Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Nineteenth sitting)

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2022 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

We met this morning, and we come now to the afternoon session. Obviously, some of you have extrasensory perception and have anticipated the fact that I was going to let you take your jackets off—good on you.

Clause 113 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 11

Infrastructure Levy

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 148, in schedule 11, page 282, line 29, leave out

“and in achieving any purpose specified under section 204N(5)”.

This amendment and Amendment 149 would prevent the Secretary of State directing the proceeds of the infrastructure levy towards purposes other than supporting the development of an area by funding the provision, improvement, replacement, operation or maintenance of infrastructure.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 149, in schedule 11, page 294, line 35, after “purposes” insert

“which support the development of the area and”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 148.

[Matthew Pennycook]

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Mark. Having debated this morning in broad terms the deficiencies of the proposed infrastructure levy as we see them, and the corresponding case for discretion in terms of its adoption and core elements of its design, I turn now to a far more specific concern.

Part 1 of schedule 11 makes changes to the Planning Act 2008 by inserting new part 10A, providing for the introduction of the new levy. The new power replicates section 205 in part 11 of the 2008 Act, albeit with an important change that makes clear that the purpose of the levy now includes anything specified by the Secretary of State under subsection (5) of proposed new section 204N, in schedule 11 on page 294. The proposed new subsection makes clear that regulations may allow for circumstances in which a specified amount of the infrastructure levy is applied to purposes other than funding the provision, improvement, replacement, operation or maintenance of infrastructure, defined so as to include transport, schools, medical facilities, open spaces, flood defences, affordable housing and a number of other items.

That gives rise to two obvious questions. First, what purposes other than the provision, improvement, replacement, operation or maintenance of infrastructure, defined as broadly as it is in proposed new section 204N(3), on page 294, would IL ever need to be spent on? Perhaps the Minister can give us an example of what kind of non-infrastructure the Government believe those powers should fund. Secondly, why should developer contributions secured in relation to a particular area be used to support the provision of non-infrastructure items that may be unconnected to it? Our concern is that allowing the purpose of IL to include anything specified by the Secretary of State may give rise to a situation—as, I might add, the 2020 White Paper explicitly suggested—in which proceeds from the infrastructure levy are used to fund things such as service provision or the reduction of council tax.

There may be a far less problematic reason for the inclusion of the relevant language in proposed new section 204A(2) specifying that IL can be used to achieve any purpose under proposed new section 204N(5). For example, it may simply be the means of facilitating the continuation of the neighbourhood share under the new system. However, if that is the case, why not make that clear in the Bill? Given how widely drawn the language in proposed new section 204N(5) is, we remain concerned that it could lead to much-needed IL funds being directed to purposes other than supporting the development of an area by funding its infrastructure. That is the concern that amendments 148 and 149 are designed to address, by deleting the relevant language from proposed new section 204A(2) on page 282.

In our previous debate, I outlined in detail our concern that the levy as proposed will fail to secure as much—let alone more—public gain from developers than the present system. Allowing specified amounts of IL to be used to fund non-infrastructure items that might be unconnected to a given area would exacerbate that problem by further depleting the funding available for infrastructure, including affordable housing, in that area. The amendments would simply ensure that any funds generated by the levy would have to be spent on infrastructure that supports the development of the area in question. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[The Minister for Housing (Mr Marcus Jones)]

It is a pleasure to serve again under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. The Bill seeks to give local communities control over what is built, where it is built and what it looks like. It creates an incentive for communities to benefit from development. The delivery of infrastructure is a key pillar in our approach, and the levy is our key tool to support that.

We think that the local authority is best placed to decide which infrastructure projects it should spend the proceeds of the levy on. The Bill will require local authorities to prepare infrastructure delivery strategies. These will set out a strategy for delivering local infrastructure through spending levy proceeds. There is scope to allow even more flexibility on spending, to further incentivise communities to benefit from development. The Bill enables the funding purposes of the infrastructure levy to be extended to such purposes as may be specified by the Secretary of State under proposed new section 204N(5) if certain circumstances apply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

If the hon. Member bears with me for a moment, I will give her an example.

The measure will enable regulations to set out the circumstances where charging authorities could spend a specified amount of the levy on items that are not infrastructure. This means that in some areas, once local authorities are able to meet their affordable housing and infrastructure needs, they could have scope to increase their flexibility on what they spend levy receipts on, such as improving local services. This would remain a matter for the local authority to decide on, subject to any limitations set out in regulation or guidance, ensuring that infrastructure and affordable housing remain priorities. Furthermore, it is right that even if such extended funding of the levy is permitted and taken up by the local authority, it should be subject to the overall test in proposed new section 204A that such costs must not make the development an area economically unviable. Therefore, we do not believe the amendment is necessary, so I ask the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich to withdraw it.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I think that was a useful answer from the Minister, for the following reasons. He clearly stated that the reason for the flexibility is to allow local planning authorities to spend levy receipts on non-infrastructure items not covered in proposed new section 204N(3). That is very useful, because he has responded to our concern by saying on the record that the infrastructure levy could be spent on things such as the funding of services.

The Minister made an important qualification, which I will address. He made clear that local authorities would be allowed to spend only once they had met their affordable housing targets and infrastructure needs. I applaud his optimism that the levy will cover not only all affordable housing provision and core infrastructure, but other things such as services. I welcome that clarification.

The Minister will do two things, I think. When we come to them in due course, I think he will accept our amendments to strengthen the Bill’s requirements on meeting affordable housing supply. However, I still think the Bill needs to be tightened to specify what kind of non-infrastructure the levy could be spent on in the circumstances he outlines. At the moment, it is incredibly broad—it relates to any purposes specified by the Secretary of State—and that remains a point of concern. Although I will not push this amendment to a vote, we may return to this issue. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Mr Jones]

I beg to move amendment 196.

Proposed new section 204A in schedule 11 sets out the overall purpose of the levy, which is to ensure that the costs incurred in supporting the development of an area can be funded wholly or partly by the owners or developers of land in a way that does not make development of an area economically unviable. The overall purpose also applies to the costs incurred in achieving the other specified purposes that are allowed under the levy regime.

Proposed new section 204A currently cross-references to purposes that may be specified under proposed new section 204N(5). That means that the levy regulations may allow levy receipts to be spent on matters other than infrastructure, such as improvements to local services and delivery of local programmes that are valued by local communities. Although the infrastructure levy will primarily be spent on infrastructure and affordable housing, that will give us the scope to allow local authorities more flexibility over how they spend the levy if those priorities have been met.

The amendment will correct an omission and ensure that proposed new section 204A also correctly cross-refers to the powers in proposed new sections 204O and 204P, which will also allow levy receipts to be spent on other specified purposes, such as non-infrastructure matters. Where that is allowed, it must be subject to the overall purpose set out in proposed new section 204A. To ensure that proposed new section 204A correctly interacts with proposed new sections 204O and 204P, we are introducing a minor technical amendment to ensure the cross-reference is properly made. I therefore respectfully ask the Committee to support the amendment.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I rise to speak briefly to this Government amendment, notwithstanding our debate on the previous group of amendments. There is nothing in the Bill to ensure that local authorities meet a sufficient level of housing need—we will come to that—or of infrastructure need. Even taking into account the Minister’s reassurances on how the levy can be spent, I remain concerned. If anything, Government amendment 196 augments the concerns I have just spoken about. By specifying that the aim of the levy can include any purpose specified under proposed sections 204N(5), 204O(3) and 204P(3) of the Planning Act, the amendment allows proceeds of the levy to be spent not only on non-infrastructure items that might be unconnected to a given area in a way already made clear in the Bill, but on a wider set of, one presumes, non-infrastructure items. In a sense, the amendment’s intention is to widen the scope of the non-infrastructure items to which specified amounts of IL can be directed.

As I have made clear, we strongly believe that funds generated by the levy should be spent on infrastructure that supports the development of the area in question, and we oppose this Government amendment for the same reasons I set out in relation to amendments 148 and 149. I will not press the matter to a vote, but I want to put that on the record. We feel very strongly, as I think local communities will, that the proceeds of an infrastructure levy should be spent on infrastructure in their area. If anything, rather than having surplus amounts to spend on other items specified by the amendment or the Bill, I believe that the levy will not cover all those infrastructure costs.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I am also very concerned. This rings serious alarm bells with me and, I think, many other people, particularly those who work in housing associations and local government. It is hard to build affordable housing—we would have built a lot more of it if that were not the case. Given the price and availability of land, the process of finding a delivery partner, the involvement of contractors and housing associations, and the need to make the money stack up, it is not easy. The problem is that if we create a safety valve that allows infrastructure levy funding to be spent on something other than the infrastructure that underpins new affordable housing developments or the development of affordable housing itself, some people will take the easy option and some of the money garnered for planning gain will not do the community much good at all.

I hope and believe that the Government and this Minister have good intentions, but if we allow the funds gathered by the infrastructure levy to seep out from the pot for developing affordable housing and the infrastructure that underpins it, that is what will happen. We must not allow it to happen.

[Mr Jones]

Let me respond to the point raised by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. Clearly, the firm intention of the policy set out in schedule 11 is that the requirement for relevant infrastructure and affordable housing in a particular area is satisfied. However, there may be circumstances where a local authority, while satisfying those criteria, uses this mechanism. As I have said before, we expect to capture more value from developments because we will be capturing the value of the uplift of the finished product, not just the value at the point at which planning permission is achieved. Therefore, the expectation is that there could be greater value and it could enable local areas to do additional things, alongside the relevant and necessary affordable housing and infrastructure. I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman about the Government’s intention.

Amendment 196 agreed to.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I beg to move amendment 150, in schedule 11, page 282, line 32, at end insert—

“(2A) The intention of IL is to enable local authorities to raise money from developments to fund infrastructure to support the development of their areas while allowing planning obligations under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to continue to be used to provide affordable housing and ensure that development is acceptable in planning terms.”

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 151, in schedule 11, page 294, leave out line 21.

This amendment would remove affordable housing from the application of the infrastructure levy to with the intention that it would continue to be funded under current system of s106 TCPA 1990 obligations.

Amendment 152, in schedule 11, page 294, line 31, at end insert

“, other than to add affordable housing”.

This amendment would prevent affordable housing being added to the list of matters included within the meaning of “infrastructure” at a future date by regulations.

[Matthew Pennycook]

As the Minister made clear this morning, the Government are not willing to give charging authorities discretion when it comes to adopting the infrastructure levy, or any freedom to determine the best metric upon which to calculate IL rates. However, I want to try to persuade him to reconsider using the levy to deliver affordable housing.

Amendment 150 would insert into proposed new section 204A a proposed new subsection making clear that the intention of IL is to enable charging authorities to raise money to fund infrastructure to support the development of their areas, while allowing planning obligations under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to continue to be used to provide affordable housing and to ensure that development is acceptable in planning terms.

Amendments 151 and 152 would make consequential changes to the schedule, respectively removing affordable housing from the list of what is designated as infrastructure and preventing regulations from reinserting it into that list at a later date.

When I spoke to amendments 142 and 143 and amendments 145 to 147, I set out our two main concerns about the new levy—namely, that it is likely to prove onerously complicated to operate in practice and that it will almost certainly lead to less infrastructure and less affordable housing overall than those secured under the present system. It is the second of these concerns that lies behind amendments 150, 151 and 152.

Under the present system, funds raised through the community infrastructure levy are used only to fund infrastructure, facilities and services that support development in a given area. It is individual section 106 agreements that, along with any grant funding secured, pay for affordable housing. Under the new system, which is premised on affordable housing as well as all other required infrastructure being funded through a single mechanism, local planning authorities will be forced to set IL at significantly higher rates than the community infrastructure levy, which is typically equivalent to a relatively small proportion of development value.

The obvious resulting risk of having to set such high rates is that development on less viable sites, the majority of which are concentrated in those parts of the country most in need of levelling up and which the Government say is their mission to help, will simply not happen. As such, local planning authorities in areas with higher risk to viability of brownfield sites will be left with a choice: either allow such sites to remain undeveloped, or lower IL rates sufficiently to incentivise development on them but forgo essential infrastructure and affordable housing from more viable sites as a result. In practice, both outcomes are likely to materialise. If that is the case, it will have significant implications for the supply of infrastructure and high-quality affordable housing across the country.

There are very good reasons for the Government to reconsider funding affordable housing through the new levy, and I want to briefly speak to a number of them. First, there has never been a previous attempt to implement a single fixed-rate levy mechanism for securing both infrastructure and affordable housing. That is not for want of some extremely clever people attempting to design such mechanisms, but the desire to incorporate affordable housing into previous systems, including CIL, was ultimately abandoned, because each time they were deemed to be inoperable in practice. That is an obvious warning that the Government would do well to heed.

Secondly, as we have already discussed in the debate on the first group of amendments to part 4, by systematically financialising the provision of affordable housing, and for that matter on-site infrastructure, with the inherent variability and uncertainty that that entails, the levy is likely to unnecessarily complicate the planning process, resulting in additional delays, disputes and resourcing pressures.

Thirdly, the rigidity inherent in applying one or more IL rates in any given charging area to sites within it that will inevitably vary in terms of development and land values will result in a wide range of levels of affordable housing and infrastructure contributions across sites. That is inherent to the design of the levy. As a result, it will be incredibly difficult for local planning authorities to know what levy rates to set in order to fund all necessary infrastructure and meet the affordable housing need identified in their local development plans.

Fourthly, there are inherent problems when it comes to attempting to provide affordable housing through a rigid fixed-charge approach, because of how such a charge interacts with viability. If the Government are adamant about pursuing a fixed-charge approach, they could always consider a fixed-percentage affordable housing requirement delivered through section 106 agreements, which would be preferable to a general levy calculated on the basis of gross development value.

By amending the national planning policy framework as they have done, to place greater emphasis on viability testing as a part of plan-making rather than as a feature of individual site applications, the Government have already firmed up affordable housing requirements while still allowing for flexibility in exceptional cases where there are genuine viability challenges. In our view, the current arrangement strikes the right balance and, as I said this morning, the Government’s time would be better spent focusing on what more could be done—for example, by equipping local authorities with the specialist skills and resources that they need to make the existing system work more effectively.

Lastly, and related to the previous point, setting a fixed IL rate or rates will inevitably result in the loss of affordable housing supply on every site in a given charging area that could viably deliver more than the rate in question would require, while at the same time putting at risk entirely the development of sites grappling with genuine viability challenges that would be unable to provide the requisite level of contributions. That problem is inherent to the nature of a levy premised on a general fixed rate or rates within charging areas where there is variation in values and costs between sites.

Whichever side of the line individual charging authorities ultimately come down on, the overall result will be lower rates of affordable housing delivery in England. If local planning authorities try to overcome that inherent flaw in the proposed levy system by setting myriad different IL rates, in an attempt to respond to the natural variation in development and land values in any given area, the result will be a smorgasbord of rates, which would make for a fantastically complicated arrangement that would make it hard, if not impossible, for developers and communities to understand the extent and nature of the contributions due on different sites in a given locality.

It is telling that despite the Government’s commitment to the levy securing at least as much affordable housing as developer contributions do now, there is nothing in the Bill that guarantees that that will be the case. We need to be confident that we are approving a framework that has a reasonable chance of at least maintaining the supply of affordable housing that we currently secure through developer contributions, and ideally one that allows for improvements to allow that supply to increase, because it needs to increase markedly.

Short of giving charging authorities discretion in relation to adopting the infrastructure levy and the freedom to determine the best metric on which to calculate IL rates, limiting the scope of the levy to the delivery of actual infrastructure and retaining the use of section 106 to fund affordable housing, as amendments 150 to 152 propose, is the best means of achieving that aim, because it would overcome the problems with the setting of IL rates that I have described and the impact that fixed rates will have on overall levels of affordable housing secured through developer contributions. It would also directly address an issue we have not discussed—namely that a fixed levy would not be capable of determining affordable housing requirements for estate regeneration schemes, which necessarily vary from site to site, depending on the existing level of affordable housing that should be re-provided and how much additional affordable housing can be delivered.

I trust that the Minister has carefully considered the arguments I have made and will consider accepting the amendments, which would make the Government’s levy proposals far more workable than they currently are. Either way, he really does owe the Committee an explanation of how the levy will operate in such a way as to ensure that developments are viable and deliver both the required infrastructure and at least as much affordable housing as is currently secured through section 106 agreements, because despite the optimistic claims that successive Ministers have made and the claims that he made in debates this morning, nearly two years after the levy proposal was first put forward in the White Paper no evidence whatever has been published to demonstrate that the infrastructure levy is actually capable of achieving that. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful to be called to speak to this set of amendments and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for tabling them.

It is really important that we think about the consequences and what could happen. I reject the setting of infrastructure against affordable housing. If people are building any form of development, they will have to put infrastructure on that site, whether the infrastructure is a GP surgery, a school or some of the more micro infrastructure that is necessary for a community to function. As a result, the infrastructure will trump affordability in order to reach viability, so we will not see the affordable housing being built; in fact, if anything we will see a regression if the two are set against each other. For people to get the true value of developments with high-value accommodation, there will be a demand for infrastructure on the site. The developer will naturally focus on that and that will be how the situation turns.

It is also important to look at what will happen with this patchwork approach throughout the country, because if different areas set different levels of infrastructure levy, that will create a new market for where developers go and develop. Of course, they will be looking to their profit advantage over what the local communities need. The new system will be another pull: it will direct them to where they can get the deal that best suits them for developing the infrastructure that they want. It is going to skew an already bad situation into an even worse situation in respect of the need for affordable housing, let alone social housing. I cannot see how it is going to bring any advantage to a social developer, let alone a commercial developer, in trying to ensure that we get the mix of housing that we require in our communities. With affordable housing and social housing in particular being developed at such low levels compared with high-value housing—which, let us face it, is going over to being essentially an asset rather than lived-in accommodation—the differential is clearly going to cause a lot of challenge, and even greater challenge, for communities.

As we have debated, supporting infrastructure might not even be infrastructure: it could be services or something else. The provisions create risk in the legislation, so my hon. Friend’s amendments are about ameliorating that risk and ensuring that there is some level of protection to ensure that affordable housing is built.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

We are all concerned with making sure that we get as much affordable housing as we can from housing developments. Clearly, what I am arguing for is a wider package of measures that we believe will deliver at least as much affordable housing as under the current system, if not more, together with the infrastructure that communities need.

It is not fair that communities lose out just because their local authorities have effectively been strong-armed during the negotiation, and it is not fair that developers may face arbitrary variation in the demands for contributions in different places. If developers do not know how much they are going to have to pay, it is much harder for them to price contributions into land. There is currently an incentive to overpay for land and then try to negotiate contributions downwards.

To address the inequality of arms that the Committee has discussed, the new levy will introduce the right to require affordable housing through regulations. The right to require will enable local authorities to determine what proportion of the levy they want delivered in kind as affordable housing and what proportion they want delivered as cash. That will mean that local authorities, not developers, will get the final say on the proportion of affordable homes delivered as an in-kind levy contribution on a site. It is therefore important that affordable housing is considered as a kind of infrastructure that can fall within the levy regime.

It will be equally important that the levy delivers at least as much affordable housing as under the current system. That is why, when the levy rates are set, charging authorities must design them with regard to the desirability of ensuring that the rates can maintain or exceed the amount currently secured through developer contributions.

Let me address a couple of other points. The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich was concerned about less-viable sites and lower-value sites. I reassure him that local authorities will set a minimum threshold that reflects build costs and existing use values, as well as setting levy rates. The minimum threshold will help to ensure that lower-value sites continue to come forward.

The hon. Member for York Central mentioned concerns about risk and about delivering affordable homes and infrastructure while the changes take place. I reassure her that, as we discussed in the earlier debate on the infrastructure levy, we will be driven by a test-and-learn approach. The lessons from that work will be learned to make sure that we achieve our objectives, and the places that are not using that approach in working with the new infrastructure levy will continue to work on the same basis as they do now until the new system is rolled out. I reassure the hon. Lady again that the process could take some years to achieve to make sure we get it right.

On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will not press amendments 150 to 152 to a Division.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the Minister for his response, but I am afraid I am not reassured, for the following reasons. The Minister rightly said, and I accept, that section 106 is an imperfect mechanism for extracting public gain from developers, but, as we have already debated, it is one that can be improved on, and has been in recent years, and can be reformed further.

The question before us, which goes back to the wider debate we had earlier, is: will the levy system replace the current system with one that will extract sufficient public gain to at least allow the same levels of affordable housing? I have listened carefully to the Minister, and he has made repeated commitments that it will extract at least as much as that gain. However, as we will come on to with the next set of amendments, there is nothing in the Bill that guarantees that the levy framework, even if it does extract the same amount of gain, will lead to a situation in which at least as much affordable housing is required. The language—I will come to this in the next debate—in proposed new section 204G is incredibly weak in that regard.

Nothing I have heard this morning reassures me that we are not implementing a system that will fail to extract the same amount of public gain when it comes to infrastructure and affordable housing as the present system. There is nothing in the Bill to ensure that local authorities spend their levy proceeds on the levels of affordable housing required to meet the housing need in their area. Given all the risk and uncertainty of replacing the existing system with the proposed one, I feel strongly that the Government are making a fundamental mistake by including affordable housing within the scope of the levy. I will therefore press amendment 150 to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 12

Ayes: 5

---

Labour: 4
Liberal Democrat: 1

Noes: 8

---

Conservative: 8

[Matthew Pennycook]

I beg to move amendment 153, in schedule 11, page 283, leave out lines 22 and 23.

This amendment would amend the definition of “affordable housing” to ensure that the infrastructure levy could only be spent on social housing within the meaning of Part 2 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 154, in schedule 11, page 285, line 35, at end insert—

“(9) IL regulations must provide for exemption from liability to pay IL in respect of a development which exclusively contains affordable housing.”

This amendment would provide for an exemption from liability to pay IL in respect of a development which contains 100 per cent affordable housing.

Amendment 155, in schedule 11, page 287, leave out lines 34 to 42 and insert—

“(2) A charging authority, in setting rates or other criteria, must ensure that—

(a) the level of affordable housing which is funded by developers and provided in the authority’s area, and

(b) the level of the funding provided by the developers,

is maintained at a level which, over a specified period, enables it to meet the level of affordable housing need identified in the local development plan.”

This amendment would require Infrastructure Levy rates to be set at such a level as to meet the level of affordable housing need specified in a local development plan.

Amendment 156, in schedule 11, page 298, line 13, at end insert—

“(aa) set out how the charging authority intends to use IL to meet the level of affordable housing need identified in the local development plan, and”.

This amendment would require a charging authority to detail the way in which it intends to use the infrastructure levy to meet its identified housing need in preparing and publishing an infrastructure delivery strategy for its area.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Having just sought unsuccessfully to persuade the Minister to reconsider using the infrastructure levy as a means of delivering developer-funded affordable housing, I will set out how we believe the Bill needs revising to ensure that the new levy will supply, in practice, sufficient levels of such housing. I have spoken at length about why we are concerned that the new levy will fall short as a mechanism to deliver affordable housing, and our fear that its introduction will lead to an overall reduction in affordable housing supply—a fear not assuaged by a piece written on 22 August for the ConservativeHome website by the recently departed Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien), in which he explicitly argued that the levy would allow for a rebalancing of

“what developer levies are spent on, towards things local residents want, like GP surgeries, schools, roads, and landscaping, rather than social housing for non-locals”.

Dismissing concerns about the impact of the levy on affordable housing, the Government have promised on multiple occasions, and the Minister has again today, that it will deliver at least as much affordable housing as developer contributions do now. Indeed, the policy paper accompanying the Bill explicitly sets out that commitment. The Minister went further this morning, and said that the infrastructure levy will be so successful that not only will it cover all infrastructure and affordable housing but we will have a surplus that we can spend on lovely things in our local areas. As I mentioned, no evidence has yet been published by the Government to substantiate why they believe that the new levy will be able to fulfil that objective.

We are promised a technical consultation soon, and the Department is by all accounts sitting on a study by academics at the University of Liverpool involving the design and implementation of a prospective levy charging schedule. I put it to the Committee, however, that it is telling that in the two years since the levy was first mooted in the White Paper no analysis or impact assessment has been produced to demonstrate that the new levy has a chance of matching the existing system of developer contributions when it comes to the delivery of affordable housing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich is right to refer to the importance of the new levy in supporting the delivery of affordable housing for local communities and in contributing to meeting local need. As we have discussed, the Government are committed to getting at least as much, if not more, on-site affordable housing through the new levy as we do under the current system of developer contributions.

The definition of affordability, as challenged by amendment 153, is a complex and evolving picture that is better understood and monitored at local level. It is therefore appropriate to allow for infrastructure levy regulations to provide for any other description of affordable housing, beyond that defined as social housing in part 2 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008. This will ensure that any new types of affordable housing tenure introduced in the future can be brought into the scope of the levy.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am sorry to put the Minister on the spot, but it would be useful if we had an example of the type of housing tenures that the Government believe that that specific line in the Bill is required for, given the already very broad definition of social—affordable—housing in part 2 of the 2008 Act.

[Mr Jones]

As the hon. Member knows, when the 2008 Act was brought into effect by the last Labour Government, there was a reasonably wide definition of the different types of affordable housing. One of the evolutions in affordable housing recently has been the introduction of First Homes. I hear what the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich says about that, but we are working to make sure that we have 1,500 first homes by the end of March 2023; that will be significant progress. The vast majority of affordable housing currently provided does fall within the definition that we have discussed, which was put into legislation in 2008, and we envisage that that will continue to be the case under the levy. However, accepting amendment 153 would mean placing a lot of reliance on the definition of social housing in the 2008 Act. Clearly, social housing is an extremely important part of the mix of affordable housing, but amendment 153 would reduce the levy’s ability to respond to any changes in tenure types that arise in the future. That is not helpful or necessary. It is right that the levy regulations should provide future-proofing and regulatory flexibility.

Amendment 154 deals with exemptions for sites that are 100% affordable housing. Subsection (5)(h) of proposed new section 204D of the Planning Act 2008, in schedule 11 of this Bill, already contains a power for levy regulations to make provision about exemptions from or reductions in levy liability. The levy will be used to secure contributions towards affordable housing. We do not expect to charge the levy on exclusively affordable housing developments; we will explore that matter further in consultation. However, all development will be required to deliver the infrastructure that is integral to the functioning of the site, and we will retain the use of planning conditions and restricted use of section 106 agreements to secure that.

Amendment 155 would require infrastructure levy rates to be set at a level that enables an authority to meet the affordable housing need specified in a local development plan. The total value that can be captured by the levy, or indeed any system of developer contributions, will not necessarily match the costs of meeting the entire affordable housing need of an area as specified in the local development plan. Revenues will depend on the amount and types of development that come forward, and when they come forward, as much as on the levy rates and thresholds set. That said, the Bill recognises the importance of using the levy to deliver affordable housing. Proposed new section 204G of the Planning Act 2008, in schedule 11, provides that charging authorities must, when setting their rates, have regard to the desirability of ensuring that affordable housing funding from developer contributions equals or exceeds present levels. That will ensure that affordable housing need is accounted for when levy rates are set; to ensure that, those rates will be subject to public examination.

Importantly, the Bill makes provision for rates to be set with regard to increases in land value—for instance, as a result of planning permission. Targeted increases in rates will allow charging authorities to maximise the revenue that they can capture, and the amount of affordable housing that they can deliver.

We have designed the levy so that it can deliver at least as much affordable housing as the current system, if not more. As I have explained, the new right to require will require affordable housing to be provided. That will be introduced through regulations. That means that local authorities will get the final say on the proportion of levy contributions that go towards affordable homes. Should the levy generate more revenue than at present, local authorities could choose to direct those additional revenues towards meeting their additional affordable housing needs.

[Mr Jones]

I thank the hon. Member for that point. Like many other areas, York’s housing market is affected by the tourist industry that the city attracts. It is for local areas—I am glad that the hon. Member’s area is forming a local plan—to assess the housing need in their local plan; they should take matters such as the amount of affordable housing, and the need in an area, into account when making that plan.

Local authorities will need to balance the objective of providing affordable housing with the levy’s other aspirations. Local authorities will need to use the levy revenues to deliver other critical infrastructure, such as new roads and medical facilities. Local authorities, which know their local areas, are best placed to balance funding for affordable housing with funding for other infrastructure needs.

On amendment 156, proposed new section 204Q, introduced by schedule 11, introduces the requirement for levy charging authorities to prepare an infrastructure delivery strategy, which will outline how a local authority will use the money the levy generates through a strategic spending plan. That will include an outline of how it will use levy revenues to secure affordable housing. It is important that that happens in each area. The charging authority will have regard to that when setting levy rates. The exact detail of the infrastructure delivery strategy and how it should be produced will be determined through regulations. We will consult on matters relating to the infrastructure delivery strategy, and forthcoming secondary legislation and guidance will clarify how to treat affordable housing. All of that will be informed by our commitment to deliver at least as much affordable housing as we do under the current system.

I hope that my explanation gives the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich clear assurances on how the new levy will support the delivery of affordable housing, and therefore I ask him to withdraw the amendment.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the Minister for that comprehensive response. I will take each part of it in turn. I note what he says about the powers provided for in proposed new section 204D(5)(h) to the Planning Act 2008, regarding 100% affordable sites, and I welcome his commitment that the Government do not expect those sites to have the levy applied to them. That should be written in the Bill, but I take that commitment at face value, and I hope to see it fleshed out via the regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I beg to move amendment 157, in schedule 11, page 283, line 28, at end insert—

“(1A) But a charging authority may not charge IL on development in its area comprising—

(a) over 150 residential units, or

(b) over 10,000 sq m of floorspace

and instead Part 11 of the Planning Act 2008 (Community Infrastructure Levy) applies to such developments.”

This amendment would specify a threshold for large sites in relation to which the role of section 106 TCPA 1990 agreements would be retained, meaning that the community infrastructure levy would continue to be used to support such development.

I made clear at the outset of our consideration of part 4 that the levy differs from that set out in the 2020 White Paper in several important respects. One of those is that the Government now propose to retain a distinct role for the current system of section 106 planning obligations, rather than replacing it entirely, as per the White Paper. We are told that narrowly targeted section 106 agreements will still be used for securing infrastructure integral to the operation and physical design of a site. The examples in the policy paper that accompanies the Bill—internal play areas and flood risk mitigations—suggest that the use of such agreements in this way will be a frequent occurrence. More importantly, we are also told that the Government want a role for section 106 agreements in supporting the delivery of larger strategic sites. On such sites, infrastructure can be negotiated and provided in kind; the value of what is agreed must not be less than what would have been paid through the levy. This raises a host of questions, as does every aspect of the Government’s proposal.

Will developers have to pay the difference where the cost of delivering infrastructure on large sites is less than the required IL charge would be? Correspondingly, would charging authorities have to refund developers if it transpired that the cost of delivering infrastructure was higher than the given IL charge? Who defines what is on-site infrastructure, and what can act as credit against the nominal levy charge? Will it be set out in regulations—there is then a risk that it will be too inflexible—or will it be defined by each charging authority? There is then an associated risk of additional complexity. How do we avoid developers providing a range of unnecessary on-site facilities in order to reduce their liability vis-à-vis that levy charge?

Those and other important questions aside, in general terms we very much welcome the proposed retention of section 106 agreements, both for the infrastructure that is integral to the operation and physical design of sites and for larger strategic sites. Indeed, when it comes to the latter, the continued use of section 106 is essential to ensuring that they are developed, given the obvious pitfalls of attempting to do so solely via the levy, with all the inherent flaws that we discussed earlier today.

However, schedule 11 does not define what actually constitutes a larger site for the purposes of the ongoing role of section 106 agreements. Amendment 157 simply seeks to place that definition in the Bill, in proposed new section 204B of the Planning Act 2008, so that there is clarity at the outset of the process of introducing and implementing the levy as to the site size threshold above which IL would not be charged.

The amendment proposes that, for the purposes of permitting an ongoing role for section 106 agreements, a large site should be defined as an area comprising over 150 residential units, or over 10,000 square metres of floorspace. We have chosen those threshold values for a number of reasons, but primarily because schemes of over 150 units or 10,000 square metres of floorspace are typically more complex, take longer to deliver and are often phased, and are more likely to require site-specific mitigation, thus benefiting from the ability of section 106 agreements—this is one of their key strengths—to tailor obligations to the specific circumstances of a site.

On large sites thus defined, which would account by our estimates for around 5% of current approved residential projects nationally, affordable housing provision would be delivered via section 106, as under the present arrangement. To avoid the delay and complexity of securing contributions for core infrastructure on the sites by means of such agreements, amendment 157 makes it clear that the existing provisions of part 11 of the Planning Act 2008 would still apply, thereby enabling contributions relating to the sites to continue to be secured by means of the community infrastructure levy.

We believe that straightforward and uncontroversial amendment would provide certainty as to what does and does not constitute a large site where there will be an ongoing role for section 106 agreements at the outset of what will be, by the Minister’s own admission, a lengthy process of testing, implementing and rolling out the new levy. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Mr Jones]

The Government intend that the levy will replace CIL, except for the Mayor of London and in Wales, and largely replace the discretionary negotiated section 106 regime. However, following feedback through consultation and engagement with the industry, we recognise that, in some limited circumstances, a case exists for retaining a role for section 106 planning obligations in the delivery of infrastructure. Such circumstances include large and complex sites where infrastructure requirements are site-specific and require a more negotiated approach to ensure that infrastructure is provided at the right time. It is important to set the right definition for large and complex sites. We need to strike a balance between creating a more consistent levy system, while retaining flexibility for some negotiations on sites with complex infrastructure needs. On sites where section 106 agreements will continue to be used, we still expect developers to deliver at least as much overall value. It is just that some of it will be as in-kind infrastructure contributions rather than as a cash payment.

Setting the threshold in the Bill for when section 106 agreements should be used runs the risk of impacting on the effectiveness of the levy. If it is set too low, lots of development will continue to use section 106 agreements, and developers will continue to strong-arm local authorities over the value of their contributions. If we set it too high, it can impact infrastructure delivery on sites with complex and competing infrastructure needs. That is why we intend to consult on what the threshold should be, to allow us to consider stakeholder feedback and different options. The levy regulation, which will be laid before the Commons for approval, will specify the circumstances in which section 106 agreements will continue to be used. For the reasons I have explained, I request that amendment 157 be withdrawn, to allow us to consult further on when the use of section 106 agreements would continue to be more appropriate.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I appreciate the Minister’s response and, taking on board what he has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I beg to move amendment 158, in schedule 11, page 286, line 38, leave out “IL” and insert—

“that part of the IL not applied to the provision of affordable housing”.

This amendment would mean that charities in England and Wales were not exempt from contributing to the provision of affordable housing on any given development.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 159, in schedule 11, page 287, leave out lines 5 to 14.

This amendment and Amendment 160 would ensure that charitable exemptions were limited to development undertaken by charities in England and Wales.

Amendment 160, in schedule 11, page 287, line 26, leave out from “2011” to end of line 28.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 159.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Proposed new section 240F of the Planning Act 2008 makes provision about exceptions from, or reductions in, IL for charities. The explanatory notes to the Bill make it clear that the provisions in this proposed new section replicate those that currently exist for the community infrastructure levy in section 210 of the Planning Act 2008. That is indeed the case but, as the Minister will know, charities are not exempt from contributing to infrastructure and, most importantly, affordable housing secured through section 106 agreements.

Because the new levy entails a single fixed-rate mechanism for securing both infrastructure and affordable housing, and because there is nothing on the face of the Bill to specify that charities must contribute to the provision of the latter, the limit of charitable exemptions to infrastructure and affordable housing has been drawn far more widely than that which applies in the case of CIL at present. We believe that is problematic, and could hamper development on sites taken forward by charities or reduce the amount of affordable housing delivered on them. By making it clear that charitable exemptions do not apply to that part of IL related to the provision of affordable housing, amendment 158 seeks to enable development led by institutions established for charitable purposes to proceed, and to enable appropriate levels of affordable housing to be secured on the sites in question.

A separate but related issue is the question of what constitutes a charity for the purposes of proposed new section 204F. Subsection (2)(a) of the proposed new section provides for regulations to exempt from paying IL institutions established for charitable purposes, defined in subsection (4) as not only a registered charity under section 29 of the Charities Act 2011, but any charities within the meaning of section 1 of that Act not required to be registered. We believe that defining charities so widely could result in development not taking place, or being unsustainable when it does, because unregistered charities would also be exempt. Amendments 159 and 160 simply seek to limit charitable exemptions from IL to those charities that are formally registered with the Charity Commission, as per the 2011 Act.

We believe that this sensible and proportionate set of amendments will ensure that charities are appropriately exempted, but that the limit of that exemption is not drawn so widely that it could impede development or reduce the levels of infrastructure and affordable housing coming forward. I hope the Minister will agree and signal that he is content to accept all three.

[Tim Farron]

Briefly, I think that the points made by the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich are really good. It is important that we do not provide loopholes to allow developers to get out of providing genuinely affordable homes for local communities.

It is also important to remember the role of the National Trust, which does many good things. In my community and across Cumbria, it is effectively an affordable housing provider at times. Sometimes it is an unaffordable housing provider, and sometimes it is an outfit that moves from having affordable homes to having holiday lets, and it behaves in ways that I, and hopefully many people here, would not approve of. It is also potentially a developer, for better or for worse. There is the prospect of a new gateway development near Windermere railway station, which has the potential to provide genuinely affordable homes for local people. There is also the potential for that to not be the case, so it is important that we do not get overly benign and dewy-eyed about the word “charity”. What we really ought to be concerned about is the delivery of genuinely affordable housing for local communities, which is why it is important that this definition is tight and clear, and that we expect those charities that have the good will and support of the nation to earn that in the communities where they are not doing so at present.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I thank the hon. Member for that question. I will not get drawn into lots of different examples, but we are very clear that we are talking about charitable purposes under the definition in the 2011 Act.

Turning to amendments 159 and 160, there may be other instances where an institution is established for charitable purposes but does not meet the definition of a charity—for example, a charity established in Scotland, Northern Ireland or overseas. Amendments 159 and 160 would remove the express ability for regulations to set exemptions or reductions in the levy for these types of institutions. This would mean that only English and Welsh charities could be exempt from the levy when delivering development for charitable purposes. While we recognise that this will be less common, it would still be unfortunate if other types of charitable institutions could not deliver important facilities because of increased costs from the levy.

We are aware that different charitable institutions may operate differently from English and Welsh charities. That is why it is important to maintain a separate power to prescribe in regulations in detail the levy liabilities of such institutions. That enables provision to be made in the regulations, which will keep up with future changes that might be made to charities law. There will also be instances where a charitable institution carries out development that itself is not for charitable purposes but that it should none the less be able to claim an exemption or reduction for.

In the current CIL system, the CIL regulations make use of this power to provide for relief from CIL liability at the discretion of the local authority for developments carried out by charities for investment purposes. This approach works, which is why we do not agree with amendments 159 and 160, which would remove the express ability to set this kind of exemption or reduction through regulations in the future.

I hope that I have provided helpful clarification to the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich and other members of the Committee. I therefore kindly ask the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am partly reassured by what the Minister said, not least because he clearly indicated that the Government are going to go away and give further consideration to designing regulations. However, I urge him—or his successor when he is promoted—to really look into this issue, because I think there is a chance here, as Members have commented on, for a loophole to be exploited in ways that would cut across the purposes of the Bill as per the Government’s thinking. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Rachael Maskell]

I beg to move amendment 167, in schedule 11, page 287, line 28, at end insert—

“204FA Social enterprises and community interest companies

(1) IL regulations must provide for an exemption from liability to pay IL in respect of a development where—

(a) the person who would otherwise be liable to pay IL in respect of the development is a social enterprise or a community interest company, and

(b) the building or structure in respect of which IL liability would otherwise arise is to be used wholly or mainly for the purposes of social enterprise or the community interest.

(2) IL regulations may—

(a) provide for an exemption from liability to pay IL where the person who would otherwise be liable to pay IL in respect of the development is a social enterprise or a community interest company;

(b) require charging authorities to make arrangements for an exemption from, or reduction in, liability to pay IL where the person who would otherwise be liable to pay IL in respect of the development is a social enterprise or a community interest company.

(3) Regulations under subsection (1) or (2) may provide that an exemption or reduction does not apply if specified conditions are satisfied.”

This amendment makes equivalent provisions about the Infrastructure Levy for social enterprise or community interest companies as it does for charities under inserted section 204F.

The reason for the amendment is that there are different forms of businesses across communities. At this point, I should declare an interest as a Member of the Co-operative party. Social business is really important across our communities. Social businesses, enterprises and community interest companies have a different focus from the run-of-the-mill business. They are not there for profit. They are there to reinvest in their service users and facilities and to give back to their communities.

I think there is a real anomaly in the legislation. Today, the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector is referred to as one, recognising the charitable aims and social aims that these organisations bring. In moving the amendment, I am looking for parity, to recognise the fact that not-for-profit organisations—community interest companies and social enterprises—make an investment in their communities. They can make an investment by employing people from a place of disadvantage and by giving people opportunities in life. However, they are businesses as well, running cafés, for instance. Obviously they reinvest the proceeds they make into people in the community or they perhaps run a nursery or another form of business. We have seen the real benefit that that brings—it certainly addresses the levelling-up agenda. It enables people to move forward in their social mobility journey.

These organisations often start out with no assets whatever. They are very small. They build, reinvest and grow, which is good for the local economy. We need only to look at Preston as an example. It has invested—I look at the Chair, who is the MP for Preston—in the community. It has invested in the model of social business as well, and we know the importance of that. We want to see that rolled out across our communities. If these organisations grow and want to invest more and further benefit the community, but they then have to pay the infrastructure levy, that will curtail the opportunities that they can bring to our communities, and we do not want to see that. We want to see community interest companies, co-operatives and social businesses grow in a way that allows them to reinvest in our communities.

One thing that I have found most inspiring over the last few weeks is meeting organisations that are putting incubators for social enterprises in their communities—again, with no asset, but they provide an opportunity to bring forward a generation of new community interest companies and social enterprises. I have seen a little bit of that on the SPARK site in York, which really has put a spark into York. It is built out of old containers on a site and has brought a new energy into the city centre. It has been a fantastic opportunity, running and helping businesses to develop the ethos of community interest companies as they move forward.

I do not understand why in the legislation credible social businesses, social enterprises and community interest companies do not have exemptions when they give so much back to our communities and bring real transformation to our society. I want the amendment to be made. It is an omission; perhaps the Minister will explain why such an omission was made. Will he also reflect on the charities when it comes to the consultation and looking at further regulations? Will he include social enterprises and community interest companies in the substantive next phase of the legislation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I will not detain the Committee for long. The amendment very much speaks for itself. It enables a charging schedule to require that, where an infrastructure levy is required, it be paid up front, or, where the infrastructure levy requires the developer to build something out themselves, that the infrastructure they are building—the GP surgery, school, road, or whatever it might be—be built first. It is a straightforward amendment. Having heard so many colleagues speak in the House or around the place, the great frustration that I have seen in my constituency, and that I have heard from others, is that, when in particular big housing developments or huge industrial parks are built, the infrastructure comes far too late.

I congratulate the Government, and welcome their presumption that infrastructure should come first. Through the amendment, which for clarity I will not press to a Division today, I urge them, as the Bill progresses to Report stage, to really think about locking their own desire and stated policy for infrastructure to be built first into the Bill. I warned that I will not press the amendment to a Division because, having lived through the glorious summer recess leadership election, we have heard a lot of talk and commitments about planning policy and the things that are in the Bill and which the Committee is talking about. I suspect that on Report it will be a wholly different Bill from the one that we have been debating over the past few months in Committee. The point that I wish to push is that the amendment marries up with what the Government have stated that they want to do, and I appeal to Ministers to find a way of incorporating the spirit of the amendment into the Bill on Report.

[Matthew Pennycook]

When speaking to the first group of amendments to this part of the Bill, I outlined in great detail why the decision to make GDV the metric for the new levy is likely to result in applicants making their IL payments at the end, rather than the beginning of the development process. As I argued when making the case for charging authorities to have a choice when it comes to adopting the new levy or retaining the present system, if a levy with GDV as its metric is made mandatory, the final IL liability will almost certainly not be known and become due until near the point where a development is completed. Given the problems inherent in attempting to design a levy system that enables interim payments or payments on account, that convinces sufficient local authorities to borrow against future levy receipts with all the risk that entails, or that overcomes the problems that will arise from paying for infrastructure on one site with levy contributions extracted from others, the most likely outcome is a situation where the infrastructure required to support development will not be in place when it is needed, as the hon. Member for Buckingham has just outlined. That is deeply problematic because, as I said earlier, we think it will mean fewer overall approvals, more unsustainable development when it does occur and greater local opposition.

Amendment 161 seeks to address that issue by specifying in proposed new section 204R on levy collection that the payment of IL must take place within a reasonable period of a development or phase of development commencing or in accordance with any instalment policy adopted by the charging authority. In doing so, it simply aims to avoid additional delays to the provision of infrastructure that will be necessary to support development and the resulting pressure that that would place on existing local infrastructure.

Amendment 58 in the name of the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and others similarly seeks to revise the Bill so that IL payments are made earlier than is currently proposed by the Government. We support the principle, for the reasons I have outlined. However, in enabling charging authorities to require developers to pay either their full IL liability or sufficient amounts of it to enable a development to be built before development commences, that amendment goes much further than currently provided for by either CIL or section 106 agreements, which are typically paid prior to implementation of a development or phases. Because it is not mandatory for planning permissions to be implemented, we are slightly concerned that amendment 58 could lead to a situation where IL contributions are paid and infrastructure provided on development that is not subsequently completed. Mandating the payment of IL before development commences would also impact on developer cash flow and viability, particularly in cases of phased developments, which could have the consequence of reducing IL rates and thus the overall level of affordable housing and infrastructure contributions provided.

Lastly, the problems inherent in a levy based on the metric of GDV—in terms of multiple valuations having to be undertaken at different stages in the development process, with the final liability not being known until years after the application was submitted—would be magnified were a provision to be introduced mandating the payment of IL before any development commences. For those reasons, and with all due respect to the hon. Member for Buckingham—I agree with him on the principle—we believe that amendment 161, which merely requires IL payments to be made within a reasonable period of a development or phase of development commencing, is the more proportionate response to a problem that is clearly recognised across the Committee. I hope the Minister will give serious consideration to accepting our amendment so we can ensure that, if the levy is introduced, it allows for the infrastructure required to support development to be in place when it is needed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

As we have discussed extensively, given that we would not know the end value until later on in the development and that it would be subject to multiple valuations that might be disputed, how do the Government envisage the operation of a system of payments up front? Will the payments be simply scored off against the projected, expected end value, which will be calculated at a later date? Will the Minister give us a sense of how that sort of arrangement might work in practice?

[Mr Jones]

As we have discussed a number of times during the debate, the matter to which the hon. Gentleman refers will be set out in regulations. Clearly, that needs to be considered, because we need to ensure that there is a mechanism whereby payments are required to be made earlier in the development. That mechanism will be there and we can make that happen.

In due course, as I have said, we will consult on how the levy might be collected and paid. For example, we intend to explore whether a substantial proportion of the levy should be paid prior to the completion of the development or a phase of it. That plays into what the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich mentioned. It would give charging authorities confidence that they will secure funds before the development is sold on. I hope that my reassurances that the Bill already provides powers to achieve the objectives laid out in the amendments in this group will mean that at this point my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham is able to withdraw his amendment and that the hon. Gentleman feels able not to move amendment 161.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Sixteenth sitting)

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 19th July 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Tim Farron]

Good morning, Mr Paisley; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship on this lovely day. I am grateful for the opportunity to move the amendment and to speak to new clauses 38 and 39.

I volunteered for this Committee for many reasons: to spend time in great company and to be involved with a Bill that gives great opportunities to make a difference for this country, if we get it right. However, my fundamental motivation was to try to address a problem that has afflicted my community in Cumbria, and others, for a number of decades, and which I referenced in my maiden speech more than 17 years ago. That problem has got catastrophically worse in the last two years.

Before the pandemic, the average house price in my constituency was about £250,000, and the average household income was about £26,000. In the lakes and the dales, there is a much greater disparity in scale, where average house prices were already pushing towards £500,000 and average household incomes were no greater than in the rest of the district. There were 5,500 people on a council house waiting list and we have fewer social rented properties than that. Second home ownership was creating massive problems with under-population in villages that were losing their schools, their post offices and their bus services. In many communities, more than 50% of properties were empty.

Even before the pandemic, there was a huge problem. We have pushed the Government to take action for years, but we have seen precious little action. Since the pandemic, the situation has gone from crisis to catastrophe and urgent action is needed. The Government are dragging their feet; the one or two things they have talked about doing to address those issues will not even touch the sides.

Let us look at the situation now. Between June 2020 and June 2021—we are awaiting the figures for this year—in South Lakeland alone there was a 32% rise in the number of holiday lets. That area includes the most populated parts of the Lake district and the Yorkshire dales, and there was a colossal number of holiday lets to start off with, so where does a rise of 32% come from? They were not built for the purpose; they were long-term lets that migrated into short-term lets or Airbnbs.

According to estate agents, up to 80% of all house transactions in the last two years fall into the second homes market—to people who own a property but do not live in that property. From live information—literally, given yesterday—AirDNA says that within our community there are 8,111 short-term available lets. Rightmove sent a snapshot yesterday of 262 long-term lets, which means that there are 35 times more short-term lets in our community than long-term lets. We are seeing lakeland clearances, which have taken place in just a couple of years. People have been evacuated and expelled from the communities where they served and worked, where they may have grown up, where they sought to retire. People of all ages, not just the working-age population, have been evicted under section 21. Typically, those homes then migrate instantly into the Airbnb market.

Let me give you some examples. Debbie in Windermere, a hotel manager, was evicted from her property under section 21 and had to move to Lancaster, 30 miles away. She could find no way of staying in that community. As a consequence, that hotel is still without a manager. I think of a couple in Ambleside: him a chef, her a teaching assistant. They have one child in school and one about to go to school. They have been evicted from their property, which is now worth five times more on Airbnb than they were paying for it. They do not live anywhere in Cumbria now. They both had to give up their jobs and pull their children out of school and nursery, robbing that community of their services and their work.

I also think of Mike, who I spoke to on Saturday. He works in Windermere and lived in Troutbeck Bridge, just two or three miles up the road. He was evicted from his long-term let there, where he had lived for years, and he now has to live in Morecambe. It is a lovely place, but it is 30 miles away. He will soon have to give up his job. Good luck to his employer in finding anyone to replace him.

In the relatively small Yorkshire dales town of Sedbergh, 24 people were evicted during a two-week period in April. Not a single property is available on Rightmove to help those people. There is no doubt whatsoever of the reasons for that. I have some schools in our national parks reporting drops in school rolls of between a fifth and a third of their entire school numbers over the past two years. There are consequences to inaction. We are talking about the death of communities. It is happening as we speak.

We are seeing the annihilation of the workforce. In a study a few weeks ago, 63% of Cumbria Tourism’s members reported that they had to operate below capacity last year because they could not find staff. The workforce is being expelled at a rate of knots. What is the impact of that on our economy? Cumbria Tourism is the biggest employer in Cumbria, contributing £3.5 billion to the Exchequer. Our businesses are underperforming because they are understaffed, because the workforce has been cleared out. In Sedbergh, again, just a few weeks ago—in a snapshot of this one dales town—there were 104 unfilled vacancies. By the way, there are zero spaces available for any long-term let on Rightmove.

Look at the care sector. In the census report a couple of weeks ago, we saw a 30% rise in retirement age groups in our communities. Subsequently, there is a massive rise in the demand for care and a massive drop in the number of people available to provide that care. A tragedy is happening on our doorsteps and within our communities, and not just in the lakes and dales, but elsewhere in Cumbria and other parts of rural Britain. What we are seeing is the tragedy not only of divided families, but of lost services—the impact on schools under pressure and on bus services being lost because of a lack of an active, full-time population in our communities.

Those of us who live in or around a national park—I have the honour of representing two—are not trying to hold them tightly and keep them for ourselves. We want to share them with the country. We are stewards of our national parks for the whole country. However, due to Government inaction and the market being broken, we are seeing our communities and national parks being turned into no-go zones for anybody who is not a millionaire.

There is nothing in the Bill that even touches the sides of being able to tackle this crisis. I want the Government to tackle it with the urgency and speed with which the problem itself is developing. Rarely would we find anything like this amendment and these new clauses when looking at legislation, but they are genuinely the silver bullet to give communities the power to take back control and ensure that they breathe life back into those communities.

I will briefly talk the Committee through the amendment and the new clauses. New clause 38 would provide local planning authorities with the power to make a difference. Under current planning criteria, a permanent dwelling, a second home and a holiday let are all the same category of use, technically. Practically, of course they are not the same category of planning use; they are three very distinct categories. All that the new clause would do is allow local council planning authorities in the Lake district and the Yorkshire dales to be able to differentiate between the three. In a community such as Coniston, where more than half of the homes are not lived in all year round, the council will be able to set a cap and say, “No more.” These measures are about simply giving our communities the power to decide their own destiny.

I simply ask the Minister to take this matter seriously and accept the amendment and the new clause. Together, they would allow local communities to decide their own destiny, to prevent the clearance of a local working-age—indeed all-age—population and ensure that our national parks and rural communities, not just in Cumbria but across the country, are available to everyone, not just the wealthy.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I will be relatively brief, both because we have discussed these issues extensively in Committee and because the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale made the case so comprehensively, speaking about the communities in his constituency and the lives and livelihoods of those who make up the communities.

As I have said before, one need only speak to any hon. Member with acute housing pressures of the kind the hon. Gentleman set out to realise that the Government have not got the balance right between the benefits of second homes and short-term holiday lets to local economies and the impact of excessive concentrations of them on local people. It has also become apparent over the course of previous debates that there is a divide between those on the Opposition side and those on the Government side when it comes to how urgently and how boldly we must act to address the problems of excessive second home ownership and its staggering growth. The hon. Gentleman gave truly staggering figures of short-term holiday lets, showing the problems they cause around the country.

The Opposition are clear that we need urgent action in a range of areas to quickly bear down on this serious problem. There is no doubt in my mind that the introduction of new planning use classes could—along with a suite of other measures, because more measures would be needed—go a long way to restoring the balance that we all agree must be struck, giving communities back a measure of control that they do not currently enjoy. For that reason, we wholeheartedly support the amendments and urge the Government to give them serious consideration.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I want to add my support to these amendments. The issue seems to be that holiday destinations in particular have been hit by the Airbnb market. I am sure the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale will be hearing from many of his colleagues about the implications it has, whether they are from Cornwall or Devon, and it is now spreading across the country.

York has been hit, in particular over the pandemic. We have seen a 45% increase in Airbnbs over that period, and it is hitting our communities hard. According to today’s figures, there are 2,068 Airbnbs in my community. We are seeing an extraction economy, where money is being taken out of our local economy predominantly by people from London and the south-east, who can afford to buy these additional properties. They are clearly trying to make a profit, but it comes at the expense of our communities.

We have heard about the impact on public services and the local economy. Hospitality venues are now not able to open full-time for the guest economy, because they cannot recruit the necessary skills. It is skewing the whole economy and our public services, in particular care work, and that is now orientating into our NHS. It is jacking up the house prices in the area, and we are getting this heated housing market because demand is so great. We hear about people coming and buying six, seven or eight of these properties at one go.

The result of this increased demand is that local people are impacted. They are faithfully saving for their mortgage, but when they go to put an offer on a house, someone undercuts them by tens of thousands of pounds, because they know that they will get the return. Renting a property in York costs, on average, £945 a month. An Airbnb stay over a weekend costs £700. That is why we are seeing this massive reorientation. Section 21 notices are being issued to people in the private rented sector to move them on to make way for Airbnbs.

The undercutting of prices is also impacting on the regulated B&B and guesthouse market, and because Airbnb and second homes are not regulated, the health and safety is not there, and there are so many other checks that are not in place. A registration scheme, which I know the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is consulting on, is completely insufficient for addressing the challenge. It is a new challenge, and the Bill provides the Government with the opportunity to right the wrongs of what is happening and at the scale it is happening.

Creating these new classes would bring opportunity, but revenue can also be drawn from them. Many of the properties in question are classified under small business rates, so their owners do not pay council tax, but because they reach the threshold for small business rate relief, local authorities such as York are missing out on millions of pounds in revenue that they could get from such properties. It is therefore really important to categorise the properties and then look at how we use the categories.

I mentioned that in York we have 2,068 properties listed as Airbnbs; two weeks ago there were 1,999, so the number of properties that are going out to this new market is going up week by week. That is having a significant impact on York and York’s communities, so I trust that the Minister will not only support the amendment but engage in a wider discussion about what is happening to our communities, particularly in holiday destinations, so that we can ensure that, through this legislation, there is a suite of policies to ameliorate that market.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Farron]

We have just talked about what we do with existing housing stock and about seeking to make sure that it is retained and that we increase the amount that is available for permanent occupancy, for all the reasons I set out earlier. The amendment would tackle extreme situations, using some admittedly extreme measures, to ensure that new build also provides for the needs of local communities.

I want to stop for a moment to make it clear that we are not saying, “Only homes for locals.” We are delighted for anybody to come to Cumbria to become new locals and part of our community, to work and to contribute. We are proud of our diversity and of being a welcoming community, but let us ensure that the houses we build are affordable.

It is a pleasure to represent the Lake district and the Yorkshire dales, as well as the Arnside and Silverdale area of outstanding natural beauty, which has many of the features, including some of the planning powers, of a national park. Any property that goes on the market in those areas will be snapped up within seconds for a premium price. That includes new properties that are potentially built for local occupancy. It is easy to get around the occupancy clauses: people can buy the properties and then turn them into holiday lets quite quickly or move away from the area and use them as second homes, so the occupancy clauses are no protection.

The amendment would give planning authorities in national parks, which face extreme circumstances, radical powers that they can use, in some circumstances, for a period of time. We are not saying that they have to use them, but the powers would be there and available to them. If the Lake district or the Yorkshire dales wished to say, as I am sure they would if they were given these powers, that they would permit only developments that were genuinely affordable, which would normally mean social rented or shared ownership properties, they would be able to enforce that.

The experience in the not-too-distant past, when national park planning authorities had greater powers in practice than they do today, was that such provisions worked. There is a wrong view, which I think is held by some in this place, that the more restrictions there are, the less development we get. That is baloney. Practice proves that that is not true. If authorities are crystal clear to developers, housing associations and others that this is what they will get, and no more, people will either come forward or they will not.

I can call on experience in places such as Grasmere; Ambleside, where the Methodist and Anglican churches worked together to provide new affordable housing with the support of the national park; Windermere, where a similar thing happened; Coniston; and Hawkshead. The communities there were the diametric opposite to nimbys: they actively went out to find land to develop, which people gave up cheaply; they worked and fundraised to make sure things happened; and they left properties in their wills to make sure that collaborations could happen and we could build affordable houses. One reason why that was possible was that people potentially leaving a bequest knew that they could trust the national parks to ensure that their property would end up being redeveloped in an affordable way for a local family, which also meant that developers were clear that that was all that would be on the table. The evidence from 20 years’ experience is that if we are more restrictive, clearer and more directive, we will get the homes that we need for communities such as mine.

The simple fact is that in many parts of the country—not just Cumbria but especially there—if we build it, someone will buy it. By not giving local communities that power, we are simply building for demand, not for need. We can carry on building for demand, but as a result, we will lose our workforce and there will be no one to care for the older people in our community, of whom there are many, in their need. The economy will dissolve because of that lack of workforce, and communities will die.

We need to ensure that we build the houses so that they are there and people can afford them, and that affordable means affordable. We need to ensure that the national parks can enforce those criteria for a period of time, so that we can solve this problem through what we do with our new builds, as we should be doing with the properties that already exist.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale for tabling these amendments, the intention behind which we very much sympathise with. We know that excessive rates of second home ownership in rural and coastal areas are having a direct impact on the affordability, and therefore availability, of local homes, particularly for local first-time buyers. Correspondingly, we know that the marked growth in short-term and holiday lets in such areas is having a direct impact on the affordability and availability of homes for local people not just to buy but, as he said in relation to the previous group of amendments, to rent.

Research from CPRE, the countryside charity, makes it clear that our rural housing supply is disappearing and social housing waiting lists in rural areas are lengthening year on year. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is crucial that more is done to ensure that national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty have not just more affordable homes but—I make the distinction—more genuinely affordable homes.

If I am honest, however, I am concerned about the implications of the blanket nature of the restrictions provided for by these proposals. Although there is no doubt in my mind that the provision of genuinely affordable homes to buy and rent must be the priority in such areas, I worry slightly about the potential for unintended consequences, such as ruling out the provision of housing for general demand, which might be needed in some parts of the country to sustain the life of communities.

That said, I appreciate that these proposals are premised on giving communities discretion as to whether they use these powers, and I recognise and support the point that the hon. Gentleman is making with them. I hope the Government respond constructively.

[Rachael Maskell]

I, too, am sympathetic to these proposals, but I want to point out an area of unforeseen consequence. My constituency is not an area of outstanding natural beauty—although I would argue that it is—or a national park, but we sit just beneath the Howardian hills, and the dales and moors are not far away. If these blanket proposals and bans are orientated to those areas, the challenge is that they could heat up the Airbnb market even faster, particularly in somewhere such as York.

On the application process for a world heritage site, it would seem sensible for a world heritage site to be included in the criteria. I would compare the measure with a residential parking scheme: as we know, if we restrict parking on one street, people tend to park on the next street along, and we just build out and out. That may happen if we do not give flexibilities and opportunities to all areas.

Although I am really sympathetic to the sentiment behind these proposals and to the powers they would give, the scope should be broadened to enable all authorities to have the opportunity to control the housing and the lease of housing within their governance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Farron]

I am happy to support this group of amendments and new clauses. Flood resilience is of huge importance. We are dealing with extreme weather—today is an example, but there are other days that are extreme in a different way. In my part of Cumbria, in the past 18 years we have had two storms deemed to be one-in-100-year events, and a third that was deemed to be a one-in-200-year event. That does not add up, does it? It is because our weather and our climate are changing. We need to mitigate, prepare and build to protect homes, families and businesses.

Most recently, in 2015 Storm Desmond devastated the town of Kendal as well as many parts of Burneside, Staveley and other communities. The human and economic consequences are vast, and vastly greater than spending money up front to do the right thing in the first place. It is very wise to build into the Bill powers to ensure that neighbourhood development plans and planning controls can bring on board very powerful bodies that otherwise might seek to shirk their responsibility to ensure people are protected. I am thinking in particular of the water companies, which made nearly £3 billion in profit last year, and the extent to which they are compelled to ensure their drainage and other facilities can cope with new development, not just in that small parcel of land but as regards the impact on the wider community.

There is also the work with farmers, who are desperate to be part of the solution, to make sure we retain water in the uplands so that we slow the flow and minimise the impact on communities. The River Kent is one of the fastest-flowing rivers in the country and only 20 miles or so long from source to sea. When floods come they are dramatic, but the water can be down to quite a reasonable level within 24 or 48 hours. It therefore stands to reason that if we can hold back some of that water in the uplands by investing there and supporting farmers to do that, we can save millions of pounds and thousands of people from the terrible experience of being dramatically flooded.

It is about making sure we build in those things in the first instance. As we speak, we are building flood resilience networks in Kendal: both what can be seen by the river in the town and what cannot be seen up in the hills, where we are seeking to retain the water by tree planting, bunding and other work to slow the flow. We should be doing that sort of stuff in advance, before communities get devastated, as happened to mine. That is why the amendments are important. They are about making sure we build resiliently for the future so that other families do not have to go through what families in my community did in December 2015, with the devastation of soggy, sodden Christmas presents and wrecked Christmas trees on the sides of streets in the estates and people utterly devastated by what they had experienced, unable to get back into their homes for six months or more. Surely it is possible for us to prevent these things. With the right powers and provisions, we can.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I rise to strongly support this important group of amendments, and I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle and for York Central on proposing them. It is right that my hon. Friends seek to amend the Bill to ensure that planning rules on flood prevention and mitigation are strengthened and that the planning system responds better to the challenges associated with drought. As has been said, the amendments would not only ensure that we enhance the resilience to flooding of communities across England, but reform how the insurance and reinsurance markets operate in terms of data accuracy and how premiums take into account mitigations and defences, as well as beneficially extending reinsurance to small and medium-sized enterprises.

Although I am more than happy to acknowledge the positive steps taken by the Government on flood prevention and mitigation in recent years, such as the publication of the adaptation communication 18 months ago and the investment allocated to improving flood defences up to 2027, it is clear that there has been an absence of cross-departmental working when it comes to addressing the issue explicitly in the Bill. When the adaptation communication was published in 2020, it promised that climate mitigation would be integrated across Government Departments, including, most importantly in this case, infrastructure and the built environment. It is therefore problematic that the Bill lacks any explicit reference to flood mitigation and, indeed, references the term “flood” only once in relation to what charging authorities may spend the proposed infrastructure levy on. It is laudable that mitigating and responding to climate change has been included in the Bill as a new requirement for development plans and spatial development strategies. However, the Bill as a whole does nowhere near enough to address the specific issue of the susceptibility to flooding experienced by so many of our communities.

The risk and frequency of flooding will only increase as global temperatures rise and its effects, as hon. Members will know, can be devastating, not only in terms of its impact on people’s lives but on businesses and the economy. How can we plan, for example, to respond to the increased frequency and potency of flooding events when surface water flood hazard maps for the UK have not been improved upon since 2013? They urgently need updating. Indeed, that issue speaks to a wider concern, which is the dearth of accurate, up-to-date and publicly available data about flood prevention and risk. If accepted, new clause 3 would ensure that data, so that property owners could better plan for surface water flooding in areas at risk and, importantly, insurers could more accurately assess risk and therefore insurance premiums. There is widespread support in the sector for the amendments for that very reason.

When it comes to insurance, the introduction of a certification and accreditation system for flood prevention and mitigation improvements, which new FCA rules would ensure were taken into account in setting rates, is an entirely sensible reform that should help lower premiums. I hope the Government will consider accepting new clauses 4 and 5 on that basis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful for the debate. I thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale for highlighting the importance of the upper catchment management work, which is so necessary for mapping what will happen across other communities, and the Environment Agency’s commitment and the work it is doing in that arena.

My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich hit the nail on the head when he talked about the importance of cross-governmental working, which is clearly not at an optimum at the moment when addressing issues around flooding. While the Minister has talked through a number of steps the Government are taking, I refer him back to the 2016 national flood resilience strategy, which highlighted the importance of co-ordination across Government and of ensuring that resilience was built into the system. That is not happening at the moment. As much as policy may aspire to that, it has further to go. The amendments are therefore still relevant as the Bill does not meet the requirements of the communities that currently flood, and those that will flood in the future as we see weather patterns change and risk increase.

I am not planning to press the amendment to a vote, but I hope the Government will reflect on it, and on my amendment about drought, because this is a significant and serious issue. Right now we recognise that as we move forward we need to build in how we have sufficient water supply. That will be increasingly important. I reserve the right to bring the issue back up on Report, and to give the opportunity to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle to table her amendments too. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I beg to move amendment 110, clause 88, page 95, line 17, at end insert—

“(5) After subsection (4) insert—

‘(4A) A neighbourhood development plan which is in effect on the day on which section 88 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 comes into force may remain in effect contrary to the provisions of that section no longer than until the end of the period of five years beginning on the day on which that section comes into force.’”

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Clause 89 stand part.

New clause 35—Report about uptake of neighbourhood development plans—

“(1) Section 38A of PCPA 2004 (Meaning of “neighbourhood development plan”) is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (11C) insert—

‘(11D) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish an annual report on the uptake of neighbourhood development plans. The report must, in particular, set out—

(a) the uptake of neighbourhood development plans in less affluent neighbourhoods,

(b) the uptake of neighbourhood development plans in urban neighbourhoods, and

(c) the steps that Government are taking to increase this uptake.’”

[Matthew Pennycook]

Statutory neighbourhood plans became part of the system in 2011 when they were introduced under the Localism Act 2011 as a formal part of the development framework. The concept of neighbourhood planning is far from problem free, but we support it in principle as an important means of giving communities a greater say in where future development takes place, how it is designed and what infrastructure is provided with it.

To the extent that it enables communities better to shape development in any given area, neighbourhood planning can—although it is by no means always the case—increase public engagement, reduce the number of objections to planning applications and boost housing supply over and above local authority targets. As the Minister noted previously, neighbourhood plans can also provide communities with an important tool to mitigate the impact of acute housing pressures in their localities—for example, on the issue of excessive rates of second-home ownership and the marked growth of short-term and holiday lets that we have considered a number of times.

Clause 88 is a straightforward one in that it merely confirms the statutory role of neighbourhood planning and sets out a list of the policies and requirements that a neighbourhood plan may include. We welcome that confirmation and clarification, as well as the sensible new requirement set out in proposed new subsection (2B) for the qualifying body to design its neighbourhood plan, so far as it considers it appropriate, in such a way that it contributes to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change.

I wish to raise two specific issues with the Minister, one that relates directly to the implications of the clause for existing neighbourhood plans and another that relates to the future of neighbourhood planning more widely. The first issue concerns potential conflict between a neighbourhood plan and a national development management policy. As the Minister would expect given the arguments we have set out in previous debates, we take issue with proposed new subsection (2C)(b) under clause 88, which stipulates that a neighbourhood plan cannot be inconsistent with any NDMP. However, given that I have set out the Opposition’s reasoning on that issue in considerable detail in relation to both clause 83 and schedule 7, and proposed new paragraphs 15(c) and 15(ca), I do not intend—the Minister will be relieved to hear—to rehearse our arguments once again in the specific context of neighbourhood plans. I do want to know what will happen in the case of any one of the 1,061 neighbourhood plans, which have already been approved via referendum, that turn out not to be consistent with an NDMP published in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Mr Pennycook, are you going to continue to live in hope?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will continue to live in hope—we may get there one day. I am grateful for the Minister’s response; I noted carefully what he said about transitional arrangements, and I think I understood it. However, if he will allow me, I will perhaps at come back to him a later date to seek further clarification on precisely how an existing approved neighbourhood plan could be brought into line with future NDMPs, because there remains a slight concern about the implications.

On take-up, I am disappointed, as the Minister would expect. He will not accept what is, as I said, not a particularly onerous requirement to produce an annual report that sets out progress towards the objective. However, I hear what he said about pilots, and I am very interested to see the work that they produce. The key point, which I think he accepts, is that neighbourhood priority statements for less affluent and complex urban environments cannot be the only means of driving uptake. To drive uptake, we must do much more in a variety of areas. However, he has partly reassured me, and on that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 88 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 89 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 90

Requirement to assist with certain plan making

[Matthew Pennycook]

I beg to move amendment 104, in clause 90, page 96, line 15, leave out “public”.

This amendment, together with Amendments 105 to 108, would enable plan making authorities to require a prescribed private body to assist the authority in relation to the preparation or revision of a relevant plan by the authority.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 105, in clause 90, page 96, line 18, leave out “public”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 104.

Amendment 106, in clause 90, page 96, line 23, leave out “public”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 104.

Amendment 107, in clause 90, page 97, line 4, leave out “public”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 104.

Amendment 108, in clause 90, page 97, line 5, leave out

“and certain of whose functions are of a public nature”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 104.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clause 90 inserts new section 39A into the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, setting out a requirement on specific bodies to assist in the plan-making and plan-revising process. The explanatory notes to the Bill make clear that the clause is intended to support the more effective gathering of the information required for local planning authorities that produce local, strategic, supplementary and other forms of plans.

It appears to us that the clause is the Government’s answer to the question of how to sustain engagement and co-operation between plan-making authorities and relevant bodies after the removal of the duty to co-operate, which is an issue that we debated in relation to schedule 7. However, it is not at all clear how the clause interacts with the Government’s stated intention to introduce a “more flexible alignment test” in planning policy. I would be grateful—again, we have touched on the issue—if the Minister could set out in more detail precisely how the clause and that forthcoming alignment test will ensure that there is sufficient engagement and input in the plan-making process on the part of those bodies that are important contributors to the process of delivering infrastructure at local or strategic levels.

That question aside, we welcome the new duties that the clause places on infrastructure providers to engage with the production of local plans, which is an entirely sensible measure. However, we question why the prescribed bodies referred to in the clause are confined to those that are public. If one considers even for a moment which types of body it might be useful and necessary for a plan-making body to engage in terms of the information required for the production of a plan, it quickly becomes apparent that they would include private infrastructure providers—for example, private utility companies.

Amendments 104 and 105 to 108 would revise clause 90 in a way that would enable plan-making authorities to require prescribed private bodies to assist in the plan-making and plan-revising process. They achieve this simply by clarifying that prescribed bodies need not be public in terms of their ownership or have functions that are entirely of a public nature. The Minister will no doubt surprise me with the ingenuity of his reasoning as to why the amendment is unnecessary, but I cannot imagine what reason the Government have to oppose it. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Tim Farron]

This is a really useful amendment, and I hope that the Minister takes it seriously. Utility companies have been mentioned already. When I think of Openreach, or United Utilities, a water company in my part of the world, I think about the impact that these businesses have on our communities. The infrastructure that they oversee and are responsible for is fundamental to the wellbeing of those communities. For example, we have seen sewage on the streets in places such as Staveley and Burneside, and the answer from United Utilities is, “Put it a bid, and we’ll look at it in our next-but-one funding round.” Surely communities ought to have the ability to say to United Utilities or other water companies, or to broadband providers and other such bodies, that their access to the greater public realm and their almost monopoly position in the market mean they have a responsibility to those communities, which will be overseen by those in local authorities who have the right to make these decisions.

It is right that private bodies should be included; it should be specified in the clause. The amendment would help communities like mine to bring in hugely powerful and very wealthy outfits such as Openreach and United Utilities, so that they perform the role they should perform—to provide for every part of our community—and do not take advantage of their power and strength over the relative weakness of local authorities.

[Mr Jones]

As you have probably gathered during Committee sittings, Mr Paisley, I am not necessarily one for surprises, especially on such a hot and sunny day.

The Government support giving local authorities the full range of powers necessary to prepare robust plans. I can offer reassurance that that is our intention. The power as drafted will apply to those private sector bodies that authorities are likely to need to involve in plan making. Clause 90(6) sets parameters for which bodies can be prescribed. It requires them to have functions “of a public nature.” That might, for example, include utilities companies, which are privately owned but serve an important public function and should be proactively involved in the plan-making process. The clause does not exclude relevant private bodies where they are involved in public provision, but the amendments potentially extend the requirement to private landlords, voluntary groups and unrelated businesses, which would be disproportionate where those bodies do not have public functions that are likely to be relevant to plan making.

On alignment policy, the policy will require local planning authorities to engage with neighbouring authorities and bodies involved in their area. That will be covered in the future national planning policy framework. The power places the obligation on the bodies involved. I hope that with those reassurances the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

[Matthew Pennycook]

To surprise the Minister—it is the other way round—I am entirely reassured by his response. The language in the clause is about allowing for private infrastructure companies to be involved in the plan-making process in terms of the provision of information. That is what I took from what he said. I appreciate what the Minister said about the potential disproportionate impact from drawing in other types of bodies; that was not the intention. On that basis, I am content and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Rachael Maskell]

I beg to move amendment 135, in clause 90, page 96, line 30, at end insert—

“(3A) Where regulations under this section make requirements of a local authority that is failing to deliver a local plan in a timely way, the plan-making authority must consult the local community on the contents of the relevant plan.”.

This amendment would require, in the event of a local authority failing to deliver a local plan in a timely way, those taking over the process to consult with the community.

I will not labour the point because we have already had extensive discussions about the need to break the deadlock in the planning system. York is a very live example of that need: the local plan is going through a very painful process and we are absolutely determined to see the plan amended rather than being imposed. To break the deadlock and to be able to move forward, it is right that communities get a greater say. I do not plan to push the amendment to a vote today, but I trust that the Minister is hearing the importance of being able to engage with communities in order to get the right outcomes in the planning system, particularly where there is deadlock and we are on the naughty step, or at the special measures stage of the process.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Seventeenth sitting)

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Committee Debate: 17th sitting
Tuesday 19th July 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Jones]

Clause 96 is a placeholder clause. The Government’s intention is to replace it with substantive provisions later in the Bill’s passage.

New development is commonly met with hesitance from local residents—it is often perceived as a threat to the beauty of the area or as an unwanted disruption—usually because residents see it as imposed upon them and bearing little relationship to the character of the area. Fundamentally, people are more likely to support development that they feel they can control.

Street votes will provide a new way of consenting to development that will enable residents to come together and bring forward the development they want to see on their streets. A group of residents will be able to develop proposals to extend or replace properties on their street. They will have the option either to provide a detailed development specification, or to prepare a design code that any development they permit must comply with. Development proposals put forward by residents will be independently examined against a set of development and design rules set out in legislation to ensure that they meet high design standards and do not lead to adverse impacts on the local environment and the wider community. Planning permission will be granted only when an examining body is satisfied that the proposal has met these and other statutory requirements, and when the proposal is endorsed by a large majority of residents at referendum.

The use of street votes will be restricted in sensitive locations, such as the green belt. Street votes will encourage residents to consider the potential for new development on their streets. Where residents choose to take up the opportunity, street votes will help to deliver new or more spacious homes in places where they are most needed and in a way that is supported by the people who are most affected by that development. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

As the Minister has made clear, clause 96 is a placeholder clause. All it specifies is that the Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for a system that permits residents of a street to propose development on it and to determine, by means of a vote, whether that form of development is given planning permission. At the outset, I have to put on the record that we are instinctively uncomfortable with placeholder clauses of this kind. They are an implicit admission that a piece of legislation is incomplete and that policy in a given area has not been finalised. The absence of any detail about what substantive provisions might replace such placeholder clauses in future is an impediment to effective legislative scrutiny.

Furthermore, the increased use of placeholder clauses in recent legislation, as well as the general upward trend in the number of amendments that add new policies to a Bill part way through its passage or following completion, should be a cause of concern to any hon. Member who values good lawmaking. Nor are we satisfied with the reassurances set out in the explanatory notes to the Bill that any new system introduced by means of the clause will receive appropriate scrutiny—we are all familiar with the limitations of an affirmative procedure in that respect. We therefore seek from the Minister some sense—further to what he has just said—of what the new system will look like, how it will operate in practice and what its wider implications might be.

The basic concept of street votes is easy to grasp. We certainly appreciate that, at least in theory, democratically approved codes that permit development, or the extension or redevelopment of all the properties on any given street, may be a way to facilitate the gentle densification of inner suburbs—an outcome that would undoubtedly have a range of benefits, not least boosting productivity. The issue is whether and how such a system would work in practice. My strong suspicion is that any new street votes system introduced will likely be something of a damp squib and, ultimately, we will not see any significant uptake, which is largely why I struggle to get too worked up about the prospect of its introduction.

However, given the powers that the Government are seeking for themselves by means of the clause, we do need some answers from the Minister, and I ask that he provides them on six distinct areas. First, we deserve to know why the Government believe that an entirely new system for the hyper-local devolution of planning powers is required or, to put it another way, what problem are the clause and the substantive provisions to follow attempting to address.

I ask because the Minister will know that the Localism Act 2011 gives neighbourhood forums the power to create and vote on neighbourhood development orders. Such orders grant planning permission for specific types of development in a particular area following a referendum, thus enabling greater control over development, densification and design. That is essentially the same principle that lies behind the street votes concept. As such, is it not simply the case that for all the hype around the clause, it does little more than adjust the electorate for neighbourhood development orders from the neighbourhood level to the street? If that is the case, should we view the intention to introduce a new street votes system as an admission that NDOs have failed to achieve the objectives that the Government set for them, and what makes the Government think that street votes will be any more successful as an initiative?

Secondly, we should be told why the Government believe that a street is the appropriate spatial area for the powers. The Minister mentioned that it might give residents a greater sense of control but, further to the question I just put to him on neighbourhood development orders, is the choice of a street as the appropriate spatial area related to evidence that the size of the electorate involved in approving NDOs is the reason that initiative has not been taken up more extensively? Do the Government have any reason to think that street-level democratically approved codes will be utilised more extensively than NDOs?

Thirdly, we need to know what the Government believe the impact of street votes will be on housing supply and affordability. It stands to reason that successful street votes are likely to lead to substantial value uplifts for those properties that use the planning permission secured as a result. If a street votes to permit mansard roof storeys to be added to existing terraces, the homeowners who take advantage of that will increase the space within, and value of, their properties. However, I struggle to see how the benefit that those homeowners will gain from the new system will be shared in any way by those who do not already own their own home.

Street votes are unlikely to contribute much, if anything, to new housing supply. In practice, how many residents are likely to organise themselves to secure new powers to provide for infill development on their street? I suggest not very much. If, as seems more likely, street votes are largely used to add space and value to existing properties, the system could end up making it harder for first-time buyers to get on the housing ladder. Can the Minister therefore tell us whether the Department has modelled the likely impact of a street votes system on housing supply and affordability, and whether it is likely to exacerbate existing housing inequality? If not, why not, and will they do so before we get to Report and Third Reading?

Fourthly, local planning authorities deserve an indication of how the Department will assist them financially to carry out the new demands that will be placed on them as a result of the introduction of a new street votes system. We have already debated in previous clauses the parlous state of local planning authorities when it comes to capacity and resources. We have considered the new burdens placed on them as a result of numerous measures included in the Bill. If a street votes system is introduced, the Government must ensure that councils are given sufficient resources to oversee it.

We cannot have a situation, as we do at present with neighbourhood plans, where the cost of sending a plan to referendum nearly always outstrips the amount that local authorities can claim from central Government to hold them. The Government must also ensure that we do not replicate the problems experienced in the uptake of neighbourhood plans, with only affluent communities able to take advantage of them. What resourcing can local authorities expect to run a new street votes system? What steps will the Government take to ensure that less affluent communities are able to take advantage of it?

Fifthly, given the concerns expressed that street votes could prove to be an extremely divisive measure to relations between neighbours on a street, we deserve some sense of how the process might work. Will there be a minimum number of residents in any given street required to bring forward proposals to extend or redevelop properties on it, or can a single resident do so? If it is the case that a single resident can submit a proposal, what safeguards are in place to ensure that local authorities do not constantly have to put different proposals to a referendum of residents on a street?

Surely a vote should not pass if a significant minority of residents on a street are opposed to it. I think the Minister mentioned a large majority, but what does that mean? What threshold will apply to a street referendum? Are the Government minded to adopt the recommendation, made by Create Streets, that it be at least two thirds of residents on the electoral register, or Policy Exchange’s suggestion of at least 60% of votes cast? We all know that nothing gets as bitter as a dispute between neighbours, so I would like the Minister to respond to my questions and tell the Committee that the Government’s thinking when it comes to the process by which planning permission via this new system will be secured.

Finally, we need to know how a new street votes system will interact with local development plans and the Government’s wider housing and planning policy objectives. It is an obvious question, but could the Minister confirm that any street votes proposal will have to be in conformity with a local development plan in order to proceed to a vote? I think he mentioned that the new proposals must be examined: does that mean they need to be compliant with a local development plan in order to move to a vote?

How will a street votes system work in an area with a neighbourhood development order already in place, or a design code adopted as part of it? Again, will any proposals need to be found to be in accordance with an existing NDO or design code before it can go forward? Will the new provisions that the Bill puts in place for neighbourhood plans to ensure that they consider climate change mitigation and adaptation apply to street vote proposals, and will similar safeguards be put in place as those that clause 89 provides for in relation to neighbourhood plans, ensuring that street votes cannot be used to block development from taking place?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

As the Minister outlined, clause 97 of the Bill inserts new sections into the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to provide for two new routes to apply for planning permission in respect of the development of Crown land in England—that is, land in which there is a Crown or Duchy interest. In the case of either route, the provisions in the clause will allow the appropriate authorities to apply for planning permission direct to the Secretary of State, rather than being subject to the same requirements and the same application processes as any other person undertaking development.

In such circumstances, the Secretary of State must notify the local planning authority whether or not they intend to decide the application. If they opt to determine it themselves, they can approve it conditionally or unconditionally or refuse it. They have to consult the local planning authority to which the application would otherwise have been made, but the authority would have no right to veto it.

The policy paper accompanying the Bill portrays the clause as a means simply to

“provide a faster and more effective route for urgent and nationally important Crown development”,

but we are concerned that, in practice, its effect is likely to be far less benign. Specifically, we are concerned about the implications of introducing such an open-ended measure, in terms of both removing appropriate and necessary limits on the exercise of Executive power and denying communities a chance to express views about development in their area and to signal their consent or opposition.

We appreciate fully that there are emergency situations where it is necessary to expedite the planning application process to facilitate essential development, and the construction of the seven Nightingale hospitals during the pandemic to provide critical and step-down care for patients is probably the best recent example—the process exists by which they could come forward, and they did. However, the broad scope of the provisions in the clause, which do not provide for any limit on the type of development that can be approved directly by the Secretary of State or in what circumstances, means that it could be used for a much wider range of proposals.

Let us take the system of large-scale accommodation centres that the Government have announced they intend to establish to house people seeking asylum while they await a decision on their claim. The system includes the “new, bespoke, reception centre” the Government plan to open on an ex-RAF base in Linton-on-Ouse in North Yorkshire for up to 1,500 people—a development that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) has raised serious concerns about on a number of occasions.

The Committee will know that the Government have variously opened, or signalled their intention to open, centres accommodating—I use the term “accommodating” very loosely—asylum seekers in Penally in Pembrokeshire, Napier in Folkestone, Barton Stacey in Hampshire and in the shadow of Yarl’s Wood in Bedfordshire. All the sites were either on, or proposed for construction on, Crown land. All have been subject to controversy and, in the case of Penally and Napier, legal challenge—not least because of the lack of consultation with local communities in the areas where they have been, or were proposed to be, situated.

[Rachael Maskell]

I have very much been involved with the community around Linton-on-Ouse. The fact that there has not been any proper consultation on transportation issues or on the impact on the local community has caused real concern that the Government will just press ahead with these developments without considering those issues. Does my hon. Friend agree that a more thorough, thoughtful process needs to be put in place? Also, should we really be offering refugees this type of accommodation? They are clearly in a desperate situation and need community to be wrapped around them, not to be isolated away from people and services.

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend gets to the heart of the matter. Our concern is that the powers provided for by the clause will facilitate precisely what she suggests: the driving through of centres such as the one in Linton-on-Ouse, regardless of their impact on the people placed in them or the local communities in which they are situated.

My understanding—the Minister is welcome to correct me—is that in establishing Penally and Napier, the Government sought to rely on schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, which relates to permitted development rights. In the case of Napier, the Home Secretary granted herself permission to extend the life of the facility for a further five years, without any public consultation, by using a special development order provided for by delegated legislation. In a judgment handed down on 24 June 2022, the High Court ruled that decision unlawful.

Why have I explained that history at length? Because it is difficult to be aware of that history and not assume that the powers in clause 97 are being introduced to provide a more definitive way of securing planning consent for development on Crown land, such as for asylum centres, irrespective of the harm that such centres might cause for those placed in them, or their impact on local communities, who under the clause will be denied any right to influence a decision taken by the Secretary of State without public consultation.

I listened carefully to the Minister, who was quite clear that the powers will be used only in “moments of crisis” and in “exceptional circumstances” when there is a clear and urgent need to do so in the wider public interest. The Minister can correct me, but I see nothing in the Bill defining “exceptional circumstances”, “issues of national importance” or a “clear and urgent need”. Labour feels strongly that it is essential to insert appropriate safeguards into the clause to ensure that there are limits to the use of these powers and that minimum requirements are in place to secure some measure of consent from affected local communities. Without a firm commitment that such safeguards will be introduced at a later stage, we believe that the clause needs to be removed from the Bill. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Tim Farron]

I agree that the clause is too much of a blank cheque for the Government. The Minister said in support of the clause that the powers are for emergency use only, but if that is the case, he needs to set out far more specifically the terms for their deployment.

Members have spoken about asylum centres and the powers being a potential route to securing such sites. My concern is for those who are seeking asylum and going through that process. Having visited Napier barracks, I can tell the Committee that those who work there are good people who do their best to provide for the people staying there, many of whom have suffered huge trauma as a result of unimaginable experiences that we have never been through ourselves. There is no doubt, however, that that kind of camp-style site is no place for people who have escaped dreadful things and sought asylum. They are dealing with trauma and mental health issues, and have experienced appalling things. We are seeking to help them—I hope, given that the majority of people who make claims are genuine refugees and will, in time, be given the right to settle here—but how do these places help them to immerse and integrate themselves into society? That is just an aside on one of the potential uses of the clause and why it is particularly dangerous for those people, who are the most vulnerable in our society.

If we care about democracy—we are talking about levelling up and giving communities power—the Bill should not contain such an open-ended clause that seeks to undermine that power. I can understand why a Government would need emergency powers in some circumstances, but they should specify them, because otherwise the clause looks like overreach.

--- Later in debate ---

Minor variations in planning permission

[Matthew Pennycook]

I beg to move amendment 114, in clause 98, page 114, line 21, leave out lines 21 to 28.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 115, in clause 98, page 115, line 20, at end insert—

“(12A) In relation to an application for planning permission that is made to, or is to be determined by, the Mayor of London, a reference in this section to the local planning authority is to be read as a reference to the Mayor of London.”

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clause 98 is relatively straightforward, in that it simply makes provision concerning minor variations to planning permission, allowing for greater flexibility to make non-substantial changes that would not be possible at present without the submission of multiple applications by various different routes. We broadly welcome it: the change it will give effect to is long overdue, and it will simplify arrangements currently in place that were only ever intended as a short-term holding position. However, we believe that amendments 114 and 115 are necessary to ensure that the clause works as intended by resolving two issues of concern.

First, current arrangements ensure that if a variation to planning permission is sought, whether prior to completion or post completion, the circumstances of the day are taken into account when determining the section 73 application. That includes the policies in place at the time and any other material considerations. As drafted, clause 98(7) suggests to us that the circumstances at the time of the original grant of permission would be the framework for determining applications in future. We are concerned that this would mean, for example, that if a new local plan had been adopted since the original permission, that plan—which might, for example, include more stretching environmental standards—could not be applied in deciding whether or not to grant the section 73 application.

Similarly, many section 73 applications relate to the number of residential units or to floor space. As drafted, we are concerned that the decision maker would not be able to revisit the viability information or amount of affordable housing provided by the scheme, potentially creating a significant loophole that enables the avoidance of key policy requirements. We believe local planning authorities should be able to consider up-to-date planning policy and/or guidance when determining such applications to guard against adverse consequences, such as the prevention of increases in affordable housing or the application of more ambitious sustainability policies. Amendment 114 therefore proposes the removal of subsection (7) from the clause.

The second issue of concern relates to those powers devolved to the Mayor of London concerning strategic planning applications. As the Minister knows, the Mayor has powers to become the decision maker for strategic planning applications subject to certain provisions. However, we are concerned that the Bill as drafted only provides for the Secretary of State’s call-in powers, leaving a vacuum in relation to the mayoral powers. Amendment 115 therefore inserts new language after clause 98(12) to ensure that the powers of the Mayor of London to call in applications in accordance with the terms of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 are taken into account. I hope the Minister will consider accepting both amendments.

[Mr Jones]

First, I want to thank the hon. Gentleman for his proposal in amendment 114, which seeks to remove subsection (7) of proposed new section 73B under clause 98. The effect of the amendment would be to broaden the scope of planning assessment and allow local planning authorities to reconsider the principle of development established under the existing permission to which the variation is sought under proposed new section 73B.

The purpose of the reform is to provide a clearer process for enabling sensible and practical changes to be made to planning permissions that are not possible under the existing framework without the submission of multiple applications under different routes. I am sure we can agree about the importance of ensuring that the planning system is flexible, responsive and proportionate to changes of circumstances to facilitate the delivery of appropriate development.

We are resisting the amendment because it goes against the overarching objective of allowing permitted schemes to evolve where changes are required without having to start the planning application process again. If we were to agree to the amendment, local planning authorities would be empowered to look again at the principle of development for the proposal and refuse it, even though the application may only be for a minor variation. That would undermine the new process and make it more difficult for developers to manage minor change through the planning system.

The ability to amend an existing grant of planning permission is an important flexibility afforded by the planning system. Clause 98 seeks to improve the current framework for varying a planning permission by providing a clearer, more certain and proportionate process for planning authorities, communities and applicants.

Post-permission changes to respond to, among other things, specific design matters and external factors is a common and critical part of the development process. Enabling flexibility for minor changes to development can support delivery in changing circumstances. In the majority of cases it is not proportionate or reasonable to require a new planning application or revisit the principle of development.

Under clause 98, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich can be assured that the new power has been drafted to ensure that planning permission under the new power will be permitted only where the local planning authority is satisfied that its effect will not be substantially different from that of the existing permission. Local planning authorities have the power to determine whether changes would constitute a substantial difference from the existing permission on a case-by-case basis. That allows for consideration of local and development-specific context.

The “substantially different” test would be assessed against the existing planning permission to ensure that the cumulative impacts of changes to a permission are acceptable in planning terms. In addition to consideration of the existing permission, the planning merits of the proposed change may include consideration of any previous changes made to the existing permission.

I can also assure the hon. Gentleman that the process for applications made under proposed new section 73B will be set out in secondary legislation. We will consult on the details of publicity and consultation for the applications following the passage of the Bill, but I want to emphasise that we will seek to engage widely with the sector to ensure that the new route works. I therefore hope that the hon. Member will withdraw amendment 114.

Amendment 115 would clarify that section 73B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 applies to the Mayor of London, in his capacity as local planning authority, when determining applications of potential strategic importance. It is similar to the provision under subsection (12) of that Act for the Secretary of State when he is determining applications under that section.

Although I agree with the principle behind the amendment, it is more appropriately addressed by a consequential amendment to section 2A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. That Act provides that if the Mayor is determining applications of potential strategic importance, he is the local planning authority, and the references to local planning authorities in new section 73B should apply to him.

It is likely that a number of consequential technical amendments will need to be made to provisions in the Town and Country Planning Act as a result of the introduction of section 73 provisions to vary permissions. We propose to use the powers set out in clause 191 to do that. This specific example is one such amendment that we could consider. In view of my explanation, I respectfully ask the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Amendment 114 raises an extremely technical matter. I listened carefully to the Minister and I will revisit what he said. I hope he understood that I mean that planning applications must evolve when changes are required. The amendment does not seek to ensure that the principle of development is ever revisited, just that when minor variations are applied for, that updated planning policy and guidance are taken into account. We think that is important. I will go away and study carefully what he said.

On amendment 115, I am grateful for the clarification about where these matters might best be dealt with. I am grateful that the Minister will go away and give that further consideration. We think that the Mayor’s powers need to be formally taken into account when making the changes that the clause makes. On that basis, I am happy not to press either amendment, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Jones]

On the basis of the debate on amendments 114 and 115, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 98 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gareth Johnson.)

Draft Building Safety (Leaseholder Protections) (Information etc.) (England) Regulations 2022

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2022 General Committees

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Murray.

As the Minister has outlined, sections 116 to 125 of, and schedule 8 to, the Building Safety Act make provision in relation to remediation of certain defects in buildings and, importantly, include protections from liability for leaseholders in specific circumstances. The Minister knows that the Opposition argued trenchantly throughout the passage of the Bill for all blameless leaseholders facing potential costs to fix historical cladding and non-cladding defects to be fully protected irrespective of circumstance. We still firmly believe that that is the only just response to the building safety crisis.

Although they fall short of what we had hoped to secure, the leaseholder protections in the Act are none the less significant. The regulations before us detail how leaseholders will secure those protections. It is therefore essential that they are approved today, and we have no intention of opposing this statutory instrument. However, I must put five questions to the Minister about the regulations, and I hope he will respond in detail—if not in Committee, then in writing to me over the coming days.

The first is a procedural question relating to the date that the Building Safety Act came into force. The Minister will be aware that the main statutory provisions in the regulations came into force with the Act itself on 28 June 2022. However, in practice, those provisions cannot operate until the regulations before us are approved. My question is therefore: why was the Act brought into force on 28 June before the regulations were ready? That is a procedural question, but it is important none the less because this has caused significant confusion among leaseholders living in buildings with extensive historical non-cladding defects, including a great many in my own constituency, who look to the Act as their only means of escaping financial ruin, but who have spent recent weeks in a state of agitation because the leaseholder protection provisions were unusable.

My second question relates to enfranchised buildings. As the Minister knows, during consideration of Lords amendments we pressed the Government to amend the Bill to ensure that the service charge protections set out in schedule 8 applied clearly to enfranchised buildings and buildings where the right to manage has been exercised. The Government refused to accept the amendments, but the former Minister, the right hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), did commit the Government to a consultation to explore

“how best leaseholders in collectively enfranchised and commonhold buildings and other special cases can be protected from the costs associated with historical building safety defects.”—[Official Report, 20 April 2022; Vol. 712, c. 186.]

My question is simple: where is the promised consultation, and how much longer will leaseholders in such buildings have to wait to learn whether the Government believe that further measures are appropriate to address their plight?

My third question relates to the point in time at which the leaseholder protections that these regulations provide for kick in. It is clear from the guidance that the Department has published that it takes the view that the protections are retrospective and that, as a consequence, any service charge demand for the purpose of paying for the remediation of historical non-cladding defects made but not paid before 28 June is now invalid. However, that is far from the most obvious reading of the Act itself.

The relevant Cabinet Office guidance makes it clear that we cannot implement retrospective law unless the Attorney General and Solicitor General have both approved it. So my question is whether the Department secured the appropriate memoranda from the Law Officers providing for such approval. If not, why is the Department so confident that qualifying leaseholders issued with a service charge demand before 28 June are protected?

My fourth question relates to what advice the Government are giving to leaseholders who face demands for payment right now. The Government are advising leaseholders not to pay invoices relating to relevant historical remediation costs until building owners have fulfilled a series of transparency and financial reporting requirements. Specifically, the guidance issued by the Department makes it clear that landlords can charge qualifying leaseholders only for the cost of fixing historical non-cladding defects if, first, they have sent all leaseholders in the building a formal legal certificate to that effect and, secondly, that they can demonstrate that the costs do not relate to works covered by the Act. Yet as we know—I have live cases of this in my own constituency—landlords and managing agents are making demands for payment without having issued such legal certificates or demonstrated as much.

The guidance implies that any landlord or agent who seeks to enforce a wrongly issued invoice could be committing a criminal offence, but what steps will the Government take to ensure that leaseholders can enforce these rights? In practice, will it be left entirely to leaseholders to challenge the payability of such invoices at the first tier tribunal, with all the barriers that that involves? Or will the Government task the recovery strategy unit with taking up such cases, and if so, how do leaseholders or hon. Members refer individual cases to that unit?

Lastly, I have a question about the robustness of the regulations before us. The Minister will know that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments in its recent ninth report of this 2022-23 Session drew the special attention of both Houses to these regulations on the grounds that

“they are defectively drafted in four respects and that there is doubt as to whether they are intra vires in one respect.”

What assurances can the Minister provide that the regulations, which we will shortly approve, are sufficiently watertight to protect leaseholders as the Act intends?

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 14th July 2022 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drink is permitted during sittings of this Committee, except for the water provided. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members emailed their speaking notes to [e-mail].

Clause 84

National development management policies: meaning

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 87, in clause 84, page 92, line 9, leave out lines 9 to 16 and insert—

“(2) Before designating a policy as a national development management policy for the purposes of this Act the Secretary of State must carry out an appraisal of the sustainability of that policy.

(3) A policy may be designated as a national development management policy for the purposes of this Act only if the consultation and publicity requirements set out in clause 38ZB, and the parliamentary requirements set out in clause 38ZC, have been complied with in relation to it, and—

(a) the consideration period for the policy has expired without the House of Commons resolving during that period that the statement should not be proceeded with, or

(b) the policy has been approved by resolution of the House of Commons—

(i) after being laid before Parliament under section 38ZC, and

(ii) before the end of the consideration period.

(4) In subsection (3) ‘the consideration period’, in relation to a policy, means the period of 21 sitting days beginning with the first sitting day after the day on which the statement is laid before Parliament under section 38ZC, and here ‘sitting day’ means a day on which the House of Commons sits.

(5) A policy may not be designated a national development management policy unless—

(a) it contains explanations of the reasons for the policy, and

(b) in particular, includes an explanation of how the policy set out takes account of Government policy relating to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change.

(6) The Secretary of State must arrange for the publication of a national policy statement.

38ZB Consultation and publicity

(1) This section sets out the consultation and publicity requirements referred to in sections 38ZA(3) and 38ZD(7).

(2) The Secretary of State must carry out such consultation, and arrange for such publicity, as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate in relation to the proposal. This is subject to subsections (4) and (5).

(3) In this section ‘the proposal’ means—

(a) the policy that the Secretary of State proposes to designate as a national development management policy for the purposes of this Act or

(b) (as the case may be) the proposed amendment (see section 38ZD).

(4) The Secretary of State must consult such persons, and such descriptions of persons, as may be prescribed.

(5) If the policy set out in the proposal identifies one or more locations as suitable (or potentially suitable) for a specified description of development, the Secretary of State must ensure that appropriate steps are taken to publicise the proposal.

(6) The Secretary of State must have regard to the responses to the consultation and publicity in deciding whether to proceed with the proposal.

38ZC Parliamentary requirements

(1) This section sets out the parliamentary requirements referred to in sections 38ZA(3) and 38ZD(7).

(2) The Secretary of State must lay the proposal before Parliament.

(3) In this section ‘the proposal’ means—

(a) the policy that the Secretary of State proposes to designate as a national development management policy for the purposes of this Act or

(b) (as the case may be) the proposed amendment (see section 38ZD).

(4) Subsection (5) applies if, during the relevant period—

(a) either House of Parliament makes a resolution with regard to the proposal, or

(b) a committee of either House of Parliament makes recommendations with regard to the proposal.

(5) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a statement setting out the Secretary of State's response to the resolution or recommendations.

(6) The relevant period is the period specified by the Secretary of State in relation to the proposal.

(7) The Secretary of State must specify the relevant period in relation to the proposal on or before the day on which the proposal is laid before Parliament under subsection (2).

(8) After the end of the relevant period, but not before the Secretary of State complies with subsection (5) if it applies, the Secretary of State must lay the proposal before Parliament.

38ZD Review of national development management policies

(1) The Secretary of State must review a national development management policy whenever the Secretary of State thinks it appropriate to do so.

(2) A review may relate to all or part of a national development management policy.

(3) In deciding when to review a national development management policy the Secretary of State must consider whether—

(a) since the time when the policy was first published or (if later) last reviewed, there has been a significant change in any circumstances on the basis of which any of the policy set out in the statement was decided,

(b) the change was not anticipated at that time, and

(c) if the change had been anticipated at that time, any of the policy set out would have been materially different.

(4) In deciding when to review part of a national development management policy (‘the relevant part’) the Secretary of State must consider whether—

(a) since the time when the relevant part was first published or (if later) last reviewed, there has been a significant change in any circumstances on the basis of which any of the policy set out in the relevant part was decided,

(b) the change was not anticipated at that time, and

(c) if the change had been anticipated at that time, any of the policy set out in the relevant part would have been materially different.

(5) After completing a review of all or part of a national development management policy the Secretary of State must do one of the following—

(a) amend the policy;

(b) withdraw the policy's designation as a national development management policy;

(c) leave the policy as it is.

(6) Before amending a national development management policy the Secretary of State must carry out an appraisal of the sustainability of the policy set out in the proposed amendment.

(7) The Secretary of State may amend a national development management policy only if the consultation and publicity requirements set out in section 38ZB, and the parliamentary requirements set out in section 38ZC, have been complied with in relation to the proposed amendment, and—

(a) the consideration period for the amendment has expired without the House of Commons resolving during that period that the amendment should not be proceeded with, or

(b) the amendment has been approved by resolution of the House of Commons—

(i) after being laid before Parliament under section 38ZA, and

(ii) before the end of the consideration period.

(8) In subsection (7) ‘the consideration period’, in relation to an amendment, means the period of 21 sitting days beginning with the first sitting day after the day on which the amendment is laid before Parliament, and here ‘sitting day’ means a day on which the House of Commons sits.

(9) If the Secretary of State amends a national development management policy, the Secretary of State must—

(a) arrange for the amendment, or the policy as amended, to be published, and

(b) lay the amendment, or the policy as amended, before Parliament.”

This amendment stipulates the 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 based on processes set out in the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) for designating National Policy Statements.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. We had an extensive debate on Tuesday about the powers provided by clause 83 and the fact that they represent, in our view, an unacceptable centralisation of development management policy and a downgrading of the status and remit of local planning. Clause 84 is important, and the provisions in it relate directly to the previous debate, because it sets out what constitutes a national development management policy and provides the statutory basis for such policies and their operation.

As hon Members will note, the clause provides an extremely broad definition of what a national development management policy is, with proposed new subsection 38ZA(1) clarifying that an NDMP can be anything relating to development or use of land in England that the Secretary of State, by direction, designates as such a policy. Proposed new subsection 38ZA(2) provides for powers that allow the Secretary of State to modify or revoke a national development management policy, and proposed new subsection 38ZA(3) makes it clear that they have to consult about any modification or revocation only if they believe it is appropriate to do so. Given the fact that, as we spent a lengthy period of time considering in the last sitting, it is the Government’s intention that national development management policies will override local development plans in the event of any conflict between the two, we are strongly of the view that the powers clause 84 provides the Secretary of State with are unacceptably broad.

I ask Government Members to look up from their digital devices for a moment and to consider precisely what the Government are proposing here and the future implications of that for their constituencies and the individual communities they represent. These powers would allow a future Minister, of whatever political allegiance, to develop an NDMP that could encompass literally any policy designated by them as relating to development or use of land in England; to determine not to consult on the development of that policy or its modification if they saw fit; and then to use that policy to overrule any local or neighbourhood plan in conflict with it at the stroke of a pen. No one who values localism and the role of effective local and neighbourhood plans in enabling communities to develop a shared vision for their area should feel comfortable with the provisions in the clause.

Amendment 87 simply seeks to impose a degree of transparency and accountability when it comes to the use of the powers, by clarifying the process by which the Secretary of State must designate and review a national development management policy, stipulating, first, that it must include minimum public consultation requirements, just as there are intensive consultation requirements for local plan policies, and secondly, that it must be subject to the same level of parliamentary scrutiny as is currently the case for designating national policy statements, as set out in the Planning Act 2008. It cannot be right that national policies that will have a far greater impact on local communities than any existing national policy statement and that the Government intend will trump local development plans in the event of a conflict can be developed without any public consultation or parliamentary approval process.

If the clause is left unamended, the danger is twofold. First, we fear that the use of the powers will be viewed by the public as yet another means of disempowering communities and hoarding more control at the centre, with all the implications that has for public engagement in a planning system that already suffers from low levels of trust and confidence, with people feeling that their concerns are overlooked and their interests subordinated to other priorities.

Secondly, without a minimum of public consultation or parliamentary oversight in designing NDMPs the Government are far more likely to get it wrong, because they will be developing and designating national policy without appropriate input from communities and their representatives about how the needs and aspirations of their areas are best served. If the Government are determined to force through a suite of NDMPs covering the broad range of policies that, to repeat the test set out in the policy paper, “apply in most areas” and to render local development plans subordinate to them in the event of a conflict, the least they can concede is that the Secretary of State be directed to consult with institutions, authorities and other bodies before making, revoking or modifying NDMPs—not just the initial suite of NDMPs, but any that follow in future years—and to ensure that appropriate parliamentary oversight takes place.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his amendment and the speech he has just made. This is the pivotal part of the whole Bill. It is about ensuring that there is a full and proper process—one that should eliminate risk and maximise the representation of local interest.

We had a really helpful discussion on Tuesday that explored why the amendment was needed in the first place, and I am sure the Minister soon recognised the democratic deficit the Bill would create. The Government have left a hole in the Bill, because it defines the process for establishing a national development management strategy but not the extent to which the strategy could apply, and it also fails to take forward the considerations of our communities. This provision does not belong in primary legislation, and the Minister should reflect today and over the summer on what his Government are trying to do.

The Minister said that he will be developing more detail over the summer, but we are considering the Bill line by line today. As my hon. Friend outlined, his amendment has done the work on how to govern the process for the Minister. First, on designation, there must be an in-depth consultation and any issue must come before Parliament. If an issue is of such magnitude that it requires Government to say that they need to override a local plan, surely there has to be a proper process. After all, planning does not just suddenly occur. I was scratching my head about what would constitute a national emergency that required planning permission. The only thing I could think of—the Minister may correct me—would be a war, but then we would have separate legislation to address that. On Tuesday, the Minister himself struggled to articulate where the thresholds would be and exactly what would constitute such a situation.

I have been thinking further about how our planning process is devised and the importance of co-production within our planning process. Why would this national development management strategy override a process of local planning? There could be no reason. If we think about unpopular things that the Government want to force through, such as mining hydrocarbons, fracking and so on, they should not be happening, because our planet cannot sustain their use. The same applies to building road infrastructure, but then again there are processes and national policy statements that can be made for those things.

High Speed 2 or an airport are perhaps the only other examples. We cannot sustain more air travel because of the climate crisis, and HS2 had a national policy statement —again, it has had its own legislation and processes. I really cannot imagine what is in the Government’s mind that is of such magnitude that it should require the overriding of a local plan and the hopes and aspirations of our local communities. Certainly in my community, local people have not had their aspirations heard in the planning process, because we have not had a local plan. There has been imposition by developers, using the powers they have, and it has just run into conflict, gridlock and pain. I cannot see why a Government would want to excite that in a community.

I am sure the Minister will give serious consideration to this matter, if not today, then through the summer. Opposition Members have made it clear that these clauses are an unnecessary development, but I am sure the Minister will hear that point even louder from Government Members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

Clearly, the example I gave follows from national policy and the conditions that can be placed on planning decisions. That necessity came forward when the Secretary of State had to take a view in what was, at the time, a national emergency.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Further to that point, is the Minister seriously saying that a logistical issue about the opening times of supermarkets is the type of policy that will be covered by an NDMP?

[Mr Jones]

What I am explaining is an example of where powers need to be taken, sometimes at short notice, in the national interest.

To move on, let me turn to parliamentary scrutiny. I have listened to the debate with interest, and I appreciate the points that have been made. The existing provisions for scrutiny of national policy statements, on which I believe the amendment has been modelled, play a particular role, given the way that those statements provide a framework for decisions on nationally significant infrastructure projects, which are decided by Ministers.

National development management policies will serve a broader purpose and will sit alongside policies in locally produced plans as the starting points for considering the suitability of development proposals. They will carry forward the role that successive Governments have played since the 1940s in setting high-level national policy that influences plans and decisions. The sort of things that we envisage them covering are standard policies—for example, avoiding inappropriate development in a green belt and areas at significant risk of flooding or coastal erosion; protecting nationally important habitats and heritage, and assets such as listed buildings; and ensuring that access for pedestrians, cyclists and people with disabilities or reduced mobility is taken into account when assessing development proposals.

As I have said, we have committed to consulting on national development management policies, and this is the first step in the process. The prospectus, which we will publish shortly, will set out more of our initial thinking on the scope of the policies, and the principles for their production. I am sure that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will read that document with interest when it comes out, and I hope that it will provide further reassurance on our commitment to transparency and full engagement as we develop the policies.

As the national development management policies will be public, parliamentarians and the public may still hold the Government to account, in the usual way, for the content of those policies. The nature of national development management policies differs from national policy statements, so we believe that the clause strikes the right balance.

We will continue to keep national policies under review by listening closely to colleagues, to the public and to the evidence presented to us, as Governments of all complexions do as a matter of course. It is not clear to me that the amendment would necessarily fit into that context. I have listened to the strength of feeling during the debate, and I hope that the national planning policy framework prospectus, when published, and my response to the three major issues that have been raised in discussing the amendment, will reassure Members. I will continue to reflect on the issues that have been raised, particularly in relation to responses to the prospectus. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am extremely disappointed by the Minister’s response. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale was right to use the phrase “tin-eared”. That is what the Minister’s response was, and I hope he will reconsider.

The amendment and the clause go to the heart of the problem with the Bill. Is it a vehicle to empower communities and their representatives, or to override them when the Government of the day think that is the appropriate thing to do? Where the Government fall on that question is clear from the Minister’s answer. Let me reiterate that the level of scrutiny that we are asking for is not excessive or inappropriate; it is a minimum public consultation requirement in the way that currently applies to local planning policies, and the same level of parliamentary scrutiny as for designated national policy statements.

The Minister’s response was very telling. He said: “Well, the Secretary of State”—the previous Secretary of State now—“has committed to consultation.” That is all well and good, and I hope the prospectus will come in the summer, but it is not about that or about what the previous Secretary of State said; it is about what the Bill says. The Bill says that a Secretary of State needs to consult on an NDMPs if he or she considers it “appropriate”. If a Secretary of State in a future Labour Government brings forward an NDMP, does not consult on it, and uses it to override a local development plan in a constituency of one of the Members now on the Government side of this Committee, those Members would be the first to cry foul the use of such powers. The clause guarantees only that a Secretary of State needs to consult if he considers it appropriate.

On parliamentary scrutiny, the Minister said that NDMPs are different from national policy statements because they have a broader purpose. If they have a broader purpose, surely there is all the more need for basic parliamentary accountability and scrutiny, in the way that currently applies to such statements under the Planning Act 2008.

I am extremely disappointed by the Minister’s response, as he can tell. I hope that he will go back and reconsider this issue and those that we raised in the debate on clause 83, because we will certainly discuss these matters again, if not on Report in this place, then in the other place. I will not press the amendment to a vote, but I urge him to reconsider. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Jones]

Clause 84 provides the statutory basis for national development management policies in England. As they will play an important part in the planning process, the clause puts a necessary safeguard in place: they must be designated by the Secretary of State so that their status is clear, they must relate to the development or use of land and, most importantly, they must be subject to appropriate consultation before they can have effect.

The clause is necessarily broad in scope so that national policies can address the various planning considerations that apply across the country, from basic policies for protecting the green belt to those for avoiding areas of high flood risk. That will free up local plans to focus on matters of local importance.

We intend to consult fully on the scope and content of these policies before they are first introduced to ensure we have heard a wide range of views before deciding what is best set out at a national level, and before deciding what the policies themselves will say. Alongside clauses 83 and 84, they will be instrumental in making it easier to prepare local plans that reflect communities’ priorities for their areas while providing a sound basis to address the general planning considerations that apply across the country. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 84 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 85

Contents of the spatial development strategy

[Matthew Pennycook]

I beg to move amendment 93, in clause 85, page 92, leave out lines 26 and 27.

This amendment would remove an additional legal test within London’s Spatial Development Strategy that could preclude the insertion of policies which contribute to the effective strategic planning of Greater London but would also apply to other urban areas or are not specific to Greater London.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 94, in clause 85, page 92, line 27, at end insert—

“(c) supporting policies within the Spatial Development Strategy that achieve objectives for the benefit of strategic planning of Greater London.”

This amendment would enable the Mayor of London can include policies in a Spatial Development Strategy that contribute to the effective strategic planning of Greater London.

Amendment 95, in clause 85, page 93, line 5, at end insert—

“(2DA) The determination of whether a matter is of strategic importance to more than one London borough for the purposes of subsection (2D) lies solely with the Mayor of London.”

This amendment is intended to remove ambiguity about whose opinion is relevant in relation to whether or not a matter is of strategic importance to more than one London borough.

Amendment 96, in clause 85, page 93, line 9, at end insert—

“(2F) The spatial development strategy must include statements dealing with the general spatial development aspects of—

(a) such of the other strategies prepared and published, or to be prepared and published, under the enactments mentioned in section 41(1) above as involve considerations of spatial development, and

(b) such of the Mayor of London’s other policies or proposals as involve such considerations, whether or not the strategy, policy or proposal relates to the development or use of land.”

This amendment would retain provisions relating to the Mayor of London’s Spatial Development Strategy which relate to the spatial development aspects of the other Mayoral strategies.

Amendment 97, in clause 85, page 93, leave out lines 13 to 19.

This amendment would remove inserted subsection (10), which would place constraints on the Mayor of London’s Spatial Development Strategy relating to national development management policies.

Amendment 91, in schedule 7, page 241, line 16, leave out “with respect to design”.

Amendment 92, in schedule 7, page 241, line 18, after “met” insert

“in support of plan-making or”.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clauses 85 and 86 relate to the spatial development strategy in London. I hazard a guess that the subject is not likely to set Government Members’ pulses racing, but it is important none the less, and I feel duty bound to do it justice as the only Member present who represents our glorious capital city.

On the surface, clause 85 appears relatively innocuous. It would seem that it is simply a matter of bringing the London plan in line with other spatial development strategies and providing greater clarity on the matters that can and cannot be covered by a spatial development strategy. However, once one digs into the detail, as I have, it quickly becomes apparent that taken together with two proposed changes set out in schedule 7—proposed new section 15CC, on supplementary plans—it is far more insidious. It amounts, in effect, to the rolling back of London’s strategic planning powers in important ways.

Let me say a little at the outset about why curtailing the strategic planning powers that Greater London enjoys would be harmful. London’s devolved strategic planning powers have been a huge success story over the past two decades under successive mayoral administrations. Since the first draft London plan was published in 2002, successive plans have facilitated a step change in the planning of our country’s only global city. London has been able to lead the way in planning policy approaches in a wide range of areas, whether focused on tackling climate change, addressing biodiversity loss, improving fire safety, addressing poor air quality or increasing the supply of affordable housing and the pace of its delivery.

The results speak for themselves: since the creation of the Greater London Authority, annual net housing supply has doubled and new homes in London lead the country in design, quality and energy efficiency. Indeed, the co-ordinated strategic planning approach that London has adopted has been so successful that the Government are proposing, through this Bill, to allow the new combined county authorities essentially to adopt it.

Despite the tacit recognition of the success of London’s strategic planning powers that the provision of the new power to CCAs implies, clause 85 and parts of schedule 7 explicitly curtail their effective use by putting in place significant additional restrictions on the preparation of future iterations of the London plan. They do so in four ways: first, proposed new subsection (2A)(b) states that policies can be included in a future London plan only if they are designed to achieve objectives that relate to the

“particular characteristics or circumstances of Greater London”.

We believe that is unnecessarily restrictive. There are many objectives that the London plan should appropriately be working toward that are not specific to the characteristics or circumstances of London, whether that is climate change, biodiversity and green infrastructure, supporting town centres and high streets, or parking and suburban housing development.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I must confess that I am slightly disappointed with that answer. I appreciate that, in reading his remarks, the Minister has addressed each of the amendments in this group, but I do not think he has provided a convincing defence of why the Bill as it stands needs to be that way or of how restricting the Mayor’s powers in the way the Bill intends will not lead to harmful impacts of the kind I set out. I do not intend to press the amendments, but I very much hope that the Minister will continue to engage in dialogue with the Greater London Authority about these specific points. In one way or another, I think we will come back to these issues; if not, I expect that the noble Lords in the other place will do so. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 86 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

The clause introduces schedule 7, which will replace the majority of part 2 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, namely sections 15 to 37. Schedule 7 contains new provisions relating to different elements of the development plan—specifically joint spatial development strategies, local plans, minerals and waste plans, and supplementary plans. The details of those provisions will be debated throughout these sessions.

In summary, the proposed changes will ensure that plans are faster for local authorities to produce, easier for communities to navigate, engage with and understand, and more focused on things that matter locally. The reforms will support local planning authorities to produce local plans and keep them up to date—something that has proven challenging for many under the existing system. Local planning authorities and communities invest considerable time and effort in preparing local plans, but many plans take too long to produce. The average plan takes seven years, and plans are frequently out of date and can be difficult to understand.

Decisions on planning applications are meant to be plan-led, but in practice local plans cannot always be relied on for guiding decisions, especially when they are not up to date or do not set clear standards for development to follow. To make the system more responsive and flexible, local authorities will be given new powers to collaborate voluntarily with each other on joint spatial development strategies. They will also be able to introduce new policy at pace through supplementary plans.

There are two specific elements of the current plan-making system that the Government are not looking to retain. The first is the requirement for local planning authorities to produce a statement of community involvement. Such statements do little to drive meaningful dialogue with communities during plan production. Instead, the Secretary of State will produce guidance setting out much clearer expectations around how local planning authorities should engage people in the planning process.

Secondly, we do not propose to retain the duty to co-operate. The duty has been widely criticised as inflexible and burdensome, causing significant delays to the production of local plans. It will be replaced with a more flexible policy-based approach to addressing strategic issues that cut across authorities. That will be set out in a revised national planning policy framework in due course.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Just to check that I understood the Minister correctly, is he saying that the new flexible alignment test, which is to follow in the Bill, will come in only at the point that the NPPF is finalised in 2025? Is he saying that that is when we should expect this new test to appear?

[Mr Jones]

Clearly we will need to ensure that the new test is workable. We will have to consider that very carefully, and we will no doubt consult on it. I will need to come back to the hon. Gentleman about the timeframe in order to provide him with that information. However, given the important changes that this clause enables us to introduce, I commend it to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 87 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 7

Plan making

[Matthew Pennycook]

I beg to move amendment 112, in schedule 7, page 224, line 14, after “authorities” insert “or county councils”.

This amendment and amendment 113 would enable county councils to prepare joint spatial development plans.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 113, in schedule 7, page 224, line 16, after “authority” insert “or county council”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 112.

Amendment 103, in schedule 7, page 224, leave out lines 19 to 22.

This amendment would leave out inserted section 15A(2)(b) and make combined authorities eligible for a joint spatial development strategy.

Amendment 102 in schedule 7, page 233, line 41, at end insert—

“15AJ Duty to co-operate in absence of joint spatial development strategy

(1) This section applies in any area in which a joint spatial development strategy is not operative.

(2) Each person who is—

(a) a local planning authority,

(b) a county council in England that is not a local planning authority, or

(c) a body, or other person, that is prescribed or of a prescribed description, must co-operate with every other person who is within paragraph (a), (b) or (c) or subsection (10) in maximising the effectiveness with which activities within subsection (3) are undertaken.

(3) In particular, the duty imposed on a person by subsection (2) requires the person—

(a) to engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis in any process by means of which activities within subsection (4) are undertaken, and

(b) to have regard to activities of a person within subsection (10) so far as they are relevant to activities within subsection (4).

(4) The activities within this subsection are—

(a) the preparation of a joint spatial development strategy,

(b) the preparation of development plan documents,

(c) the preparation of other local development documents,

(d) the preparation of marine plans under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 for the English inshore region, the English offshore region or any part of either of those regions,

(e) activities that can reasonably be considered to prepare the way for activities within any of paragraphs (a) to (d) that are, or could be, contemplated, and

(f) activities that support activities within any of paragraphs (a) to (d), so far as relating to a strategic matter.

(5) For the purposes of subsection (4), each of the following is a ‘strategic matter’—

(a) sustainable development or use of land that has or would have a significant impact on at least two planning areas, including (in particular) sustainable development or use of land for or in connection with infrastructure that is strategic and has or would have a significant impact on at least two planning areas, and

(b) sustainable development or use of land in a two-tier area if the development or use—

(i) is a county matter, or

(ii) has or would have a significant impact on a county matter.

(6) In subsection (5)—

‘county matter’ has the meaning given by paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the principal Act (ignoring sub-paragraph 1(1)(i)),

‘planning area’ means—

(a) the area of—

(i) a district council (including a metropolitan district council),

(ii) a London borough council, or

(iii) a county council in England for an area for which there is no district council,

but only so far as that area is neither in a National Park nor in the Broads,

(b) a National Park,

(c) the Broads,

(d) the English inshore region, or

(e) the English offshore region, and

‘two-tier area’ means an area—

(a) for which there is a county council and a district council, but

(b) which is not in a National Park.

(7) The engagement required of a person by subsection (3)(a) includes, in particular—

(a) considering whether to consult on and prepare, and enter into and publish, agreements on joint approaches to the undertaking of activities within subsection (3), and

(b) if the person is a local planning authority, considering whether to agree under section 28 to prepare joint local development documents.

(8) A person subject to the duty under subsection (2) must have regard to any guidance given by the Secretary of State about how the duty is to be complied with.

(9) A person, or description of persons, may be prescribed for the purposes of subsection (2)(c) only if the person, or persons of that description, exercise functions for the purposes of an enactment.

(10) A person is within this subsection if the person is a body, or other person, that is prescribed or of a prescribed description.

(11) In this section—

‘the English inshore region’ and ‘the English offshore region’ have the same meaning as in the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, and

‘land’ includes the waters within those regions and the bed and subsoil of those waters.”

This amendment would require local authorities and other public bodies to co-operate on local planning measures in the absence of an operative joint spatial development strategy on the lines of section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. This duty would encompass co-operation by all relevant local authorities on preparation for such a strategy.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Schedule 7 is 40 pages long and it contains a very wide range of provisions on plan making, many of which are complex. The amendments in this group relate to the provisions concerning joint spatial development strategies.

We support the new power in proposed new section 15A that allows two or more local planning authorities to work together to create one of these strategies. If done well, we believe they that will provide a high-level investment framework, more choice of where to direct development, greater opportunity to deliver sustainable growth and a means of translating national policy priorities, from levelling up to net zero, on a place-based basis.

In our view, joint spatial development strategies are likely to provide a much more attractive and deliverable strategic planning model than provided for by existing joint strategic plans, which have proved problematic, given that they are prepared and tested by means of an arrangement essentially designed for detailed local plans. Allowing groups of authorities to come together and collaborate to prepare and test strategic planning policies in relation to matters that cross local boundaries, whether that be infrastructure or affordable housing, by means of a joint spatial development strategy, is clearly a good thing, and it is crucial that more authorities do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

Although I understand the reasons for the amendments, our intention is for the reformed planning system to be district-led. As we have discussed previously, we do not want to see planning or any other powers being drawn upwards as a result of our reforms. As such, joint spatial development strategies need to be driven by the authorities closest to their communities.

We agree that county councils should play an important role in the plan-making process. They will have significant influence over the development of a joint spatial development strategy, and we envisage that they will be closely involved with its day-to-day production. To make sure that happens, we are giving them the formal status of statutory consultee so that they can bring their experience and expertise in a range of issues, particularly highways, transport, flood mitigation, education and the rules on waste, to the creation of a joint spatial development strategy. Planning inspectors examining the joint spatial development strategy will want to see evidence of work on those key issues and to make sure that any views expressed by the county council have been properly taken into consideration.

The approach that we are proposing strikes a balance between ensuring that joint spatial development strategies are developed at the right level and ensuring that the views and expertise of county councils are part of the process. Likewise, in areas with an elected Mayor, we believe it is vital that the Mayor is formally involved in the production of a spatial development strategy, in order to provide clear and accountable leadership for it. That is why combined authorities should not be eligible to produce a joint spatial development strategy. In such cases, the Mayor, with the support of all the member authorities, can approach the Government to ask for spatial development strategy powers to be conferred on them as part of their devolution deal.

I hope that was the response that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich was looking for. His amendments seem to view spatial development strategies as a co-ordinating layer in the planning system. Amendment 102 seeks to resuscitate the duty to co-operate, which is widely agreed—most Conservative Members would agree, at least—to have been an ineffective mechanism, criticised as inflexible, bureaucratic and slow. That is why the Bill abolishes it. We can all agree that it is vital for local planning authorities to work together to make sure that cross-boundary issues are properly addressed. We expect them to plan for, and deliver, the housing and infrastructure our communities need. The planning system provides a number of mechanisms to assist them in doing so to which we are adding.

We intend to replace the duty with more flexible policy within the revised national planning policy framework, upon which we will consult. This will enable local planning authorities to address any issues of alignment during the preparation of a plan. At present, if an authority fails the duty its local plan must be withdrawn. The Bill also introduces a new requirement to assist with plan making, which we will consider more fully in due course. That will ensure the involvement of those who are vital to production of plans, including the delivery and planning of infrastructure. As such, joint spatial development strategies should not be seen as a co-ordinating function, replacing the duty to co-operate. I hope that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will agree to not to press the amendments to a vote.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am grateful to the Minister for that response. On the issue of mayoral combined authorities and combined authorities, I cannot say that I am entirely convinced. However, I note the detailed response he gave me to the amendment, and I will give it further consideration. On the issue of county councils, the Minister says that they will be closely involved. I remain concerned that not giving them equality of status will be harmful. I am aware that the Department is concerned that if we do not get county councils to bring resources to the table for the new joint spatial development strategies, it may have effects that the Government do not want.

On the issue of the duty to co-operate and the voluntary nature of those new powers, I remain concerned about what happens and how that impacts on the Government’s wider policy objectives in areas where authorities do not make use of the power when we have removed the only statutory arrangement to enable them to co-operate. I urge the Minister to go away and give that some thought. If the Minister is not comfortable reintroducing the duty for those who have not taken up those powers, will he at least think again about whether the incentive structure might be tweaked to ensure that the majority of areas make use of the powers? I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gareth Johnson.)

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 12th July 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I beg to move amendment 118, in clause 75, page 85, line 9, at end insert—

“(1A) Regulations under this Chapter may require relevant planning authorities to process data in accordance with approved data standards relating to the number and nature of—

(a) second homes, and

(b) holiday let properties

in the planning authority area.”.

This amendment would enable planning data regulations to provide for the collection of data to national standards about second homes and holiday lets.

The amendment seeks to aid transparency and therefore accountability on some of the issues that the Committee has already discussed regarding the number of homes that are not used for permanent dwelling.

I could give the Committee various statistics on excessive second home ownership and holiday lets. For example, estate agents in Cumbria tell me that up to 80% of all house sales since the pandemic began, two and a bit years ago, have been in the second homes market. In one year, from June 2020 to June 2021, there was a 32% rise in the number of holiday lets in the district of South Lakeland. Hon. Members can imagine the number of holiday lets that existed to start with in a district that includes the biggest chunk of the Lake district and a large chunk of the Yorkshire dales; 32% is a huge number. Across England, there has been a 50% reduction in the number of long-term rental properties available. Outside London, there has been an 11% rise in rents; in London, the increase is nearly double that.

All those figures come from local councils, housing charities and research I have carried out myself; none of it comes from central Government sources. The amendment would ensure that there is a real sense of the scale of the problem. I feel it and I know it, from talking to people in my constituency. From Grasmere to Garsdale, from Coniston to Arnside, every community is suffering a haemorrhaging of its working-age population. They have experienced that for years, but in the last two years the situation has been especially awful.

What do we need to know? What are we looking for? Someone who owns a second property that they rent out for 70 days a year counts as a small business, which means they do not pay council tax and they do not pay business rates either. I can think of thousands of homes in my constituency where someone who is, by definition, comfortable—to say the very least—is being subsidised by people working every hour God sends, with two, three or four different jobs, often on minimum wage. Those hard-working people are subsidising second home owners, who do not have to pay any kind of tax whatsoever, either to the Government or to the local authority, on their dwelling, and that is not on. It is not right and we must do everything we can to prevent it.

We can dig down, via various routes, to get the number of holiday lets, give or take, but we do not know anything about second homes—for a slightly good reason. After a Liberal Democrat by-election win in Ribble Valley in 1992, Mr Major abolished the poll tax and introduced the council tax, and gave 50% relief—a subsidy—to anyone with a second home. The Labour Government between 1997 and 2010 reduced that to just a 10% subsidy, so people had to pay 90%. The coalition got rid of the subsidy altogether, so now, in most authorities, second home owners pay full council tax. As a result, there is no incentive to register a home as a second home, so we just do not know; broadly speaking, the information we have is anecdotal.

The purpose of the amendment is to make sure that we know formally the scale of the problem, so that the Government can be held to account and we can take action to alleviate the problem, in order to ensure that there are homes for the permanent populations of our communities.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Mark. I take the opportunity to echo the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North in warmly welcoming the new Ministers to their places and in thanking their predecessors—the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the right hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), and the hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien)—for the constructive way in which they engaged with us and the thoughtful manner in which they approached the consideration of the Bill. On the basis of this morning’s proceedings, I am confident that we will continue in that vein.

Turning to amendment 118, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale is a doughty champion for his constituents on this issue. He will know from previous debates in the House on this subject that we are in complete agreement that the Government need urgently to commit to far bolder action. It is not in dispute that a balance needs to be struck when it comes to second homes and short-term holiday lets; no one is arguing that they are of no benefit to local economies, but the potential benefits associated with them must continually be weighed against their impacts on local people.

At present, the experience of a great many rural, coastal and, indeed, urban communities makes it clear that the Government have not got the balance right. The problem is not second homes and short-term holiday lets per se; as the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale said, it is excessive numbers of them in a given locality. While individual hon. Members will have a clear sense of the communities in their constituencies that are affected by this problem, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight with the amendment the fact that we do not know the precise number of second homes and holiday lets across the country, or their distribution.

Members have heard me say this before, but council tax records are likely to significantly undercount second homes, both because there is no financial incentive to register a property in areas where a council tax discount is no longer offered, and because second home owners can still avoid council tax altogether by claiming that their properties have moved from domestic to non-domestic use.

The estimates of second home ownership produced by the English housing survey are more reliable, but even they are based on a relatively small sample and rely on respondents understanding precisely what is meant by a second home and accurately reporting their situation. Similar limitations apply to short-term lettings. There is no single definitive source of data on rates for what is, after all, an incredibly diverse sector, with providers offering accommodation across multiple platforms.

It therefore strikes us as entirely logical that as well as considering what more might be done to mitigate the negative impact of excessive rates of second home ownership and short-term and holiday lets, the Government should consider whether digitisation of the planning system could allow us to better capture data on overall rates and provide a better sense of which parts of the country face the most acute challenges. We therefore very much support amendment 118, and we hope the Minister will give it serious consideration.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I, too, support the amendment. Data is key to everything: we cannot make good, informed, evidence-based decisions unless we have data before us. In my community, I have seen my boundaries change because of the number of empty properties and people not registering. I have seen a real change street by street as well as community by community. Second homes, commuter homes and holiday homes are taking over residential properties, which my local residents cannot afford to live in any more due to the lack of supply. As a result, they are having to move out of my city. We have to look at this extraction economy through the eyes of the people it impacts the most, and collecting data is absolutely key to that.

There is another reason I think data is really important. The Government are driving their whole housing policy through numbers. They are saying, “We are going to build x units in each of these locations across the country.” We have heard hon. Members in various debates discuss whether those levels are right, but if those housing units simply become empty units, second homes or holiday lets, that will not resolve the housing crisis we are dealing with. It will not add to our communities or make a difference to them. It will not have an impact on Government targets for addressing the housing crisis. It is essential that we can identify the issue in the detail it deserves, not just in whole areas but drilling down to understand what is happening in different parts of the community.

In York, we have around 2,000 Airbnbs—last time I checked, the number was 1,999. The vast majority are concentrated in my constituency of York Central. I can name the streets where those properties are. The number of homes is increasing in those areas. We will go on to talk about measures that the Government can introduce—measures that I very much hope they will introduce—to address this serious problem, which is sucking the life out of our community. If we have up to 350,000 Airbnbs nationally, what does that mean for Government targets for house building? How are they going to say they are building additional homes when we are seeing that sharp increase in Airbnbs, second homes and so on?

The Government need the data to drive their own housing policy and to ensure that they are delivering on their targets for improving the housing situation, rather than just watching it get worse while they busily tick boxes and say, “We are delivering, delivering, delivering,” when it is not making a scrap of difference on the ground. That is the feeling in my community. I welcome the amendment. It is a helpful start and a helpful guide to the Government about some of the considerations they should be taking into account in the planning system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I beg to move amendment 65, in clause 75, page 85, line 14, leave out paragraph (b).

This amendment would prevent the Government from using the powers in this Chapter for information other than that provided or processed by a planning authority under a relevant planning enactment.

Having had just over four productive and, I am sure the Committee will agree, stimulating days of line-by-line consideration of parts 1 and 2 of the Bill relating to levelling up, local democracy and devolution, we now turn to the first of the Bill’s parts on planning. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North remarked during, I think, our second session, in practice this is not wholly, or even largely, a levelling-up Bill. Indeed, I would even go so far as to describe the legislation before us as essentially a planning Bill in all but name, albeit in a shiny but ultimately flimsy levelling-up wrapper.

To the extent that this is essentially a planning Bill, it is, as hon. Members are aware, a far different beast from the legislation the Government had in mind when they published the “Planning for the future” White Paper in August 2020. The remnants of that White Paper that have found their way into this Bill, augmented with several new initiatives of varying quality, amount collectively to a rather modest set of proposals that we fear fall far short of the kind of reform that is required to meet the multiple challenges we face as a country.

Some of the planning provisions in the Bill are extremely controversial, and we will consider several of those in the hours and days that remain before the summer recess. Others are less so, and chapter 1 of part 3, which we are now considering, falls squarely in the latter category.

The clauses in chapter 1 seek to digitise the planning system, with the objectives of raising standards across planning authorities, facilitating cross-boundary engagement—particularly around infrastructure by better enabling the comparison of planning information—and, perhaps most importantly, making it easier for members of the public to access and easily comprehend information about specific local planning matters. This represents a real step forward, and I want to make it clear at the outset of the Committee’s consideration of clauses 75 to 81 that we strongly support in principle the digitisation of the planning system.

As Dr Hugh Ellis rightly put it to the Committee in our final oral evidence session:

“There are some very archaic practices in the planning process”.––[Official Report, Levelling-up and Regeneration Public Bill Committee, 23 June 2022; c. 125, Q157.]

As things stand, the planning system is overwhelmingly reliant on outdated software that places a considerable burden on the sector. Often, progress on local planning matters is almost entirely reliant on individual council planning officers and their familiarity with a particular scheme, rather than transparent and accessible information that can be drawn upon by all. Given that the systems in planning authorities more often than not sit on separate platforms, they frequently prevent cross-referencing of data by other council staff and local councillors. More generally, the planning process is too heavily reliant on documents rather than data, and this has a direct impact on the speed and quality of decisions.

Provision for public interaction with the planning system can, in many cases, appear to have been designed to actively discourage engagement, as anyone who has tried to analyse a local plan map will know. Even in cases where online access to information is possible through local authority portals, the data available is often inconsistent, confusing, and a barrier to community participation.

If any hon. Member has had to trawl their local council’s website to find information on a given planning application—I have, many times—they will know that documents often come in the form of hundreds if not thousands of pages of material spread across multiple PDFs, putting off anyone other than committed souls determined for one reason or another to trawl through reams of uploaded documentation to try to understand precisely what changes are being proposed in their local area. In short, there is an unarguable case to upgrade the technology that underpins the planning system in England. Doing so would have myriad benefits.

Perhaps most importantly, digitisation could go a long way to boosting engagement in local planning matters, particularly at the local plan phase, incentivising residents who, as things stand, would not dream of involving themselves in a planning matter. As Tony Burton from Neighbourhood Planners London put it to the Committee in oral evidence relating to local and neighbourhood plans,

“we would point to the opportunities it presents around new, complementary forms of community engagement…and more effective ways of pooling and analysing the evidence that is required”.––[Official Report, Levelling-up and Regeneration Public Bill Committee, 23 June 2022; c. 80, Q107.]

A digitised and integrated system would make it easier to find and search through the detail of a given application, and to see associated data and drawings, and it could well facilitate opportunities to directly interact or submit feedback. New interactive digital services and tools could even allow members of the public to submit their own ideas or take part in discussions and design workshops at an early stage of a proposal, and to explore different site distributions, massing and densities themselves.

Digitisation could also deliver huge benefits for the development and distribution of local plans. If done well, the roll-out of, for example, 3D model platforms could support the creation of local plans by changing the way councils visualise and make assessments of their localities, as well as aiding the monitoring of their delivery. Similarly, making local plans digitally available and interactive across England could help standardise processes and offer greater accessibility, collaboration and community engagement.

I add a small caveat at this point, in that the clauses in chapter 1 really cover only how data will processed and standardised. The Bill contains no indication of how the Government see consultation and decision-making processes being opened up to a more diverse audience as a result of digital technologies. I hope the Minister will give us a sense of the Department’s thinking in that respect, on issues such as digital mapping, when he responds.

However, that the clauses in this chapter present such opportunities is undeniable. That said, we are firmly of the view that a series of safeguards are necessary to ensure that the digitisation of the planning system does not have adverse consequences, intended or otherwise, and amendment 65, along with amendments 66, 67 and 68, seeks to provide some of those safeguards.

The particular concern that amendment 65 is intended to address is the potential for the broad powers provided by clause 75—to regulate the processing of planning data—to be used as a surreptitious way of prescribing the length, layout and content of local and neighbourhood plans. That concern arises in part from the ways in which the Bill, in other places, centralises the planning system by effectively downgrading the status and the scope of local planning—a theme will we return to many times over the course of this Committee’s life.

Given our concern that the powers in clause 75 give scope for excessive central control of local development plan formulation, we believe it is essential that the Bill clarifies that the powers are to be utilised only for the purposes of technical data handling and processing—hence the suggested removal of the broad language in subsection (2)(b) specifying that planning data can mean any information provided to, or processed by, the authority

“for any other purpose relating to planning or development in England”.

The key point here is the need for the Bill to better define what functions can be regulated by the powers set out in this clause.

Binding “approved data standards” applied to a limited range of technical functions, such as standardising contributions to the preparation of a local plan or how local plans are made accessible, is all to the good and will aid access, engagement and cross-boundary comparison. However, if not more tightly circumscribed on the face of the Bill than at present, our concern is that the proposed regulation of the processing and provision of planning data may, inadvertently or otherwise, enable the central imposition of what can and cannot be in a local or neighbourhood plan.

I appreciate the distinction is a subtle one, but I hope the Minister understands the concern we are trying to highlight. I also hope he will accept the amendment or, if not, at least provide the Committee with robust assurances that the powers in this clause will only ever be used for the narrow purpose of regulating the handling of technical data, rather than in any way dictating the form of local plans.

[Mr Jones]

I understand and share the desire to ensure that the information in scope of these new powers is proportionate and focuses on digitising the planning system.

Amendment 65 gets to the heart of our digital reforms—how we define planning data—and would narrow that definition. I fear, however, that the amendment underestimates the breadth of information upon which planning authorities rely. It is important to remember that these powers are designed to underpin the entirety of the planning system. We need to encompass information that will support plan making with interactive map-based plans; the flow of information, such as from the heritage sector, to planning authorities; and accessible environmental outcomes monitoring and reports.

As such, information relevant to planning may not in fact arise from a planning enactment. For example, it may come from activities of local authorities under their general power of competence or from information provided or used by that authority for the purposes of other legislation, such as the Local Government Finance Act 1992. Equally it may come voluntarily from other public sector organisations or from private companies and individuals for purposes that are not clearly related to a statutory planning function. We want to ensure that we do not accidentally exclude any of that valuable information from being made even more valuable to planning authorities and others as a result of our reforms.

As we will cover in subsequent clauses, there are underlying safeguards to protect all the information from inappropriate use. That includes protecting against inconsistency with data protection legislation. Equally, as I am sure we will discuss, our continuing pilot work with planning authorities will ensure that data standardisation can be implemented by them.

We will consult to ensure that we hear a diverse range of voices on how this part of the Bill is put into guidance. We will produce new guidance on community engagement in planning, which will describe different ways in which communities can get involved and highlight best practice.

The hon. Gentleman had some concerns about what is covered in a local or neighbourhood plan. The intent of creating the data standards is to ensure that local and neighbourhood plans can contain more information in a standardised format for the benefit of their communities. Data standards will be introduced gradually, and local authorities will not be prevented from using planning data where standards are yet to be introduced.

I hope the hon. Gentleman is reassured that amendment 65 is not required, and I would be grateful if he withdrew it.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I think the best way to put it would be that I am slightly reassured, but not wholly reassured. I welcome what he said about the recognition that the powers need to be used proportionately. I welcome the clarity on the intent. What I did not hear was a cast-iron guarantee that the powers will not, inadvertently or advertently, in any way end up constraining the length, layout and content of local development plans. Therefore, we still think and are concerned that they could be used to do such. While I will not be pressing the amendment to a vote, this is an issue that relates to our wider concerns about the status and scope of local planning, which we will come back to. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Jones]

The planning system currently relies on information presented in various formats and contained in lengthy PDF documents from which it is hard to extract. Local plans alone can be hundreds of pages long. As the hon. Gentleman said, they can contain dozens and dozens of PDF files, which are difficult for experts to navigate, let alone members of the public.

This clause is the foundation for changing the way planning authorities hold and present their planning information, moving the planning system from being document based to being data driven. The clause does this in a manner that allows the planning system to keep pace with the innovation we hope to promote. The clause grants the Secretary of State the power to specify in regulations which planning information must meet set data standards.

I know that some are concerned that the data standards will outstrip the ability of planning authorities to meet them. I therefore want to reassure the Committee that the very reason for the approach I have just set out is to allow us to bring information into scope as it is ready. We will proceed incrementally and take into account planning authorities’ capabilities and innovation in property technology. I hope that reassures the Committee on that point.

In order to reduce the burden on planning authorities, clause 76 gives them the power to require those submitting planning data to do so in accordance with new planning data standards. In addition to enabling information in the planning system to flow freely, following that approach will help authorities perform their crucial role more effectively, with more ability to compare and co-ordinate with other authorities; will empower more local people to engage with planning, with better tools to support them in meaningfully shaping their areas; and will drive private sector innovation, improving the efficiency of the housing market as well as the planning system.

In summary, the clause begins the modernisation of the planning system, creating accessible, reusable data to the benefit of planning authorities, communities, central Government, developers and the wider private sector. I commend it to the Committee.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will be brief, but I have some questions for the Minister. Clause 76(1) allows planning authorities, by published notice, to require a person to provide them with planning data that complies with an approved standard that is applicable to the data. Subsection (4) allows planning authorities to reject all or any parts of planning data from a person if they fail to comply with the requirements under subsection (1). Subsection (5) requires that planning authorities must serve the person with a notice by writing to inform them of any such decision, specifying which aspects of planning data have been rejected.

The two examples in the explanatory notes accompanying the Bill relate, respectively, to local plan creation and the identification of conservation areas nationally, rather than to individual planning applications. Given that the aim of this chapter is the creation of a data-led planning system, as the Minister said, and that the White Paper specifically referenced the intention to create a

“national data standard for smaller applications”,

it strikes me that there is a need for clarity over what “data not documents” means for individual households in the context of clause 76.

As such, I would simply like to get a sense from the Minister of what impact he believes these provisions will have on households seeking planning permission for projects such as extensions and conservatories, or garage and loft conversions. Specifically—this relates to a point that I will return to when speaking to amendment 66 to clause 77—what does the Department have planned, if anything, to ensure that residents making such applications who may lack the requisite digital skills or access to the internet are provided with appropriate support? Is any element of discretion provided, or other means of assisting such people?

[Mr Jones]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. With regard to that last one, we will probably discuss that as we go through the next few clauses. However, there is no intent to exclude those who do not have the ability to use digital equipment—those we consider to be digitally excluded. I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on that as we deal with further clauses.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 75 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 76

Power in relation to the provision of planning data

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Jones]

Too often planning information is hard to use for all the purposes it should serve. The clause helps to address that problem.

The large amount of information received by planning authorities often comes to them requiring manual intervention to make it usable. Re-entry is then required to use that information later in the system. That is bureaucracy at its worst, actively detracting from the ability of planning authorities to perform their core role, taking time and resources away from the decisions that matter to communities.

The clause works to achieve three effects. First, it works with clause 75 to ensure that complying with data standards does not create a new bureaucratic burden for planning authorities receiving information and then having to render it compliant. Secondly, it gives planning authorities the power to require information in a manner that best suits their systems and the data standards to which they are subject. Thirdly, it protects against the risk that some may attempt to use the requirements under clause 75 to inconvenience authorities’ decision making by deliberately submitting information in a problematic format that is difficult to extract.

The clause also sets out the process that planning authorities must follow to exercise their powers. Planning authorities will be required to publish a notice on their website or through specific communications to inform participants about what planning data will be subject to data standards when it is submitted to a planning authority. If the data fails to comply, a notice must be served specifying the reasons for rejection.

I will touch briefly on the power of planning authorities to refuse information as non-compliant. Planning authorities are not obliged to refuse non-compliant information, although for the reasons that I have outlined we expect them to accept such information only exceptionally. The Committee will see that information cannot be refused where the provider has a reasonable excuse. That is to protect those who, for whatever reason, cannot use the means of submission stipulated by a planning authority or cannot comply with the data standards in the submission. In that way, planning authorities will be under a duty to accept and fully consider such information. Those with a reasonable excuse will not therefore be disadvantaged.

Where authorities refuse information, the clause provides them with discretion to accept a complaint resubmission, although again there is no general expectation that they should do so. The result of the clause will therefore be that, by default, the information received will be usable for all purposes to which planning authorities need it to be put. That will make their work faster and easier and will allow them to focus on planning rather than data entry.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 76 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 77

Power to require certain planning data to be made publicly available

[Matthew Pennycook]

I beg to move amendment 66, in clause 77, page 87, line 3, at end insert—

“(4) On the day any regulations under this section are laid before Parliament the Secretary of State must publish an accompanying statement explaining the steps that the Government has taken to ensure that the regulations do not exacerbate digital exclusion.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a statement explaining how the provisions in this Chapter do not exacerbate digital exclusion.

As we discussed in relation to development plans, Labour believes that a series of safeguards are necessary to ensure that the digitisation of the planning system does not have adverse consequences. One of the most adverse consequences that could arise from digitising the present system—we have already touched on it—is of course the exacerbation of digital exclusion, which several of the witnesses who gave oral evidence to the Committee highlighted as a concern. Digital exclusion is already a serious problem and one that does not simply affect a minority of the population. The Office for National Statistics estimates that 7.8% of UK adults have either never used the internet or last used it more than three months ago—that is 4.2 million people. The amendment seeks to address the digital divide in the context of the planning system.

When we discuss digital exclusion in the context of the Bill, it warrants saying, as my hon. Friend the Member for York Central did, that a democratic planning system that takes seriously the right of communities to be heard and to participate effectively in every aspect of development plan formulation can never be entirely digital. As Dr Hugh Ellis told the Committee:

“We can have as much digital information as we like, but we also need access to the arenas where decisions are made”.”––[Official Report, Levelling-up and Regeneration Public Bill Committee, 23 June 2022; c. 126, Q157.]

I make that point simply to stress that meaningful engagement with the planning process requires in-person access to key decision-making forums, and the Bill erodes that right in important respects. That is why we will seek to amend clauses 82 to 84 and schedule 7 in due course.

When it comes to planning data, it is evidently not the case that everyone will be able to access information digitally even once it has become more accessible, as the Bill intends. For some people, that might be because they are digitally literate but do not have the proper means to engage with online data, and that concern was raised by Jonathan Owen, the chief executive of the National Association of Local Councils, in his evidence to the Committee, who suggested the potential need for capital investment to enable remote communities such as his own to engage with online material. Otherwise, it might simply be because a small but significant proportion of the population would not be able to engage with online data even if they had the means of accessing it.

In short, digital exclusion is not merely about whether people can access the internet but about their ability to use it, and a small but significant proportion of the population struggle to do so. The most recent UK consumer digital index published by Lloyds bank estimates that 21% of adults—11 million people—do not have the essential digital skills needed for day-to-day life.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making this point. It is so important that we ensure that the planning process is accessible to everyone. The all-party parliamentary group on ageing and older people carried out a mini inquiry into the issue of digital exclusion. Its findings show that being able to access the planning process will be excluded from so many people. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is so important because often it is older people, who have slightly more time available to them—we all recognise that from our own constituencies—who do the heavy lifting on planning for everyone else in their community? If they cannot access those planning documents and the data, that will have an impact on their whole community’s ability to access the planning system.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I very much agree that, potentially, some of the proposed reforms could exclude those on whom we rely most in our communities to engage with the planning process. My hon. Friend also touches on the wider point that digital exclusion is inextricably linked to wider inequalities in our society. It is more likely to be faced by those on low incomes, disabled people and, as she said, people over the age of 65. Indeed, so close is the link between digital exclusion and other facets of poverty that it has been argued that it should be considered a key index of deprivation.

Evidence collected by the Local Government Association found that when the pandemic struck, only 51% of households earning between £6,000 and £10,000 a year had access to the internet, compared with 99% of households with an income of over £40,000. Even when poorer households had access to equipment and the internet, they were less likely to have the skills to utilise it. Clearly, to the extent that the pandemic drove many aspects of life online in ways that appear to have stuck, albeit in many instances in a hybrid form, the problem of digital exclusion has correspondingly become more acute.

I fully appreciate that the challenge posed by digital exclusion extends far beyond the issue of access to and engagement with the planning system in England. I am also fully aware that there are a range of policy initiatives beyond the remit of the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities that have been put in place to address the problem—for example, funding for adults to gain a first qualification in essential digital skills. Although, as you might expect, Sir Mark, we would urge the Government to do far more to reduce the prevalence of digital exclusion. However, in the context of the Bill, the fact that digitisation of the planning system is a key feature of it, and the rationale for that is in part boosting engagement and participation, we believe that the Government need to address digital exclusion explicitly. We believe that they should do so in two ways.

First, there should be an explicit recognition that digitisation should enhance more traditional ways of communicating with the public about local planning matters, rather than replacing them entirely. Even if digitisation of the planning system proceeds apace, many people will still want and need practical help and support with understanding and engaging with the system. Simply being furnished with the opportunity to access vast quantities of data online is unlikely on its own to encourage more people to get involved in local planning. Given the chronic lack of capacity within local planning authorities, peer-to-peer, face-to-face support is extremely challenging. But established formats for communication, such as site notices, which were referenced earlier, have a role to play. We believe that they should not necessarily be removed as requirements from the system.

Secondly, there needs to be a focus on ensuring that digitisation is as inclusive as possible. In the context of clause 77 and the other related clauses, that means a focus on ensuring that planning services, data and tools are accessible to all, including those without the confidence or skills to use digital. Amendment 66 is designed to force the Government to engage more directly with those issues, and it does so simply by specifying that on the day any regulations under the section are laid before Parliament requiring certain planning data to be made publicly available, the Secretary of State also publishes a statement on how the provisions do not exacerbate digital exclusion.

I appreciate that this is not the most elegantly crafted amendment, but the issue it seeks to tackle is a real one, and the need to do so is pressing if the Government are serious about making the planning system accessible to as many members of society as possible. As such, I hope that it will elicit from the Minister a clear response, and that the digitisation that the Bill will facilitate will not exacerbate digital exclusion. I hope that by implementing new data standards reporting requirements and transparency measures in the Bill, Ministers will be actively working to adhere to digital best practice and ensure that digital planning tools are built and designed to be easy to use for all, regardless of age or accessibility needs.

[Mr Jones]

I entirely agree with the spirit of the amendment. As we discussed previously, digital exclusion is an important consideration for the design of public services. The statement proposed by the hon. Gentleman would, however, be unnecessary. Currently, as we know, published planning information is often difficult to access. It is inconsistently presented and hard to use for everyone in the planning system. Too few of our constituents engage with planning. We want as many people as possible, and as diverse a range of people as possible, to participate in our planning system, and our digital reforms are central to this endeavour. We can all agree that in a world in which an increasing emphasis is placed on using digital services and tools by default, those who have to use alternative methods can be at risk of exclusion.

--- Later in debate ---

As a consequence, our view is that the statement envisaged by the amendment would be unnecessary, because the regulations could not, by definition, exacerbate digital exclusion. In the light of this and the reassurance I have given about the attention that the Government are giving to this important issue, I hope the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will withdraw his amendment.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I am glad that he agrees with the spirit of the amendment. As he might expect, I am somewhat disappointed that he has not agreed to the publication of a simple statement addressing how the Government are responding to this serious problem, but I am reassured by his assurances that traditional methods of information publication will not be ruled out by these clauses, and by the various initiatives he has mentioned that are already under way to tackle digital exclusion. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I beg to move amendment 67, in clause 77, page 87, line 3, at end insert—

“(4) The Secretary of State must provide sufficient additional financial resources to local planning authorities to enable them to implement the provisions in this section.”

See explanatory statement for NC32.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 32—Duty to provide sufficient resources to local planning authorities for new burdens: planning data—

“(1) The Secretary of State must provide commensurate additional financial resources to local planning authorities to enable them to implement the provisions in Chapter 1 of Part 3.

(2) Where local planning authorities have made investments in planning data software that is incompatible with the changes in that Chapter, the Secretary of State must provide compensation for this additional cost.”

This new clause, along with Amendment 67, would require the Secretary of State to provide sufficient additional resources to local planning authorities to enable them to implement the changes required by Chapter 1 of Part 3.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clause 77 provides powers to require certain planning data to be made publicly available. Along with new clause 32, the amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide sufficient additional financial resources to local planning authorities to enable them to implement the changes required by chapter 2 of the Bill and, where local planning authorities have made investments in planning data software that is incompatible with the changes sought, to ensure that the Secretary of State provides compensation for the additional cost incurred by its replacement. As I argued this morning, although we believe that a series of safeguards are necessary—two of which we have just discussed in relation to amendments 65 and 66—we strongly support the digitisation of the planning system and the introduction of new data standards, reporting requirements and transparency measures as part of that process.  

It stands to reason, however, that a transformation of the kind that the Government are seeking to achieve when it comes to digitising planning will place extra demands on local planning authorities, primarily for their planning departments but also, by definition, for their IT support services. It is therefore important to require that they are provided with additional financial resources and investment. That would be the case irrespective of the current position of local planning authorities when it comes to skills, capacity and resourcing. After all, the kind of change that clauses 75 to 81 seek to facilitate, whether that be the harnessing of new digital technology, new digital engagement processes, or the integration of spatial, environmental and other datasets across England, will by their very nature frequently involve software upgrades as well as investment in other related services.

Yet the need for significant additional investment to meet the new demands that will result from the provisions in chapter 1 is made all the more acute by the parlous present state of local planning authorities when it comes to resources. The Department is well aware of that long-standing problem. For example, it has established a skills and capacity working group to determine what response is required, but precious little urgency is evident. In that respect, will the Minister tell us, when he responds, when the Department intends to publish a skills and capacity strategy and, if so, how much funding will be put behind it?

That answer aside, I am sure the Minister would agree that in general terms the pressures on local planning authorities are acute already. A report published by the National Audit Office in February 2019, entitled “Planning for new homes”, found that between 2010-11 and 2017-18 there was a 37.9% real-terms reduction in net current expenditure on planning functions by local authorities. Even when the income that authorities generated from sales, fees, and charges or transfers from other public authorities was taken into account, the report concluded that total spending on planning had fallen by 14.6% in real terms between 2010-11 and 2017-18, from £1.125 billion to £961 million.

A 2019 research paper published by the Royal Town Planning Institute found much the same, concluding that

“total expenditure on planning by local planning authorities is now just £900 million a year across England. More than half of this is recouped in income (mostly fees), meaning that the total net investment in planning is now just £400 million, or £1.2 million per local authority. This is fifty times less than local authority spending on housing welfare, and twenty times less than estimates of the additional uplift in land values which could be captured for the public during development.”

That same RTPI report also detailed the staggering regional imbalance in funding for planning, finding that the average investment in planning by local authorities in some regions is three times more per inhabitant than in others.

Put simply, as a report published by the House of Lords Built Environment Committee in January of this year put it, there is an “evolving crisis”, with local planning authorities under-resourced and consequently unable to undertake a variety of skilled planning functions effectively.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for moving the amendment. City of York Council has dispensed with the role of the chief planner, so now not only do we not have the skills, but that is really slowing down development. The Government are trying to reach their objectives and to see economic investment, but that just cannot happen without the infrastructure and, crucially, the people in place to see this forward. The amendment is excellent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point, which is well made. Not only are local planning authorities overstretched, but they are often outgunned in their relationship with developers and in having that capacity to interrogate properly what is happening in order to get the best deal for local people.

The simplest answer as to why that has happened is a general lack of resourcing for local authorities. At the same time as dealing with budgets cuts, they have had to cope with growing responsibilities, not least in relation to social care. That general lack of resourcing is largely the result of reductions in central Government grants, which have been the most sharply cut component of local government revenue since 2009-10, falling by 37% in real terms between that year and 2019-20, from £41 billion to £26 billion in 2019-20 prices.

We therefore have a situation in which the resources dedicated to planning within local planning authorities—never particularly high by international standards, even before 2010—have fallen dramatically as a result primarily of local authority belt-tightening in response to central Government funding cuts. The Bill does not provide an opportunity to resolve the wider problems of inadequate local authority funding, but we believe—I am certain this is not the only time that we will consider this issue—that any new burdens placed on local planning authorities by this legislation must be adequately resourced and that specific commitments to that end are put on the face of the Bill.

On the new burdens associated with the planning data requirements in the Bill, there are two facets to the argument. First, local planning authorities will need sufficient additional resources to comply with the new work pressures that will be placed on them as a result of the Bill. Without such additional resources, I suspect that many local planning authorities will struggle to comply in practice with the provisions of chapter 1. Without a commitment to new funding, it is not difficult to imagine, to give a practical example, that planning departments in local planning authorities will face a Herculean task to ensure that their already hard-pressed IT services comply with all the new requirements.

Secondly, many local planning authorities will already have purchased software and tools that may ultimately not be approved under the powers provided by clause 78. As such, proposed new clause 32 explicitly specifies that where local planning authorities have made investments in planning data software that is incompatible with the changes sought, the Secretary of State will provide compensation for the additional cost incurred by its replacement.

There is widespread support—if not enthusiasm—in both the public and private sectors for the digital transformation of our planning system. There is also an obvious need to ensure that the requirements in this chapter that will facilitate that transformation can be enacted in a way that will not add further burdens to already overstretched local planning authorities. I trust that the Government accept as much and we will hear from the Minister that he is content to make these changes to the Bill.

[Tim Farron]

This is a good and wise amendment that looks at the additional responsibilities placed on planning departments and how important it is that the Government ensure adequate resourcing for these new functions so that the digitisation of the planning system is performed adequately. It really opens a window on the wider issue that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich rightly highlighted into the staffing, resourcing and competence of planning departments across the country.

The Bill introduces many measures—perhaps many more than some of us would like. How frustrating will it be to developers, proposers, local residents, members of councils and local communities—everyone—if it turns out that the new powers and functions that might come about simply cannot be enacted? We see around the country a reduction in the quality of planning decisions, not because planners are not good people but because there are too few of them.

There is not the capacity for planners to go and spend a semi-formal hour with a potential developer or householder to scope out what may or may not be possible. That would save people putting in an application that was always doomed to fail, or ensure that an application is more likely to be in line with planning policy and the wishes of the local community. We get bad decisions that end up being appealed, which is more expensive for everybody and sucks all the energy out of that planning department when it should be focused on trying to preserve and promote the community’s priorities.

We will have many debates—we have had some already—about what planning provisions should be in the Bill and what powers local communities should have. It will all be pretty meaningless if there is no way whatsoever of ensuring that the new provisions are enforceable.

--- Later in debate ---

I appreciate that my responses are not what the hon. Member would ideally want to receive. Nevertheless, I hope that I have reassured him. As he has rightly pointed out, we have committed to the skills strategy. We are developing a comprehensive strategy to make sure that local authorities are properly equipped to deliver reform and places that the people who live in them can be proud of. We will publish the details of the strategy in due course. For the reasons that I have outlined, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am glad the Minister understands the concerns that the amendment seeks to highlight. I welcome his recognition that local planning authorities need to be well equipped and supported to make the changes. In all honesty, I was not reassured by his answer, which I found to be quite vague. We know that, as has already been said, local planning authorities face real challenges in resourcing new capacity. That is a pre-existing problem. They are being given a set of new responsibilities and there has been no reassurance that we will get any additional financing for those new burdens. I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote, but we will come back to the issue of adequate financial resourcing for some of the changes that the Bill seeks to enact many times during its passage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Jones]

The planning information that is currently published is often difficult to access, inconsistently presented and hard to use, limiting its wider usefulness. Clause 77, in combination with clause 75, changes that by requiring standardised information to be openly available to anyone for free. The Secretary of State will set the licence under which the information is to be published and regulations will specify the information to which the requirements apply. There is a limitation on the information that may be made available to ensure that sensitive data, such as where the planning authority has an obligation of confidence or where data protection legislation applies, cannot be subject to the regulations.

We believe opening planning data will drive greater productivity and efficiency levels across the housing, planning and land sectors, which will deliver significant benefits to a wider range of groups. Benefits include time savings, the development of new tools, and increasing accessibility to the information required for decision making.

Without accessible planning information, both local and central Government cannot make faster, better-informed decisions to meet the needs of local communities and understand national demands and challenges. Likewise, the development of innovative digital tools and services that better engage communities and allow planners to work more productively is hampered.

Open, consistent and comparable planning information will unlock a more transparent planning system where communities can better understand, contribute to and, as a result, have greater confidence in planning for their areas. I therefore commend the clause to the committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 77 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 78

Power to require use of approved planning data software in England

[Matthew Pennycook]

I beg to move amendment 68, in clause 78, page 87, line 10, at end insert—

“(1A) On the day any regulations under this section are laid before Parliament the Secretary of State must publish an accompanying statement setting out—

(a) the reasons why the planning data software in question has not been approved for use by the Secretary of State,

(b) the steps that the Government has taken to ensure that the decision not to approve the planning data software in question does not undermine effective competition in the procurement of planning data software in England.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a statement explaining why the provisions in this section were used to restrict or prevent the use of planning data software and setting out the steps taken to avoid the creation of a Government-granted monopoly in planning data software.

Clause 78 permits the use of regulations to restrict or prohibit relevant planning authorities from using software not approved by the Secretary of State. We have just considered one possible adverse outcome of the use of these powers, namely that local planning authorities who have purchased software and tools may find that in the future they are not approved for use and that their investment has been made redundant as a result. However, we are concerned that another adverse consequence might potentially flow from the use of the powers and that is the limitation of fair and open competition among software providers.

Amendment 68 would add to clause 78 a requirement that on the day any regulations under the clause are laid, the Secretary of State must publish an accompanying statement setting out, first, the reasons why the planning data software in question has not been approved for use and, secondly, the steps that the Government have taken to ensure that the decision not to approve does not undermine effective competition in the procurement of planning data software in England.

The effect of the amendment would not be to prevent the Secretary of State from exercising the powers in clause 78 but simply to ensure that the holder of that office properly justifies their use and has due regard to the need to maintain healthy market competition. The reasoning behind the amendment is that as benign as the provisions in clause 78 might appear to be, in the sense that taken at face value they are merely a means of rolling out new data standards and enforcing standardisation, they could, deliberately or inadvertently, create a Government-granted oligopoly or monopoly in planning data software. We believe the Government should be clear that the intention of the powers is not to foster an oligopolistic or even, dare I say, a monopolistic market in planning data software.

I appreciate fully that the Government are bound by public procurement rules, albeit ones that they intend to overhaul by means of the Procurement Bill that is progressing through the other place, and that within the general procurement framework there is a specific set of rules and handbooks for technology procurement. However, the powers in clause 78 strike us as so expansive, enabling Ministers by regulation to restrict or prevent the use or creation of software used by planning authorities to process planning data, that a further check to their use is required.

Assuming the Government do not wish to fetter rigorous competition in the planning data software market, amendment 68 should be an easy one for the Minister to accept and I hope to hear that he will do so.

[Mr Jones]

We wholeheartedly support the principle embodied by the amendment, although I think there may be a slight misunderstanding about the mechanics of clause 78. Clause 78 aims to ensure planning authorities are supported by modern software that complies with the requirements created by our digital reforms. We will set out clear criteria that the Secretary of State must then apply in deciding whether to approve any given software to which the regulations apply.

The expectations of the Secretary of State will therefore be public and clear before any software is submitted. Likewise, the reasoning of the Secretary of State’s decision to grant or withhold approval will necessarily be the compliance with those criteria. In that context, a statement on individual software decisions would be superfluous and could risk inappropriately disclosing commercially sensitive information. That could, for example, deter submission for approval, undermining the intention of the provision.

That brings me to the second aspect of the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich’s amendment—the statement about the effect on competition in the software market. Regulations could not lawfully be made, nor could decisions lawfully be taken, under that power with the aim of conferring a monopoly. The Secretary of State cannot use the powers other than impartially between software suppliers to foster the innovative market our reforms are designed to achieve. The criteria for approval will be informed and refined by continuing—and continual—work with planning authorities and software suppliers on trial planning software. We have, for example, already funded planning authorities for the creation of new software and supported programmes for local authorities to improve their existing development management software.

We have started to engage with the technology sector through local authority-led pilots and pathfinders. We will continue to engage meaningfully with them and others to establish a realistic adoption timetable for any planning data software that the Secretary of State may wish to approve for use by planning authorities. I hope that provides sufficient reassurance to the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich to allow him to withdraw his amendment.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I note that he only said that the clause would prevent the advent of a monopoly and not an oligopoly. I still worry, reading the text of the Bill, that we could inadvertently find that the Government restrict what software can be used by local authorities. That said, I welcome the clarification and reassurances that the Minister has provided. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Jones]

We have already discussed some aspects of the clause in relation to amendment 68. Many planning authorities are reliant on outdated and expensive software and systems that do not work with one another, forcing manual re-entry of information while locking that information away in formats that are not reusable. Clause 78 allows the Secretary of State to change that entrenched status quo. Without the right software to support processing standardised data, the benefits from the chapter across the planning system will be thwarted.

Clause 78 relies upon, and will therefore follow from, the introduction of data standards set under clause 75. Those data standards will take time to develop. The aim of our reforms is to create a virtuous circle whereby better software enables better information to be published, which in turn allows better tools to be developed for planning authorities. As such, it is not our intention to require approval for all planning data software. We will work with planning authorities and the technology sector to determine where and when the use of that power will most benefit the planning system. The clause enables the creation of the effective, high-quality system that the public rightly expect of Government at all levels. I commend clause 78 to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 78 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 79

Disclosure of planning data does not infringe copyright in certain cases

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I have a few questions for the Minister about the three clauses. Clause 79 provides that a local planning authority that makes planning data available to a person does not, in doing so, infringe copyright if making the data available is necessary for certain purposes such as the development of planning data software. Will the Minister explain the rationale for restricting the circumstances where planning data will not be in breach of copyright solely to those purposes set out in subsections (1)(a) and (b)? Will he also comment on whether he foresees any other circumstances where it may be desirable for copyright to be limited, for example in relation to academic research?

Clause 80 stipulates that the Secretary of State may only make planning data regulations that contain provision within devolved competence of the Scottish Parliament, the Senedd or the Northern Ireland Assembly after consultation. I presume—the Minister can correct me—that legislative consent is not required for the provisions, but perhaps he could clarify what engagement his Department has had with the devolved Administrations about the planning data aspects of the Bill.

Finally, clause 81 provides definitions of key terms. Will the Minister confirm that the definition of relevant planning authority to include any public body with functions relating to

“planning or development in England”,

as laid out in paragraph (n)(i), covers community and parish councils, and neighbourhood planning forums? If so, what support, if any, will they be provided with to ensure that any plans or priority statements they produce conform with the regulations, given they are generally voluntary organisations?

[Mr Jones]

On the point about devolving planning to neighbourhood planning level, I expect that support will be provided by local planning authorities in that regard.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the type of copyright material that is in scope of infringement protection. Any information with the purpose of approving and maintaining or upgrading the planning software that falls under the definition of the planning data defined within the Bill, in which copyright subsists, is in scope of the power. One such example is architectural drawings, where the planning authorities are required to consult on new proposed developments.

The hon. Gentleman raised one other point. I am not able to confirm at the moment but will certainly write to him about the discussions that my predecessor has had with the devolved Administrations.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 79 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 80 and 81 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 82

Development plans: content

[Rachael Maskell]

I beg to move amendment 117, in clause 82, page 91, line 8, at end insert—

“(3A) After subsection (4) insert—

‘(4A) A local planning authority must review and update the development plan no less regularly than once every five years.’”.

This amendment would require local authorities to review and update the development plan at least every five years.

This is a probing amendment and I would be grateful for the Minister’s response. York has not had a local plan for 76 years—that is another issue that will no doubt come across the Minister’s desk—and I am trying to work through why that has been the case. There has often been a complex and rapidly changing political context in the city.

We seem to talk about local plans, development plans, minerals and waste plans, transport plans and so on as events, rather than in the context of a place’s evolution. Therefore, if there is a 10-year period—or even longer in the case of York—between plans being updated, the task is so great that it can be very challenging indeed. Thinking about how we can get some sequencing and timelines for how data is produced and how development and supplementary plans are put in place could improve the process.

I have some observations about why it has not worked in York and about the task ahead. For our city, the situation has presented many challenges because developers have taken advantage. It has caused a lot of difficulty over the years, but it has also dominated the political environment and destabilised our city, rather than stabilised the way forward.

I want to touch on the supplementary plans, which feed into the data, and to think about the pace at which things are moving forward. The local transport plan, which feeds into our development plan, dates back to 2011, and the data was gathered two years earlier, so it is already 13 years out of date. That is informing the local plan, which is being discussed with the inspectors is this week. Thirteen years ago, we did not have micromobility, e-scooters and e-bikes. Electric vehicles were not really a thing and bus services were very different. Even our major roads have changed over that time, and we have seen deepening congestion of late.

We now know that climate pressures are bearing heavily on our environment, whether in respect of housing, economic development or transport infrastructure. Anybody who was at the briefing yesterday with Sir Patrick Vallance will understand how pressing it is that we address the climate issue at this moment. Leaving plans for too long could mean that they are not responsive to the call of our time, particularly on climate issues. They will also not recognise the changing environment we are in. I have to hand it to the Government: some of the things they are putting forward on national infrastructure and housing are ambitious. Whether they can deliver is another question altogether, but they are certainly putting out a rapid change, and we need to reflect that in our planning system.

A supplementary plan that is 13 years out of date is not responsive to the logjams that we see in York today—the increase in the volume of traffic and the consequences of that on our air quality—and developments that have happened. We have an outline plan for the York Central site, with 6,500 jobs and 2,500 dwellings. We are talking about placing this new city within York in the middle of our old medieval city, as well as the infrastructure routes feeding into it, but with transport planning that is 13 years out of date, we will rapidly see that bringing all those cars into the city centre will just create a car park. Therefore, it is not responsive enough to the reality of what we are doing. At rush hour, York will come to a complete standstill, yet these supplementary plans are meant to inform what is happening.

I could talk about environmental plans and what is happening on flooding. Fortunately, we have been putting in mitigation to address the flooding challenges in our city, but the Environment Agency tells me that we have 17 years until we are challenged again, unless upstream infrastructure is put in place and we take water out of the rivers, improve soil quality and so on. We really need to think about the rapid changes and pressing issues that we face.

Therefore, we need some time. I put five years as a suggested time period for us to start thinking about how we move on to the next stage of our planning. That is why it is a probing amendment. I am trying to build a culture in our planning system of a thinking process, as opposed to having rigid timetables.

Our major routes around York will have an impact on the way traffic flows in our city, whether it is the dualling of the ring road or the widening of some of the A roads—not in my constituency but on the outside of York. At the same time, we have a city centre that has been declared car-free. That will have a massive impact too, with blue badge holders being locked out of their city. We have changes of routes through various parts of the city, building pressure and volume on some of the core routes through York.

It is important to recognise the pace of the change that is occurring and to think about how we can best address that in the planning system. We can do that through a timetable, and that is why I have said it is a probing amendment. We have to start addressing what is happening on the planet around us in the context of planning. In particular, I am thinking about scheduling and the evolution approach, as opposed to this being an event. It certainly will be an event in York if we do get that local plan over the line. [Laughter.] I am sure the Minister will want to come and celebrate with us all at that moment.

A conversation is needed about planning and about how we bring together our supplementary plans—our minerals and waste plan, and our local transport plan—in sequence for a local plan process. More thinking needs to be done. I thought it was necessary to table an amendment to make that point today and to see how the Minister responds, because this may be something we want to explore at later stages of the Bill.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Central on making a strong case for her amendment. The problem she highlights is a very real one—that of out-of-date plans based on out-of-date data and analysis. The Opposition believe that local development plans are vital ways that communities can shape and agree a vision for future development in their area and properly account for the specific housing, employment and infrastructure needs within them. We want to see the proportion of England covered by a local plan increase. We believe it is important that each plan should evolve over time to take into account changing circumstances affecting the area in question, whether it be changes in the level of housing need or new infrastructure requirements.

Paragraph 33 of the national planning policy framework makes it clear that:

“Policies in local plans and spatial development strategies should be reviewed to assess whether they need updating at least once every five years, and should then be updated as necessary.”

I appreciate the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central that this aspect of national guidance should be put on a statutory footing in the Bill. We are certainly sympathetic to that, and I hope the Minister responds to her amendment favourably, with the proviso that, as with so many other measures in the Bill, sufficient resources flow down to local authority planning departments to enable them to carry out a review and an updating exercise at least once every five years, given how onerous a task it is to prepare a local plan or to revise it.

[Tim Farron]

I, too, think this is an important amendment, as it allows us to get a sense of how important the Government consider development plans to be and what support they will give communities to not just have them, but ensure that they mean something. In Cumbria, both at local authority level and in the national parks, we consider development plans to be important. Not having a development plan means basically sub-letting it to the market. The reality is that the developers decide what gets built in people’s communities. We end up seeing development for demand, not for need. In a community like ours—pretty much anything can be built in the lakes and the dales in Cumbria and there would be a market for it—we do not get the buildings that are needed to meet the requirements of a community that will otherwise dissipate, and is doing so.

I suspect one reason a number of authorities are reluctant to have a development plan, or are not as committed to having one as they might be, is that they often think they are not enforceable. Very often, a development plan will outline the priorities in a community. I mentioned earlier the Yorkshire Dales national park authority boldly saying only the other week that it wants to ensure that every new development needs to be 100% for permanent occupancy. That is a brilliant endeavour, which I totally support, but there is a great deal of doubt as to whether the authority will ever be able to enforce it. In fact, I think we all know that it will not be able to do so, unless the Government were to change the law through this or some other process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

The Government want the planning system to be truly plan-led, to give communities more certainty that the right homes will be built in the right places. To achieve that, plans will be given more weight in decision making. They will be faster to produce and easier to navigate and understand. Currently, communities and applicants can face an alphabet soup of planning documents, leaving all but the most seasoned planning professionals pretty baffled.

The clause provides an important change to the definition of the development plan set out in section 38(2) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. It outlines the elements that, collectively, will comprise the development plan for any given area of land. It replaces the terminology used to describe constituent documents to align with that used in schedule 7 to the Bill, as introduced by clause 87. It paves the way for a system without local development documents, local development frameworks, area action plans, and local plan part 1s and part 2s. Instead, we will have a simpler approach, with specific references to neighbourhood plans, local plans, spatial development strategies, supplementary plans, and minerals and waste plans, as defined in schedule 7.

That change will leave communities and applicants in no doubt about which are the key planning documents for an area, and will lay the foundation for the later reforms of the planning system through this Bill. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 82 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 83

Role of development plan and national policy in England

[Matthew Pennycook]

I beg to move amendment 86, in clause 83, page 91, line 28, leave out lines 28 to 30 and insert—

“(5C) But the development plan has precedence over any national development management policy in the event of any conflict between the two.”

This amendment gives precedence to local development plans over national policies, reversing the current proposal in inserted subsection (5C).

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 57, in clause 83, page 91, line 30, leave out “national development management policy” and insert “the development plan”.

This amendment would require any conflict between a local development plan and a national development management strategy to be resolved in favour of the local development plan.

[Matthew Pennycook]

In moving to chapter 2 of part 3, “Development plans and national policy”, we confront an altogether more contentious set of issues than planning data, as the new Minister will be acutely aware.

Let me start by making it clear that, in general terms, we welcome efforts to strengthen development plans. Building on clause 82, which updates existing definitions and references to provisions in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to reflect changes proposed in the Bill, clause 83 makes amendments to that Act in two important ways relating to development plans.

First, proposed new subsection (5B) provides that any determination of a planning matter under the planning Acts must be made in accordance with the development plan and any new national development management policies, unless

“material considerations strongly indicate otherwise”.

In other words, departures from a plan will require stronger reasons than at present, thereby giving residents more confidence that plans will be adhered to and that any safeguards woven into the fabric of such plans will be respected. That is an entirely sensible measure, and we fully support it.

Secondly, however, that measure is immediately undermined by proposed new subsection (5C), which stipulates that at the point an individual planning application is determined, if there is any conflict between a formulated development plan and any new national development management policy that the Government might introduce,

“the conflict must be resolved in favour of the national development management policy.”

The Bill makes it plain that we are not talking only about significant conflicts between local and neighbourhood plans and national development management policies.

Proposed new subsection (5C) is clear that conflict “to any extent” must be resolved in favour of national policy. That is a far more problematic measure that the sensible strengthening of plans provided for by proposed new subsection (5B), in that it clearly accords precedence and a large measure of control to the national over the local. The result is that, in the clause, the Government are giving with one hand while taking away with the other, making it harder to deviate from the local development plan at the same time as giving themselves powers to exert greater control over them.

The amendment would replace proposed new subsection (5C) and, in doing so, reverse the proposition currently in the Bill by making it clear that the development plan would have precedence over any national development management policy in the event of any conflict between the two. We believe that that is one of the most essential changes required in revising the Bill, and I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I explain why in some detail.

The Government contend that the creation of national development measurement policies will help to make local plans simpler and easier to produce by providing greater certainty on the question of whether policies in any individual development plan are consistent with national policy. There is a glaring paradox there, however, because to simplify all local plans sufficiently, NDMPs would have to cover an extensive range of issues in enough detail to be readily applicable to the huge diversity of local circumstances found across England. If they do ultimately cover the broad range of diverse policies that apply “in most areas”—as the policy paper suggests they will—they risk becoming meaningless.

Nor is it clear how NDMPs will actually enable the Government to prevent local planning authorities from duplicating large swathes of national policy in local plans. We should bear in mind that the national planning policy framework already instructs local planning authorities not to duplicate national policy, but most authorities—understandably—like to make it clear how national policies apply to their local area, which highlights the fact that one person’s duplication is another person’s tailoring to local circumstances.

When the Minister responds, could he explain—referring back to the debate we had earlier today—whether duplication of national policy in development plans is an issue that the Government believe can be addressed by the processing of planning data as provided for by chapter 1? Are clauses 75 to 81 intended, in part, to be a means of making local plans shorter? I struggle to see how NDMPs will, in and of themselves, lead to a simplification of local planning.

In any case, when it comes to local plans, the laudable objective of simplicity and certainty should not also require that development plans be subordinate to national policy, as clause 83(2)(5C) clearly renders them in the event of any conflict between the two. The Committee might wonder why such subordination is problematic, because should national policy not be clearly set by central Government, with local planning authorities given no discretion whatever to depart from it? Well, I would make two points in response.

First, we have absolutely no idea from the Bill, from the accompanying notes, or from the non-existent impact assessment, what might be covered by a national development management policy in future, other than that they are likely to relate to policies that, as set out in the policy paper, “apply in most areas”. The fact that none of us knows what future NDMPs might cover is deeply problematic.

As Victoria Hills, the Royal Town Planning Institute chief executive, put it to the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee on Monday 20 June:

“As I sit before you today I could not tell you if 20%, 50% or 80% of local plans are due to be nationalised.”

That is an incredibly concerning state of affairs given the powers provided for by clause 84, which we will come to next, and it should trouble every member of the Committee.

The new Minister is a diligent parliamentarian, and I know that he will have read his brief over the weekend. I fully expect him to stand up and argue that the concerns expressed across the House about this matter are misplaced; that there is no need to worry because NDMPs will only ever relate to areas of policy that are naturally and incontrovertibly matters for national decision making; and that there are already legal protections in place that simply need to be interpreted for planning—policy relating to aspects of the protection of heritage assets, for example.

However, I say gently to the Minister, who I am incredibly fond of, that he will not be around forever. Indeed, as things stand, he is unlikely to make it past early September. Even if he does, on the basis of the average tenure of a Housing Minister under Conservative-led Governments since 2010, whoever replaces him will, by my reckoning, have until the summer of next year before they are also moved on. I am afraid that any personal reassurances that Ministers might offer—as the now previous Secretary of State did, including to the Select Committee—count for little. What matters is what the legislation says, and it offers us no guide to what will be covered by NDMPs.

Let us take as an example a particularly contentious area of policy: the green belt. Will rules on development in the green belt be the subject of an NDMP? If so, what will they specify? At the moment, we have no idea. That matters for the simple reason that there are no limits in the Bill on the scope of the national development management policies; the legislation enables them to be about anything that is common to most areas, which brings me to my second point.

As the Bill specifies no limit to what might be covered by an NDMP, there is potentially no corresponding limit to central interference in areas previously considered to be firmly within the preserve of local decision making. There is therefore no certainty whatever that the changes proposed will mean that local plans will deal with local problems, and national policy will deal with national problems.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I am not in the position to give the hon. Lady that example today. As she knows, such policies are often developed through the process of making primary legislation, and then are developed beyond the process we have before us today. I take her comment.

As part of the reform, we are also introducing statutory national development management policies. Those policies would sit alongside those in local plans when relevant planning decisions are made, with clear statutory weight. National development management policies will be primarily those nationally important policies used for making decisions. The hon. Member for South Shields should note that a current example is green belt protection.

There are several reasons why we think national development management policies are an important and positive reform. First, they will make it easier for local authorities to produce their local plans. By dealing with universal planning considerations nationally and giving them the same weight as the plan, local authorities will no longer need to repeat those matters to ensure they have sufficient force.

Secondly, introducing national development management policies means that local plans can focus on matters of genuine local importance to communities—saving time and money for authorities, and making plans more locally relevant and easier to use. Thirdly, it will be easier for applicants to align their proposals with national and local policy requirements—something which we expect to be of particular benefit to small and medium-sized builders.

Fourthly, it will provide greater assurance that important policy safeguards that apply nationally, or to significant parts of England, such as protections for areas at risk of flooding, policy on climate change, and policies to protect the green belt, will be upheld with statutory weight and applied quickly across the country, including when any changes are made.

That brings me to the heart of the issue outlined by the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich about the national development management policy taking precedence over local plans. It is extremely important to reiterate that where we have local plans that become very out of date, it is important that the protections set out in national policy continue to be reflected in the decisions.

Finally, this framework of basic national policies can guide relevant planning decisions if a local plan is significantly out of date and cannot be relied upon in certain respects. Introducing national development management policies and giving them statutory weight is, therefore, important to creating much greater clarity around the role of national policy in decisions. Increasing this clarity is crucial to reducing the number of planning appeals local authorities face, and therefore reducing the number of unanticipated developments communities face on their doorstep as a result. That point has been made a number of times this afternoon. That clarity also reduces the cost associated with those appeals, enabling local authorities to divert their resources to planning positively for their area. I think I can safely say that that is an outcome that we all want to deliver.

The amendment deals specifically with what to do in the event of a conflict between national development management policies and the development plan when a planning decision must be made in accordance with both. As I have indicated, I believe the current clause is a necessary safeguard in situations where plans are out of date and important national policies on the environment or other matters need to be reflected fully in decisions.

To explain that more fully, some local plans are woefully out of date. We heard one example in Committee this afternoon and there are a number of examples across the country where the plans, although not quite as out of date as the one mentioned by the hon. Member for York Central, have been out of date since the 1990s.

[Matthew Pennycook]

How does the Minister believe that this clause specifically will address the fact that there is not sufficient coverage of local plans across England? How will the provisions in the clause incentivise people to take up a local plan if they have not already done so?

[Mr Jones]

We have just discussed a clause that will compel local authorities to put in place an up-to-date local plan every five years. What we are discussing here is making sure that, where we get outliers and places with out-of-date local plans, green belt protection and other such things can be maintained through the national development management policies. This is a crucial point. We wish to use national policy to drive higher standards where those standards at the moment are not as they should be, especially on the environment and to tackle climate change. It is important that those policies can take precedence in the event of conflict with the out-of-date policies in plans.

I would nevertheless expect such conflicts to be limited in future, because we are making it easier to produce plans—we have discussed a number of situations today in which that would be the case—and because the Bill makes sure that new plans will be drawn up consistently with national policies, including the new national development management policies.

As I said at the outset, I appreciate the strength of feeling on this issue. Last week, the previous Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), published his response to the letter from the Chair of the levelling-up Select Committee in which clarification was requested on this question. I have spoken to the new Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), who took office this week. His view is the same as that expressed in the letter. We will provide a copy of that letter to members of the Committee.

We are also committed to providing more information about how we expect national development management policies to work in the future, which is why we plan to publish shortly the prospectus I referred to earlier, if not as articulately as I could have, so that we can look at our approach to the preparation of that prospectus. We will welcome views from hon. Members. With those assurances, I hope that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Given how long the Minister has been in post, I do not blame him, but the arguments he makes in defence of clause 83(2), and proposed new subsection (5C) in particular, are the same ones we have heard over many months. Frankly, I do not think they stack up. I note with interest the points he made about the new Secretary of State taking the exact same view. I do not think his line that it would be counterproductive to amend this aspect of the Bill will hold.

I do not intend to press amendment 86 to a vote, because we will almost certainly come back to this issue on Report, but I just ask the Minister to go away and satisfy himself that the powers in subsection (2) are appropriate and justified. Will he think through, as the hon. Member for Buckingham said, not only the implications for democratic control of planning, engagement and scrutiny of planning, and the impact on trust and confidence in the planning system, which we know is an issue, but the implications in terms of innovation, undermining devolution deals and the legal delays that I am certain will come if the Government try to use this power? They will have to think about this issue again, and we will certainly come back to it on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I have heard the assurances that the Minister has given but agree with some of the reticence of the shadow Minister, so I urge my hon. Friend to consider these points very carefully over the summer. I will not press amendment 57 to a vote right now, but I underline the importance of getting this right for the whole Bill and its meaning.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I beg to move amendment 98, in clause 83, page 91, line 30, at end insert—

“, subject to subsection (5D).

(5D) But any conflict must be resolved in favour of the development plan in an area if—

(a) if, in relation to it, regulations under section 16 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 have been made to provide for the town and country planning function and the highways function and any functions exercisable under the Environment Act 2021 of a county council or a district council that is exercisable in relation to an area which is within a county combined authority area to be exercisable by the CCA in relation to the CCA’s area,

(b) if, in relation to it, regulations under section 17 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 have been made to provide for at least one function of another public body that is exercisable in relation to an area which is within a county combined authority area to be exercisable by the CCA in relation to the CCA’s area,

(c) it has a joint spatial development strategy, or

(d) it is in Greater London.”

This amendment would place limits on the primacy of national development management policies over the development plan where a Combined County Authority had been handed planning, highways, environmental powers and at least one function of another public body under a devolution deal, in areas covered by a joint spatial development strategy and in Greater London.

This is a probing amendment. Given that the Government have just declined to accept amendments 83 and 57, and reconfirmed their intention to have national development management policies override local development plans in the event of any conflict between them at the point of determination, amendment 98 is designed simply to try to elicit from the Government whether they will consider allowing any specific exemptions to that general principle.

The amendment would do so by specifying that any conflict between an NDMP and a local development plan at the point of determination must be resolved in favour of the latter in an area where a combined county authority has had key powers transferred to it under a devolution deal, where a joint spatial development strategy has been agreed, or in Greater London. The idea is that an exemption from the primacy of national policy in the form of NDMPs would be the reward, so to speak, for agreeing a devolution deal with the full panoply of powers available or for engaging in strategic planning by putting a spatial development strategy in place—or, it should be said, for taking part in a new joint spatial development strategy across authority boundaries.

Let me explain my reasoning further by using the example of an area where an SDS or a joint SDS might be taken forward. As the Minister will know, once a spatial development strategy is in place, it provides for a strategic framework for the development plan or plans, which should in theory supersede or take primacy over NDMPs that the Government might happen to bring forward.

While we remain of the view that no local development plan should be made subordinate to national planning policies in the form of NDMPs, if the Government are determined to ensure that they are—it sounded that way from the Minister’s comments in the previous debate—we believe that they should at least consider exempting from that centralising approach areas that have proactively taken on greater powers, including powers to plan strategically, so that they can use them to the full to reflect local priorities and innovate, having regard to national policy but not being unduly constrained by it.

On that basis, I hope that the Minister will give our amendment due consideration.

[Mr Jones]

I thank the hon. Member for his amendment 98, which relates to higher-tier authorities with planning powers. During the debate on amendments 86 and 57, I set out our case as to why it may be necessary for national development management policies to outweigh the development plan in the event of a conflict. Amendment 98 would prevent that from happening where there is a conflict in an area covered by a Mayor or a combined authority.

I understand that the argument behind the amendment is that it would support our efforts to promote devolution by exempting Mayors and combined authorities from any situation in which national development management policies might have precedence over their own. While I understand that argument, it is not one that we are able to agree with at this point. It makes complete sense for Mayors and combined authorities to use their strategic planning powers to make policies that support proper planning in their areas, but it does not follow that those should automatically outweigh national development management policies, given what those policies aim to do.

National development management policies will be nationally important policies, such as for the green belt or flood protection, as I have already mentioned. It remains important that those are not duplicated through strategic plans, which should restrict the chances of conflict occurring in the first place, especially where plans have been kept up to date. More details on what national development management policies could look like will be set out in the prospectus coming this summer, which will also indicate the scope for policies in plans to address matters that are locally important, or of strategic importance in the case of a Mayor or combined authority.

The other arguments made in relation to amendment 87 also apply here. There will be occasions when circumstances arise that mean the Government need to make an urgent change. That became apparent during the pandemic, when we had to act very quickly to protect temporarily closed theatres and live music venues from the threat of development. In those circumstances, it is right that national development management policy is able to override the development plan, even where there is a strategic plan-making body.

I hope that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich understands those reasons and will withdraw his amendment.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The Minister will appreciate that I am, naturally, disappointed that the Government will not countenance any exemption from the precedence that clause 83 affords to national development management policies, but I do not intend to press the amendment to a Division. The root of the problem is the powers in clause 83, rather than the specific issue raised by the amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 6 be the Sixth schedule to the Bill.

[Mr Jones]

On the basis that we have debated this matter at significant length, I commend clause 83 to the Committee.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will be extremely brief because a Division is due in the main Chamber, but also because schedule 6 is largely a tidying-up exercise, amending the Town and Country Planning Act to add requirements for local planning authorities to have regard to material considerations in NDMPs when modifying or removing permission, granting outline permission, and enforcement and appeals.

However, reading the schedule prompted two questions in my mind. First, paragraph 12(b) to schedule 6 amends paragraph 8(2) to schedule 4B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to insert paragraph (da), requiring neighbourhood development orders, which implement neighbourhood plans, to be in general conformity with NDMPs. Given that the Government are explicitly legislating in the Bill to ensure that neighbourhood development orders are consistent with NDMPs, can the Minister give the Committee a sense of what kind of national policies covered by an NDMP would have direct relevance to extremely local, sub-district plans, such that conformity with them needs to be required by the Bill?

Secondly, paragraph 15 to schedule 6 amends section 337(2) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 to insert new paragraph (ca), which adds NDMPs to the list of matters that may require modification of the Mayor of London’s spatial development strategy prior to its publication. Given that the supposed thrust of the Bill is to enable greater devolution to regional authorities and leaders, could the Minister explain the rationale for making the London spatial development strategy subservient to centrally mandated policy?

[Mr Jones]

On the hon. Gentleman’s point about neighbourhood plans, as I have mentioned a number of times, a prospectus will be brought forward in the summer to explain how national development management policies may work. I urge him to wait and see those documents. When he sees the prospectus, he will no doubt provide a response. [Interruption.]

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Ninth sitting)

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 5th July 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Alex Norris]

The Minister has never heard me argue for the assembly model—a red herring that he introduced to the debate—and I think the characterisation of committees as “unelected” is unhelpful. He has heard me argue over a significant time for the powers set out on page 140 of the White Paper to be available to county combined authorities. If they choose to be led by an elected Mayor, that is their choice and I would absolutely support it.

I think that is where we will end up in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire, although, as I have made clear, it is not my preference—perhaps by repeating how against it I am at all stages, I am attempting desperately to ensure that I never end up a candidate. Nevertheless, that has been my view throughout. The difference between my position and the Minister’s is that I have no intention of foisting mine on other people, whereas the Minister clearly does.

The Minister started by saying that he prefers the mayoral model—that is wonderful—and he made a strong case for it. I advocate that he take that case to the people of Leicester and Leicestershire, and given how persuasive he is, maybe he will succeed in convincing them. That would be an example of the process working well, and I would support his efforts in principle, if not in substance. But let us address this point about unelected committees, which as I said, is a bizarre characterisation. Let me put it this way: the Minister has introduced 60 clauses to create county combined authorities, and that has been important for this Bill Committee, which, by his logic, is unelected. In reality, the constituent members of those committees have very much stood for election and they lead their local authorities. I do not have any problem with that democracy. If four elected leaders meet for a pint after work, do they suddenly form an unelected committee and their democratic mandate ceases? I think they are still elected, and if they misbehaved that night, they would be treated as if they were. The idea that such committees are unelected is for the birds, frankly.

The Minister said—I am not sure that I agree—that this is for the voters. That is excellent news. In that case, I do not think he has anything to fear about what is established as the local preference. Why do something for someone if they do not want it?

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an inherent contradiction in the Minister’s argument? The Bill deliberately hands significant powers, particularly the spatial development strategies in schedule 7, to CCAs—or the unelected Assemblies—but denies them to mayoral combined authorities.

[Alex Norris]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. In fact, many of the arguments that the Committee has heard in the first few days will undoubtedly be used in reverse for the next few days. When it comes to planning, I do not think that is the Government’s intention. We will see those arguments again, but in reverse.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Fifth sitting)

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th June 2022 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Before I call Matthew Pennycook, I remind Members that this is line-by-line scrutiny; it is not like the Chamber. We have time to go through these issues and we are not under any pressure in that regard. If there are matters that need to be raised, please let us consider them. That is what the Committee is for and what the public expect.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

I just wanted to ask the Minister a question.

[The Chair]

If Members wish to make a speech, they can make a speech and use that opportunity now. I call Matthew Pennycook.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will turn this into a speech—of sorts.

[The Chair]

As opposed to a conversation with me.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Noted, Mr Paisley.

The Minister dwelled on the OBR in his response. I understand why: he is much more personally familiar with it. He did not touch on the Climate Change Committee, but that should be brought into the debate, not only in terms of the rigour the Committee provides for holding the Government to account on climate targets, which change over time—as when the House updated the Climate Change Act 2008 to take into account the net zero target—but for what it does for the consensus around those goals. It is extremely important.

This is the Minister’s first piece of legislation. I hope he will want it to stay on the statute book and the levelling-up missions and the wider agenda to outlive him, this Parliament and the legislation itself. Surely he can see the benefit. That is why I urge him to think again about the amendments to do with an independent body that, by passing consensus about those aims, brings in independent rigour in a way that is accessible to the public, allowing the agenda to be more properly and adequately scrutinised.

[The Chair]

Does any other Member wish to catch my eye? Does the Minister wish to respond?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Norris]

That is very much the spirit in which I tabled the amendment, which is the first Opposition amendment to the Bill. That might be construed as the Opposition wanting to make life hard for the Government or wanting a stick with which to beat them, but far from it. The amendment would ensure that partners all have a mutual responsibility to each other, and that is partly about holding each other to account and having difficult and supportive conversations about why we have not been able to do things that we have sought to do.

The Minister made a point about unconscious bias being woven out with independence, and that is important. The listed regulators—Ofsted, Ofgem, Ofcom and so on—are good comparisons for this space. We have offered the Government a kind of menu of comparisons, and I am surprised that none of them is seen as the right one. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central finished her remarks by addressing the particularly pertinent point about inequalities. It is hard to understand why those inequalities are not considered to have same level of importance as the other agendas. That is disappointing.

The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale made an interesting point, which I hope will come up later in the debate. Part 1 of the Bill is a bit unusual. We have not yet had the clause 1 stand part debate, but I am not sure why those provisions have to be in the Bill. Usually, Ministers argue that things do not need to be in the Bill and the Opposition argue that they do. I will not argue against them, but it is unusual that the Government should have chosen to include the provisions.

I dare say that what is involved is the trick of planting a stake in the ground and saying, “We are going to deliver on these important things.” However, when we consider the point made by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran, we see that there is an asterisk against this part of the Bill: the Government still want the flexibility to mark their own homework and change it if they want. Those two things are a little oddly juxtaposed. The Government want to put their head above the parapet and make the legislation central to what they want to do. That is quite a brave and risky thing to do, so I am surprised that they are not able to go a tiny bit further.

The Minister mentioned the Levelling Up Advisory Council and the esteemed people on it. We are lucky that they have chosen to take part in public life in that way, and we are grateful to them. I completely agree with all that has been said about their independent-mindedness and capability to speak for themselves, but I say gently to the Minister—this is not a point against him personally, but against the Government—that it is not those people who we do not trust. Of course we trust their independence, but how on earth can we know what they are saying and what their views are? That is the problem.

As we have seen before with various such advisory bodies, in reality the Government will sit on the difficult things and trumpet the good things. Perhaps there is an element of human nature in that—there is huge element of sadness in it—but that is what will happen. If the Government are really committed to delivering on this matter, why not go that little bit further?

I accept the point about the technical annex and, as the Minister put it, the unprecedented detail. This is a saddening thought in many ways, but I would probably go so far as to say that if I thought he was going to remain in his Department until 2030, a lot of my anxieties would disappear—although, I would have anxieties about how we had managed to lose another two elections. Putting that to one side, because I do not think it is likely to happen, I have no doubt about the Minister’s personal commitment to the agenda, his personal probity, and his willingness to have difficult conversations and to explain on the record where things have not gone as they ought to. However, I would argue strongly that that is not a characteristic that applies across Government—I do not think anybody could say that is really a feature of this Government. He says that I could go through and update each technical annex every year—I am surprised that I should have to do that on the Government’s behalf. The problem is that what we will see overtime is the booklet getting thinner, because the difficult ones will drop out or they will be replaced by another one—that is what we normally see. The Government will say, “We have got advanced metrics now that better understand the nature of life in the UK.”

[Matthew Pennycook]

Housing need.

[Alex Norris]

Housing need, as my hon. Friend says, is a good example. The metrics change to suit the outcome. The Minister knows that, which is why it needs to be in the Bill. He said that these sorts of things will accompany a statement from the Government, and that that will do in place of independent scrutiny. Those two things are not the same. There should not be the level of trust that means we would solely, on the word of Ministers, take what they say they have done as read. When our positions are swapped, I do not think the Minister would take that from us—and I do not think he should either. The need for a level of independence is obvious and clear.

I will not press the amendment to a Division, because I really want Ministers to think again about this. There will be other opportunities in this process to look for a proportionate level of independence. The Opposition have been non-prescriptive. I offered three different versions of independent scrutiny, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South offered a fourth—there may well be other versions. I hope that Ministers will reflect and come back, either at the next stage or in the other place, and put a provision in its place. The case for that is a very good one. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Monday 27th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

Having overseen the net loss of a staggering 135,000 genuinely affordable social homes over the past 12 years, the Conservative party now seems to have conceded that the country does not have enough and the Government need to do something about it. When it comes to reversing 12 years of failure on social housing, it is deeds, not words, that matter to the 1.2 million people now languishing on waiting lists across England. Can the Minister tell the House precisely how many extra homes for social rent the Government now plan to deliver by the end of this Parliament?

[Eddie Hughes]

It is slightly disappointing when the hon. Gentleman turns up with a written question that I have already answered in the response to the previous question. However, it is equally important to note that during the 11 years where we had a Labour Government, they built fewer affordable homes than the Conservative Government have built subsequently, so I do not think we are in a position to take lessons from the Opposition.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Third sitting)

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate - 3rd sitting
Thursday 23rd June 2022 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I now call the shadow Minister, Mr Pennycook, to start the questioning.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

Q95 Thank you, Mrs Murray, and thanks to those attending for taking the time to come and speak to us. Could I start with the potential impact of the Bill on the status and functioning of local planning? To what extent do you believe clauses 80 to 84 of the Bill, relating to development plans and national policy, and schedule 7 strike the right balance between the aim of streamlining local planning and the need to allow councils to tailor plans to local circumstances and encourage participation?

Victoria Hills: We think the intention to streamline local plans and take some of the bureaucracy out of them is something to be welcomed. We support that. At the moment, it is not clear to what extent the policies are going to be nationalised or not. We know the intention is there, but if you take an average local plan, we do not know—because we have not seen the detail yet—whether, for example, 10%, 50% or 80% of local policies will be effectively nationalised in this way.

In addition to the streamlining—as I say, we are not against the streamlining; if there is an opportunity to streamline, we support that—one of the areas of interest to us is the extent to which the community and, indeed, both Houses of Parliament will be involved in any consultation on these policies, which are very important policies. If they are to be pulled out of the local plans and put into a national framework, we think it is really important that an element of consultation and engagement, both with the community and across both Houses, is included in that. That is not in the Bill as currently drafted, and we think it is important.

I cannot answer the question exactly, because we have not seen the detail as to what proportion of local policies are going to be nationalised. If it were to be a significant proportion, we would be making the case even more for local consultation, engagement, and involvement of both Houses.

David Jackson: I entirely support what Victoria has said. There are some significant prizes to be won if we can streamline the process: speeding up decision making, adding certainty for investors and communities alike, and, through that process, building the prosperity and the flourishing communities that the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill anticipates. But it is in the nature of the planning system and the complex legislative framework that it sits within that there are also downside risks. Victoria has identified those in terms of perhaps less room for discussion and negotiation. I would also put in there the risk of reduced flexibility—we might come on to that under another topic.

The other downside risk I would identify is the inevitable disruption as we go through the transition from the old system to the new system. Indeed, we will see some examples of that, so I think there are some downside risks. Again, I agree with Victoria that we have not seen the detail yet to be specific about the nature of those downside risks in their totality.

Tony Mulhall: I would like to add to that. We take soundings from our members around the country quite regularly. The sense I get is that members would like to see settled national policy and standards incorporated into these national development management policies, so that the same issues do not keep arising and being reconsidered. It is administratively efficient to do it this way, but it is also in line with the levelling-up agenda, where agreed standards and policies should apply to all areas. Many of the issues that are arising to do with climate change apply across the country. It also avoids the criticism that high planning and development standards can only be had in high-value locations.

In that regard, I refer back to a piece of work that we did called “Placemaking and value”, where we looked at exemplar places in the south-east of England. The criticism that we got about that was that a lot of people in the north of England said, “That would not be possible here because we do not have those land values.” It is very important that when we set national development management policies, we recognise what it is we are doing. We are ensuring that the standards apply to all areas and that all areas get the benefit of these standards.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Q Can I ask about the NPPF? The review was announced in the White Paper in August 2020. The publication of the final version will not come until 2024, and therefore the revised version will be operational only at that point. Given the number of place makers in the Bill—you have already spoken about the lack of detail in certain areas—that relate to the NPPF, will that delay or have an impact on the legislation? What more needs to be clarified in the Bill in terms of issues such as five-year land supply to ensure the legislation can operate effectively?

Victoria Hills: I think that any further delay to where we are currently—reminding ourselves that this process of the White Paper initially started back in 2020—is something to be avoided, because it creates uncertainty not only for those preparing local plans, but for those who want to bring forward proposals. We would urge that any changes, including the NPPF, come forward quickly—as soon as possible—to get shot of that uncertainty. It is really important. We have seen the slowdown of local plans already. You will be aware that only somewhere in the region of 60% of local authorities have an up-to-date local plan. There are some really important aspects in the NPPF that we think need to be improved, not least adding in the climate change legal requirement and putting a greater emphasis on that. We would like to see that expedited, and I think that any further delay is not going to be helpful.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Q Tony or David, do you want to briefly add to that?

David Jackson: Very briefly, I think that is absolutely right. The Government are now referring to this as a prospectus of changes, multi-level—[Inaudible.] I think in those circumstances, we risk delay. Each component is a crucial part of the overall system. I referred earlier to the complex legislative framework within which planning sits, and it all comes together as a unified process. Any missing component or uncertainty risks being a drag anchor, if I can use that phrase, on the whole system, so we want to see these issues addressed as urgently as possible. Again, we are seeing local planning authorities withdrawing their local plans because of this uncertainty. Given the costs of preparing them, authorities do not particularly want to have to do the process twice. Equally, given the costs that our clients are putting into the local planning process and their commitment to it, any delay is hugely unhelpful.

Tony Mulhall: I would like to add to that. I am particularly watching this in relation to the infrastructure levy, the implementation of which seems to be quite a long way down the line. The delivery of effective infrastructure is such a critical part of the system, so it would be useful to have a clear picture of the timeframe for implementation, given that there is quite a lengthy testing period associated with that as well.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Q Tony, you mentioned the infrastructure levy, and I would like to move on to that aspect of the Bill. Again, there is a noticeable lack of detail on the face of the Bill about how the Government arrived at a considered judgment about how the levy will work, but how do you think it might operate in practice? I put it to you that there is the potential for local authorities to set multiple rates and thresholds —probably by means of a cumbersome examination process—and many of the issues around viability already exist.

It strikes me that the levy is not that dissimilar to the current set-up of the community infrastructure levy. Do you think that is fair? If not, what advantage, if any, do you think the levy will provide over the current system? How do you see it operating in practice on complex brownfield sites? Given the ability to vary rates—in the sense that the Government are proposing a new metric for end-use value, not a new flat rate—what will that do for levelling up? Will local authorities in areas with low land value not just set low levy rates that do not afford much public gain?

Tony Mulhall: Yes, that is a concern we have expressed all along. For the last three or four years, we have expressed the view that a concept of land value capture as a way of funding your infrastructure is not adequate in itself. There are lots of areas where there will not be value to be captured, and we would like to see where the funding is for essential pieces of infrastructure.

One of the interesting aspects of the Bill is that the Secretary of State can intervene if they feel that the levy was set too high and will impact on viability. I think something like that should be directly connected to the alternative infrastructure source for that particular area. The funding for the infrastructure needs to be pointed out by the Secretary of State if they decide to reduce the levy. Quite a lot of small areas of the construction and design of the levy really need to be resolved fully. I know there is a consultation coming, but those details will be very important.

One of the main objectives is to capture additional land value, but also to avoid the contentious area of viability being contested at so many different stages in the process. We are very happy to help the Department to devise a system that will be easy to apply. Being easy to apply means that the metrics being used are easily discoverable and not contentious. That is a fundamental part of an efficiently operating taxation system, which is how this is described. What we are dealing with here is not an assessment of viability for planning purposes; these are valuations for taxation purposes.

You asked about two other issues—one was complex brownfield sites. It is quite understandable that the Government would look for a measure to deal with this subject, and I think something like the section 106 agreements will be the natural fall-back position here. Officials often say that it is amazing how derided these measures are until you try to remove them, but there is a logical reason for using a section 106 agreement on complex sites because the developer is in the best position to phase and programme the necessary infrastructure. The question then will be how this is to be set off against the liabilities that would have accrued under the infrastructure levy. Varying the rate is an important aspect as well, and I think it should be retained.

This is quite a complex proposal, and it sounds as if it is intended to be rolled out in phases, to make sure that lessons are learned in operation, as they had to be for the CIL measures. The real question is: will this be the replacement of one complex system by another complex system that we will have to learn and run simultaneously, because there will be a transition period? There is quite a lot to be resolved with regard to the infrastructure levy and we are quite happy to contribute to resolving it, to make it work better.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Q I think that is an under-statement, Tony, but your response is very useful. Do you have anything to add it that, David?

[The Chair]

David, could I ask you to face the microphone please? The sound quality in your last answer was not good, and if you face the microphone, Members may be able to hear your evidence better. Thank you.

David Jackson: I beg your pardon. I think what Tony has said is correct. There is uncertainty around this new system. Fundamentally, it is one tax being replaced by another form of tax. The benefit of the new system is that it is charged on development value. That is a clearer metric than the rather complex viability assessments that led the CIL process, which was front-loaded in that respect and did not take account of changing market conditions, whether up or down. Clearly, there is a benefit in that simplification of the process based on value.

It is welcome that there is flexibility or variability in the system to take account of different circumstances. Complex brownfield sites are clearly very different from greenfield sites, as the question rightly identifies. The most important thing is that new development, new growth and new investment is facilitated rather than obstructed by the system, because none of those good things can come unless development and growth is facilitated. That is beneficial, whether it is by way of taxation, the CIL, the new infrastructure levy or, indeed, the investment that is brought forward through section 106. We started off with some uncertainty around the future of section 106, and one of the most welcome aspects of the legislation is that section 106 is being retained. It gives both developers and the community certainty about when that new infrastructure—whether it be social, physical or other infrastructure—is to be provided.

One area where there is less certainty, so far as we can see at the moment, is where the infrastructure levy is going to be spent. Previously, under the CIL system, we had regulation 123, which set out local authority priorities for investment and how money should be spent. The emphasis in discussions to date has been on affordable housing, but is this investment going to be directed towards other locally set measures? I think there needs to be transparency in relation to that.

Finally, I agree with Tony’s point about the need for road testing. This is complex new regulation. It needs to be road tested by way of pilot schemes before we invite local authorities across the country to invest resources into this complex process.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Q Thank you, Mrs Murray, and I thank both witnesses for attending. I would ideally like to get through four questions, so I would appreciate it if you could trim your answers to help me do that. The first question relates to national development management plans. Do you take issue with them on principle, on the grounds that they undermine the primacy of local and neighbourhood plans? If not, do you think their use should be circumscribed? If so, how tightly?

Jonathan Owen: As I said, we are strongly supportive of a plan-led system, and we are concerned that those national development management policies might well take primacy over neighbourhood plans and cause difficulties. We would like to see the Bill amended so that they do not have primacy over those other local deals. I also think there should be consideration to make sure that if those national policies are changed, it does not require an immediate updating of a neighbourhood or local plan. I think there is a risk that we will have waves of new national plans that will then set aside some of the local policies.

Tony Burton: I agree with that. [Inaudible.] There is merit in setting out at a national level those policies that are appropriate to be expressed at a national level: policies that are universally applicable and set the framework within which other things happen. We see completely unnecessary repetition, rewording, obfuscation and a lack of clarity when they are carried forward through development plans and some neighbourhood plans.

The risk is that national policies stray too far into matters that are much better decided at the local or neighbourhood level. There will always be a very strong temptation for Whitehall to overstep the mark, as history shows. We think that there need to be clear measures that prescribe and limit the national development management policies to those things for which they are appropriate and which do not fetter the nuance and local understanding that is brought at local and neighbourhood level.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Q Thank you. I am sure you both know that, unlike national policy statements, the Bill proposes no parliamentary approval process for NDMPs and stipulates that the requirement to consult is entirely at the discretion of the Secretary of State. Can I take it that you both agree there should be a greater degree of consultation and parliamentary oversight of these plans?

Tony Burton: Yes, indeed. We don’t necessarily think that they are sufficient on the NPSs or indeed the national planning policy framework, so it is not just about equivalence. That could all be significantly improved to a much more citizen and community-led insight into how these policies are being drawn up.

Jonathan Owen: As for the first tier of local government, I think that the more engagement and consultation, the better. So yes, I think that is something that should be looked at.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Q I have a very specific question relating to clause 83, which states that planning determination must be made

“in accordance with the development plan and any national development management policies, unless material considerations strongly indicate otherwise.”

Is that language sufficiently clear to be easily understood by councils?

Tony Burton: May I digress briefly? This is a personal question, because over 30 years ago, in a different campaigning role, I was responsible for drafting all the amendments to what became the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, which includes the provisions that clause 83 now seeks to change. At that time, we went through about a dozen variations of how to express on the face of the Bill what we were seeking to achieve. Sir George Young was the Minister responsible and was seeking a plan-led system. We even tried “strongly” at the time and, if my memory serves me right, it was rejected by Parliament’s legal experts. So although the language is clunky—it is legalistic—it has a 30-year track record. The insertion of a single word is a helpful expression of a more plan-led approach. It might be more helpful to go down that route than it would be to develop an entirely different set of wording, which would then trigger a whole new set of case law having to be established. In terms of the pragmatic achievement of what we are trying to do here—to strengthen a plan-led approach—the pragmatic approach, as suggested in the Bill, is reasonable.

Jonathan Owen: I agree with Tony. Adding “strongly” is helpful.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Q The Bill introduces two new development plan documents: spatial development strategies and supplementary plans. However, it provides only for extremely limited opportunities for the public to participate in producing them. Should the Bill be amended to ensure that members of the public can be involved in every aspect of development plan formulation? If so, what might that look like?

Tony Burton: Again, it is the same point that we have made throughout. You cannot, on the one hand, have a Bill that has written through it political rhetoric about communities having more insight and influence, being less done to, and strengthening the role in local planning, but on the other hand have critical documents prepared by other parts of the system being drawn up without the benefit of the insight that those communities that will be involved in other ways can bring. Providing those legal safeguards is an essential process, in our view, and that needs to be more than six weeks of a PDF being on a website; it needs to be something that requires positive interaction being secured with those who are going to be interested and engaged in it.

Jonathan Owen: There is some helpful evidence from the neighbourhood planning process. Where communities have been engaged and have inputted effectively to the development of neighbourhood plans, they have understood the reasons for some of the development pressures and other things. Actually, where there are neighbourhood plans, additional housing to that anticipated in the local plan has often been put in place. Engagement and full consultation, as Tony suggested, is sensible.

[The Chair]

I call Greg Smith.