions and determining applications, local authorities should consider the need for barriers to be put in place to separate furniture from the rest of the footway so that people who are visually impaired can navigate around the furniture. As recommended by the RNIB, we have highlighted that best practice involves using measures such as colour contrast and a tap rail for long cane users. However, this will need to be balanced to ensure that any barriers do not inhibit access for other street users, such as people with mobility impairments, if they are creating a further obstacle in the footway.

On Amendment 257, I thank my noble friend for raising the very important issue of accessibility and the impact of pavement licensing on disabled users of the highway. In considering whether to grant a licence, Section 3(7) requires particular regard to be given to the needs of disabled people and to guidance on this matter published by the Secretary of State. That guidance, developed in close collaboration with the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association and the RNIB, includes details of minimum accessibility width considerations for disabled persons. We believe that the determination as to the best way to meet the needs of disabled persons is best made locally, taking account of the specific circumstances for that pavement, particularly since physical barriers may on occasion hinder accessibility, as I have already alluded to.

Finally, Amendment 258, in the name of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, would create a national condition banning smoking in pavement licensed areas. Of course I understand very well the strength of feeling expressed by my noble friend and a number of noble Lords on the nuisance caused by the smoking of tobacco. Both my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, called for pavement licensing to be made smoke-free. My noble friend stressed the need to protect the interests of non-smokers in particular.

I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, that the Government fully recognise the importance of this issue for public health, but we also recognise the need to do what is reasonable and proportionate in all the circumstances. Our guidance already makes it clear that pavement licences require businesses to make reasonable provision for seating for non-smokers to ensure choice for customers. It is also clear that ways of meeting this requirement could include clear “No Smoking” signs, the removal of ashtrays in smoke-free areas and a minimum 2-metre distance between smoking and non-smoking areas, wherever possible. Local authorities are also able to consider setting their own conditions, where appropriate, and where local decision-makers believe it is reasonable to do so. We are aware that a number of councils across the country have put in place local conditions with the effect that noble Lords are calling for. As my noble friend Lord Naseby rightly said, it is perfectly possible for councils to do this, and we think it is better for decisions of this sort to be taken locally so that individual circumstances are taken into account.

I recognise the intention behind my noble friend’s amendment, which is a benign intention. However, I think he would concede that this is an issue wholly different in kind from that of planning fees, where it is incumbent on government to ensure financial fairness across the country. We consider it right that this is a decision made locally, taking into account the representations received, rather than imposed nationally.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

Before my noble friend sits down, he has said that this is a decision best taken locally. But that is not what the Local Government Association wants—it wants it to be taken nationally.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

Well, my Lords, the Government will continue to listen to the Local Government Association very carefully in this connection. I can only say that we are not persuaded yet that this move would be the right one, having consulted extensively with all stakeholders involved.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 18th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, it is pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. I pay tribute to him, not just for the professional expertise that he brings to the subject—something that none of us can match—but for his persistence in campaigning to rectify the injustice done to leaseholders.

I shall speak to the amendments in my name but, before doing so, I want to say this: not all our debates in this House on the Bill have had a wide following in the outside world, but this one will. Hundreds of thousands of leaseholders are living in unsafe buildings, and they are looking to your Lordships’ House to deliver on the promises that the Government have made to them but which remain currently unfulfilled and which the amendments in this group seek to rectify. The End Our Cladding Scandal team have done a first-class job in briefing noble Lords.

I compliment the Government on the measures they have taken to help people living in unsafe flats. They introduced the Building Safety Act, protecting many leaseholders from ruinous bills, they took aggressive action against 50 of the country’s biggest developers and secured binding legal commitments worth more than £2 billion to rectify their failings, and they set up the building safety fund to help to pay for remediation for orphan buildings. I welcome this and the patience with which my noble friend Lady Scott listened to my representations on this subject.

But my noble friend the Minister will not expect a speech from me to be an unqualified paean of praise. What promises did the Government make at the outset, and have they been met? In his Statement in the other place on 10 January 2022, the Secretary of State said:

“We will take action to end the scandal and protect leaseholders”.


He went on to say:

“We will make industry pay to fix all of the remaining problems and help to cover the range of costs facing leaseholders”.


He then said there would be “statutory protection”, and he clarified what he meant by this:

“First, we will make sure that we provide leaseholders with statutory protection—that is what we aim to do and we will work with colleagues across the House to ensure that that statutory protection extends to all the work required to make buildings safe”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/1/22; cols. 285-291.]


Note that that commitment extends to all building work, not just cladding, and there was no qualification of the word “leaseholders”.

These broad commitments were confirmed in a letter written to all noble Lords by my noble friend’s predecessor, my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh, on 20 January last year, entitled:

“Introduction of the Building Safety Bill”.


Under a section headed

“Protecting Leaseholders from Unnecessary Costs”,


it said:

“The Secretary of State recently announced that leaseholders living in their homes should be protected from the costs of remediating historic building safety defects”—


not just cladding but “building safety defects”. But the position now is that there are significant exclusions from those commitments: not all buildings are covered, not all building safety defects are covered and, crucially, not all leaseholders are protected. These amendments help to fulfil the Government’s earlier promises.

One specific commitment given to me by the then Minister, no doubt in good faith, has been explicitly and inexcusably broken. During the passage of the Bill, I raised the question of leaseholders who had enfranchised and bought the freehold. I was assured that they would be treated as leaseholders and not as freeholders, and that they would get leaseholder protection under the Bill. My noble friend Lord Greenhalgh said:

“They are effectively leaseholders that have enfranchised as opposed to freeholders. I hope that helps”.—[Official Report, 28/2/22; col. GC 262.]


To avoid doubt, I was asked to read the Minister’s lips. But the Government resisted amendments that would have done just that, and leaseholders who have enfranchised are in a worse position than those who have not. Amendment 282ND addresses that unjustified distinction.

It remains perverse that a Government who are about to introduce legislation to encourage enfranchisement, with the proposal that eventually all blocks should be enfranchised, should at the same time deliberately choose to disadvantage exactly those leaseholders in the Bill. The two principal exclusions from the commitment I referred to a moment ago are leaseholders who live in buildings fewer than 11 metres tall and non-qualifying leaseholders, a category of people that does not exist in Wales, where all leaseholders are qualifying leaseholders and protected.

On buildings under 11 metres, the Government’s position is that residents should be able to leave the building in the case of fire without expensive remediation. This position is at odds with the position of the London Fire Brigade, whose statement said:

“While we understand the approach of starting with tall buildings, LFB have always been clear that using building height as the only measure of risk is too restrictive and believe that there are other high risk buildings with vulnerable occupants that also need to be considered”.


It concluded:

“With regards to the remediation of buildings, we strongly assert that all buildings with serious fire safety defects should be remediated regardless of height”.


That is an unequivocal professional rejection of a distinction made by the Government.

There are countless examples of the problems that have resulted from this exclusion. I give just one. Leaseholders took over the freehold of their five-storey block in London because the developer, who had originally retained the freehold, went into liquidation. They thought that they were doing the right thing but, in their words, “It seems like we are being punished for this now”. The building has combustible insulation, combustible spandrel panels that extend the full height of the building, and vertically aligned timber balconies. Unless every leaseholder in the block can pay, at an estimated cost of over £30,000 per flat, the work cannot take place and leaseholders simply remain trapped in unsafe, unsellable flats. The 2011 fire at the retirement home Gibson Court in Surrey, where 87 year-old Irene Cockerton lost her life, makes very clear why fire safety issues in low-rise blocks can be life-critical, yet many retirement homes remain unremediated.

Defective buildings of any height may require remediation if they have life-critical safety risks and, as Michael Gove himself acknowledged in the House of Commons on 14 March, of fire safety defects in buildings under 11 metres, “some will be life-critical”. Yet there is no requirement for responsible developers to remediate such life-critical safety defects, no access to government funding, no matter how high-risk the building is, and in a recent consultation on the issue DLUHC has even excluded freeholders of such buildings from the duty to try to pursue alternative cost recovery routes before charging leaseholders. These flats are unsaleable. The owners cannot afford to pay for remediation. In the view of the fire brigade, they are unsafe; in the views of insurers, they are uninsurable; and in the view of lenders, they are unmortgageable. This cannot be what the Government intended.

The second exclusion is non-qualifying leaseholders. I have already mentioned enfranchised and resident-run buildings, which are excluded from the Building Safety Act 2022 cost protections. Any costs of remedial works required to those buildings will fall on the leaseholders, although they may be entitled to some help with the costs of cladding removal. The principal exclusions are the approximately 400,000 flats in mid or high-rise buildings owned by a non-qualifying leaseholder who owns or has an interest in three or more properties.

The problem has a ripple effect—in any building that has but one non-qualifying leaseholder who cannot pay, remediation work to make all the homes safe may be delayed or unable to go ahead. The perverse consequence of this is that if you own a manor in the Cotswolds, plus a villa in Italy on Lake Garda and a luxury penthouse in central London worth £1.5 million, you qualify for protections under the Act. Yet if you and your partner own a small, terraced house and three small £100,000 buy-to-let apartments as part of your pension planning, only one of which has non-cladding fire safety issues, you may face bankruptcy. Amendments to change the exclusion of buy-to-let leaseholders were resisted by the Government as the Bill went through. Again, Amendment 282ND puts that right.

The LUHC Committee, with its government majority, rightly noted last year:

“Leaseholders are no more to blame for non-cladding defects than they are for faulty cladding on homes they bought in good faith. Buy-to-let landlords are no more to blame than other leaseholders for historic building safety defects, and landing them with potentially unaffordable bills will only slow down or prevent works to make buildings safe”.


The unintended consequence of the Building Safety Act 2022 has created a two-tier system where leaseholders deemed qualifying will benefit from the protections, whereas those arbitrarily deemed non-qualifying have been left to fend for themselves. Shared-ownership leaseholders face even greater difficulties because of the nature of their leases. Without a truly comprehensive solution to all buildings, of all heights and tenures, uncertainty and a lack of confidence in the residential flat sales market are set to perpetuate. My amendments seek such a solution.

I note in passing that a property’s non-qualifying status remains on the title in perpetuity. That means that any future purchaser—whether a first-time buyer, second-stepper or landlord investor—will be required to take on the risk of unlimited costs to fix safety defects that may not even yet have been identified. This renders non-qualifying leases effectively unsellable, regardless of the existence of known safety defects.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

282C: After Clause 226, insert the following new Clause—
“Qualifying leases under the Building Safety Act 2022After section 119 of the Building Safety Act 2022 (meaning of “qualifying lease” and “the qualifying time”), insert—“119A Variation, surrender or regrant of qualifying leases(1) A qualifying lease varied, or subject to any surrender and regrant, remains a qualifying lease.(2) This section has effect in relation to any qualifying lease varied, or subject to any surrender and regrant, before the coming into force of this section.(3) Any agreement contrary to this section is void, whether made before or after the coming into force of this section.”” Member's explanatory statement
This section fixes a gap in the Building Safety Act 2022 to ensure qualifying leases retain their protection if the leaseholder enters into a deed of variation, or exercises statutory lease extension or enfranchisement rights.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all those who took part in the debate some hours ago about protecting leaseholders. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Howe for what he said—that proposals will be brought forward shortly to help those blocks that have enfranchised. My noble friend said that I would greet with a sigh his rejection of my amendment, and he was quite right. I say in return that his heart must have sunk when he read his brief and saw the less than convincing reply he had been equipped with to rebut my amendment.

In a nutshell, the Government made a mistake when they drafted the Building Safety Act. Unwittingly, they have removed the protection that some leaseholders were entitled to. They have known for months that there has been this defect, and I do not accept that the defect is so complex that it cannot now be put right. That is what my amendment does. I seek leave to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

282ND: After Clause 226, insert the following new Clause—
“Non-Qualifying Leases under the Building Safety Act 2022(1) Section 119 of the Building Safety Act 2022 (meaning of “qualifying lease” and “the qualifying time”) is amended as follows.(2) After section 119(1) insert—“(1A) This section only applies to a dwelling if it is a dwelling in a relevant building and the relevant building has one or more relevant defects.”(3) After section 119(4)(b) insert—“(ba) where a person (“T”) was a tenant under a lease of, or had a freehold interest in, a dwelling and at the qualifying time T was a tenant in common of that dwelling, T is not deemed to own that dwelling unless T’s share under the tenancy in common was more than 50%.”(4) After section 119(4) insert—“(5) Notwithstanding anything in this section:(a) a tenant is always deemed to own a qualifying lease for each of the first three dwellings that tenant owns; and(b) a landlord must cease to make any distinction between qualifying leases and non-qualifying leases once all work to remedy relevant defects in a relevant building is completed.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment secures parity between non-qualifying and qualifying leaseholders under the Building Safety Act 2022. It extends protection to 3 properties for all types of leaseholder. It also amends the Building Safety Act to exclude shares in a property of 50% or less from being counted as wholly owned. Lastly, it removes the distinction between leaseholders once relevant defects are remedied.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

286: Clause 231, page 272, line 30, at end insert—
“(ca) under section (Secretary of State’s duty to promote healthy homes and neighbourhoods);”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

315A: Clause 234, page 276, line 15, at end insert—
“(c) section (Qualifying leases under the Building Safety Act 2022) comes into force on 1 August 2023.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides a commencement provision for one of Lord Young’s new clause amendments.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

3rd reading
Thursday 21st September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, in begging to move that the Bill do now pass, I extend my thanks to all noble Lords who have contributed to a very detailed and proper scrutiny of this Bill. It is not possible for me to thank everyone individually, for which I hope I will be forgiven, but there are a few people I would like to mention specifically.

First, I am sure that the whole House will recognise and wish to thank my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook for the extraordinary amount of time and effort she has dedicated to the passage of this Bill, both inside and outside the Chamber. Her hard work and dedication have been an example to us all. It is equally appropriate for me to express gratitude to Opposition Peers, most notably the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman of Ullock and Lady Taylor of Stevenage, on the Labour Front Bench and, for the Liberal Democrats, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, in their turn. My noble friend Lady Scott and I are grateful to them all for the fairness and good nature of our engagement and debate throughout the Bill’s passage. That far-off halcyon time when the levelling-up Bill did not figure in their weekly workload must seem an aeon ago.

I also thank those on the Back Benches for their many constructive contributions, in particular my noble friends Lord Moylan, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, Lord Lansley, Lord Young of Cookham, Lord Lucas, Lord Caithness and Lord Trenchard, as well as the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, Lady Randerson, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Hayman, and the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Lord Shipley, Lord Crisp, Lord Best, Lord Lytton and Lord Carrington—and there have been many others.

The House of Lords Public Bill Office, the House clerks and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel also have my admiration and gratitude for their extraordinary hard work. Last, but certainly not least, I pay tribute to all the members of the Bill team. If ever there was a Bill team deserving of our fulsome thanks, it is this one. The team officials in DLUHC are those I principally have in mind, but many others from departments across government have made an invaluable contribution to the delivery of this Bill. Again, on my noble friend’s behalf and my own, I thank them all for their immense hard work, patience and professionalism over these many months.

This Bill creates the foundations and tools necessary to address entrenched geographic disparities across the UK. It is designed to ensure that this Government and future Governments set clear, long-term objectives for levelling up and can be held to account for its progress. The Bill devolves powers to all areas in England where there is demand for it, empowering local leaders to regenerate their towns and cities and restore pride in places. It also strengthens protections for the environment, making sure that the delivery of better environmental outcomes is at the heart of planning decision-making. I hope that we can all wish it a fair wind. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, may I say on behalf of the whole House that my noble friend Lord Howe has also borne some of the burden of getting the Bill through? No one can say “No” more politely than my noble friend, as he has had to do to a large number of my amendments.

The only point I really want to make is this: I have done 49 years in Parliament and I have never known a Bill quite like this one. I wonder whether my noble friend can tell the House whether any lessons have been learned from the passage of this Bill—which I think has now taken 24 days in your Lordships’ House —against the background of yesterday when we were told that there will be yet another planning Bill to deal with infrastructure. I express the hope that the next Bill on planning is a little shorter than the one that is about to pass.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My noble friend Lord Young can be assured that there will be an exercise to derive those lessons that we think are appropriate from the passage of this Bill. In many ways, I am sure noble Lords would agree that the House has done its work extremely well by its thorough examination of this lengthy measure. However, there may be issues that we can all agree should become the focus of future legislation of a similar kind. I am grateful to my noble friend for raising that question.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 23rd October 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I have one remark to make in support of Motion M1, put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. The noble Earl, with whom it is always so difficult to disagree, stated that the reason the Government are unhappy with the idea of climate change becoming more central is that it opens up a wide range of challenge. But climate change is going to be the central, existential issue of planning beyond our lifetimes. It is not an add-on; it is not planting a few trees in order to get planning permission. It is absolutely core, and dealing with that will make life very difficult for planning applications. I support this amendment so that climate change becomes central to the decision-making process, not an adjunct.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I will intervene briefly to speak to three Motions in this group—first, Motion ZH, to which the noble Lord, Lord Best, has just spoken. It is the substitute for an amendment on housing need that he promoted on Report. There is a crucial difference between the original amendment, which required local authorities not just to assess need but to make provision for it. The Government’s amendment deletes that last half—making provision for need. None the less, we have heard some encouraging words about social rent. It is a brave man who seeks to outbid the noble Lord, Lord Best, when it comes to speaking or voting on amendments on housing, so I am happy to follow his lead and not press that. I pay tribute to the work that he has been doing on this.

Secondly, it was disappointing to hear my noble friend Lord Howe say that Motion N1 on healthy homes, from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, still had to be resisted. Ever since the Private Member’s Bill was introduced, we have had numerous debates in Committee and on Report, and each time, in response, the noble Lord has moved further and further towards the Government. There never was a wide disagreement, because the Government always said that they agreed with the thrust of what he was trying to do.

It is worth reading out what may be the only sentence of the original amendment that remains:

“The Secretary of State must promote a comprehensive regulatory framework for planning and the built environment designed to secure the physical, mental and social health and well-being of the people of England by ensuring the creation of healthy homes and neighbourhoods”.


That is apparently too much. It continues:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for a system of standards”.


In other words, how that objective is reached is left entirely to the Secretary of State. Far from cutting across, as my noble friend Lord Howe said, the amendment seeks to bring it all together under a comprehensive framework to promote healthy homes.

The last point I want to make is on Motion R1 of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. It repeats an amendment that I originally proposed in Committee that gives local authorities powers to fix their own planning fees. In the other place, the amendment was resisted on these grounds:

“It will lead to inconsistency of fees between local planning authorities and does not provide any incentive to tackle inefficiencies”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/10/23; col 186.]


Central government should be quite careful before it preaches to local government about inefficiencies. This is the month in which we abandoned most of HS2. Pick up any NAO report and you will find criticism of the MoD on procurement. There has been criticism of the new hospitals programme and of HMRC in its response to taxpayer inquiries. If I were running a planning department in a local authority, I would be slightly miffed if I were told that, if I had the resources I needed, it might lead to inefficiencies.

There are problems in planning departments, but they are because a quarter of planners left the public sector between 2013 and 2020, so of course they cannot turn around planning applications as speedily as they might. The argument about promoting inefficiency does not really hold water. If one were to take that argument, why stop at planning fees? What about taking books out of a public library, swimming or parking? Are these not areas where local authorities might conceivably be inefficient?

Almost the first sentence of the White Paper introducing the Bill said that it would promote a “revolution in local democracy”, but allowing planning departments to set fees, so that they can recoup the costs of planning, is apparently a step too far. Yes, you will have inconsistency of fees, but that will happen if you have local democracy. We already have inconsistency of fees in every other charge a local authority makes, including building control fees. The argument that it will somehow confuse individuals or developers does not hold water. How many individuals make planning applications to a range of different local authorities and then express surprise that the fees are different? Yes, developers will be confronted with different fees, but they want an efficient planning department that processes their applications quickly.

I cannot understand why the Government are digging in their heels on this amendment, which empowers local government and gives them resources. It does not get resources at the moment because, in a unitary authority, the planning department, which does not get enough money from planning fees, has to bid for resources from the council tax in competition against adult social care and other services. It is no wonder that it misses out. At this very late stage on the Bill, I ask my noble friend whether the Government could show a little ankle on this, move a little towards empowering local government and trust it to get this right.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise for intervening before the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has a chance to speak to Motion R1, but I have to disagree with my noble friend on this occasion. Last week, we had a debate on planning fees, in which I participated. The risk in what the noble Baroness proposes is that it would lead to local authorities significantly increasing the fees that would be charged for householder applications.

I remind the House that I chair the Cambridgeshire development forum. As far as larger developers are concerned, the point I made last week is that we should promote planning performance agreements to enable local authorities and developers to come to proper agreements, with potential sanctions and performance obligations on the part of the local planning authority. They would give them access to greater resources in dealing with major developments. I fear that what the Liberal Democrat Front Bench proposes would just lead to increases in fees for householder applications.

I also want to say a word about Motion M1 on climate change. The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, knows that I thoroughly agree with what he proposes but, at this stage, sending back the same amendments is inherently undesirable if it can be avoided. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will tell us more about how the Government will use the new national development management policies, which will have statutory backing. If the Government set down NDMPs in terms that are clear about the importance of decisions that take account of mitigation of and adaptation to climate change, they will have the effect that my noble friend and other Members of the House look for from this Motion.

The distinctive point of the original Amendment 45 was that it would extend specific consideration of mitigation of and adaptation to climate change to individual planning decisions—there is plenty in the statute about the application of this to plan-making—so that is where the gap lies. That gap can be filled if national development management policies are absolutely clear about how decisions are to be made on the impact of climate change. I hope that my noble friend says something that allows me to feel that we do not need to send the same Amendment 45 back to the other place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for his kind words and for the time that he devoted to this particular aspect of a very long and complex Bill. Nevertheless, it is regrettable that he has not yet seen his way to accept the sensible and reasonable amendment that noble Lords sent back to the Commons on Report. Its purpose was to safeguard the rigorous safeguards built into the Building Safety Act 2022, which this House was united in supporting and which was designed to establish a robust regulatory regime that would ensure there was never another Grenfell Tower disaster. Less than 12 months later, and before the new regulatory regime even comes fully into force, the Government are giving themselves and their successors sweeping powers to rip it up—save only for a very flimsy affirmative Motion on a statutory instrument as a defence.

The modest amendment your Lordships sent to the Commons simply required the Government to accept that, if they wanted to change the fundamental structure and mechanics of delivery of the building safety regime, that must be justified to and approved by Parliament. The Government’s response, which the noble Earl has just repeated, is that they do not want to change the fundamental structure and delivery of the building safety regime. All they want to do is take it away from the Health and Safety Executive, lock, stock and barrel, with no changes at all, except in the nameplate and the branding. If that is true, the amendment before your Lordships today is exactly in line with their intentions.

Motion X1 picks up the point the noble Earl made about the original amendment to the Commons—that it was flawed because the wording would obstruct the transfer of the statutory committees from the HSE to the new, completely unspecified and unknown safety regulator. The revised wording in Motion X1 therefore makes it clear on the face of the Bill that it will be lawful to make that transfer. This amendment is designed simply to avoid changes in how the new regulator is structured and organised and to prevent changes to the tasks that are entrusted to it and the statutory committees that underpin its work. The amendment, if agreed, would ensure that the Government’s replacement regulator retains those duties and timescales: for instance, to review the regulations relating to electrical fire safety, the safety of staircases and ramps, safe escape routes for people with mobility issues and fire suppression systems such as sprinklers.

There is other detail, but in the interests of time I will simply say that the original arrangement in the Building Safety Act was that those committees and tasks could be changed only by the Secretary of State if he or she received a proposal from the regulator to put into place. That was because it was seen as very important that the regulatory regime should never again be captured, as it had been in the past, by departments and Ministers taking short-term political decisions, and that the regulator would always be able to independently assess needs to improve safety and then make recommendations in public to Ministers for them to decide on action.

The noble Earl has offered us a sincere undertaking that, at least for the time being, nothing will change; that Ministers will not be tempted to steer away from making essential safety improvements that they deem politically difficult or a bit too costly; and that they will faithfully press ahead without delay when those fire safety reports come in, however revealing and unwelcome they prove to be. Of course the noble Earl is absolutely sincere, but I say to him that Ministers and Secretaries of State come and go, and the sincerest of undertakings can be withdrawn when the facts are said to have changed. The accountability given by an affirmative resolution is tenuous.

I urge the Minister to retain the progress made during the enactment of the Building Safety Act by safeguarding those statutory committees, reinforcing the obligation for those long-awaited safety studies and making sure that the three-year timescale is retained. The way to do that is for him to say that, on mature consideration, he will accept Motion X1. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Motion ZC1 in my name. I pay a heartfelt tribute to my noble friend for the real progress that has been made since we last discussed this matter in helping qualifying leaseholders who extended their lease after the Building Safety Act came into effect. In a nutshell, the Act extended protection to qualifying leaseholders against the costs of remediation. However, inadvertently, it said that, if you renewed your lease after it came into effect, you lost that protection.

The Government recognised that there had indeed been a mistake and, on Report, I moved what is now Amendment 243, which would retrospectively have put the leaseholders who extended their lease back within the protection of the BSA. At the time, before the Bill went back to the other place, my noble friend resisted my amendments and said that the issues require

“very careful legal dissection and working through, and that is what we are doing”.

When I summed up, I said:

“In a nutshell, the Government made a mistake when they drafted the Building Safety Act. Unwittingly, they have removed the protection that some leaseholders were entitled to. They have known for months that there has been this defect, and I do not accept that the defect is so complex that it cannot now be put right. That is what my amendment does. I seek leave to test the opinion of the House”.—[Official Report, 18/9/23; cols. 1248-95.]


I do not know what my noble friend said to the department when he got back, but what had previously been impossible to do within the context of the Bill suddenly became possible. I am grateful to my noble friend for tabling Amendments 288A, 288B, 288C and 288D, which, in effect, do what I asked the Government to do last time. As I said, I am grateful to my noble friend for the pressure that he put on the parliamentary draftsmen to correct an injustice that had unwittingly been perpetrated.

Against that background, it might seem churlish of me to have tabled Motion ZC1, but there remains a problem: leaseholders who extended their leases, and therefore lost the protection of the BSA, will have received invoices and bills for payment, and some may have made payments. As drafted, the government amendments do not entitle those qualifying leaseholders to a refund. I am grateful for the Public Bill Office’s help in drafting my Motion ZC1—I hope that will inject a note of caution into any remarks that the amendments are imperfectly drafted. The Motion seeks to say that, in those circumstances where a qualifying leaseholder has already paid the remediation costs, but need not have, they are entitled to a refund.

Under the Government’s amendment, there is a provision whereby the Government have powers, under regulations, to make certain provisions. I want my noble friend to answer a question that was put twice in the other place. The Opposition spokesman on housing, Mr Pennycook, said:

“we welcome the concession that has been made, albeit with one proviso: Ministers must take steps to ensure that leaseholders who paid service charges over the past 15 months in the belief that they were not eligible for the leaseholder protections under the Act, because of the Government’s mistake, are reimbursed. Those individuals should not suffer financially as a result of a drafting error that should not have been allowed to occur in the first place. If the Minister—I hope she is listening to this point—can provide us with some reassurance on that point, we will happily accept the Government’s amendment in lieu”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/10/23; col. 199.]

My honourable friend the Father of the House, Sir Peter Bottomley, made the same point.

In winding up, Rachel Maclean was under tremendous time pressure because of the timetable Motion in the other place, and she was not able to answer either of those two questions. So if my noble friend is unable to accept my amendment, as he implied, I ask him for an assurance on the provisions of his amendment, which enable certain regulations to be made in proposed new subsection (11):

“The provision that may be made in regulations under this section includes … provision which amends this section; … provision which has retrospective effect”.


Can he assure me that, if a leaseholder has paid a bill and need not have, my noble friend will use the powers under his own amendment retrospectively to entitle that leaseholder to a refund? That is the import of my amendment, which I do not wish to press to a Division—but I hope that, in return, my noble friend will be able to give me that reassurance.

My noble friend’s Motion ZC knocks out a whole range of amendments that were passed without a Division in this House and that extended protection to non-qualifying leaseholders. These are basically leaseholders living in buildings under 11 metres; enfranchised leaseholders, who are counted as freeholders for the Act; and those who own more than three properties in buy-to-let investments. There are real problems: people in buildings under 11 metres get no protection at all, cannot get a mortgage and cannot sell. They have to pay the cost of remediation, because that is the only way that the building can get insured. They face exactly the same problems as people in buildings over 11 metres, but they get no protection at all. There are also leaseholders who, following government advice, enfranchised and became freeholders. Despite assurances I was given by the then Minister that they would be treated as leaseholders, the Bill treats them as freeholders and denies them the protection extended to leaseholders.

There is also the problem of those who have buy-to-let properties. A person who owns a £1 million property and other properties overseas is protected, but someone who owns three properties worth £100,000 each gets no protection at all. People who jointly own a property with their husband are counted as wholly owning. There is a whole range of outstanding issues from the Building Safety Act that I understand cannot be addressed in the Bill, but, again, I hope that my noble friend is able to say that, in the proposed leasehold reform Act, it will be open to the Government to reopen these unresolved problems in the BSA and that legislation will be proposed to address at least some of the issues arising from the BSA that I have outlined and that I believe remain unsolved.

In conclusion, I thank my noble friend again for his efforts in response to my original Amendment 243, but I hope he can give me the assurances I seek for leaseholders who have paid bills that they need not have.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

I am grateful to noble Lords for their comments on this group. I thank my noble friend Lord Young for his kind words on government Amendments 288A, 288B, 288C and 288D. He asked about his Motion in relation to leaseholders who have paid remediation costs since losing the protections. Like my noble friend, the Government are concerned about leaseholders who have paid a significant service charge where they have lost the protections upon extending their leases. Those who have paid out remediation costs while outside the protections may be able to bring a claim for unjust enrichment.

I should point out to your Lordships that we are not aware of this issue being raised with us by any affected leaseholders, so it may well be theoretical in nature—my noble friend may contradict me on that. That said, if we do come across any cases where remediation charges have been paid and are not returned, the Building Safety Act contains a power to make secondary legislation that we believe enables us to provide a bespoke remedy to this issue. If cases do come to light, we will consider carefully whether that is the right thing to do.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

I am very grateful for what my noble friend has just said. However, will leaseholders first have to go through the process of claiming unlawful enrichment before the Government introduce the provisions he has outlined—which I welcome—or will the Government use the provisions under subsection (11) of new Section 119A to give them the protection without first obliging them to go through a complex process of claiming unlawful enrichment?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

As I said, we will carefully consider what is the right thing to do. I have no briefing on whether it will be necessary for leaseholders to make a claim either directly or through the courts. We will make a decision as to what is right in all the prevailing circumstances. I am afraid I cannot go further than that.

I can assure my noble friend that we completely appreciate the point that he has raised, and the Government are looking into what we can do for leaseholders who have had to pay excessive service charges where they have lost the protections. For the reasons I have set out, including the potential for unintended consequences which I described in relation to Amendment 242, I ask my noble friend not to press his Motion on Amendment 288E.

On the other issues he raised, I cannot, as my noble friend will understand, pre-empt the forthcoming gracious Speech or what may be contained in it; it would be quite improper for me to do so. However, I can tell him that the issues he has drawn our attention to will be carefully considered in the department I am representing.

On Motion X1, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, I recognise his continued concern and repeat my earlier assurances that the Government do not intend to interfere with these important committees. Section 12 of the Building Safety Act contains appropriate provision to change the statutory committees of the building safety regulator as needed in the future. This gives the Government and regulator the flexibility needed to adapt the role of the regulator and its statutory committees.

We do not agree that it is appropriate or necessary to impose restrictions on the use of that section. We are concerned that, as drafted, this restriction would cause confusion while potentially preventing the use of the powers in Section 12 of the Building Safety Act to make changes to the statutory committees of the regulator in the future.

The Government do not intend to use the power in any way imminently. We consider it necessary to create the ability to move the building safety regulator to an existing or a new body in the future, but we would look at any options very carefully and consider the recommendations from the Grenfell Tower inquiry before confirming the best way forward.

This does not affect the timeline for the building safety regulator’s important work. We expect the regime to be fully operational by April 2024, and we are determined to support delivery of the programme to that timetable. The changes will make sure that we are ready and have the flexibility in place to respond quickly to the Grenfell Tower inquiry report when it is published and that we can be radical and long-term in our thinking.