Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Seventeenth sitting)

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

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

[Alex Norris]

I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I am slightly uncomfortable that he relies on the 1990 Act, because that clearly was not sufficient in Liverpool, and there is a real and current risk around Stonehenge. On his point about case law and strong consideration, again that has not always been effective in cases where we might have wanted it to be. We then rely on the courts to test the edge cases; maybe that is inevitable, but we could eradicate some of that with slightly stronger language. At this point, I do not think it is beneficial to labour this any further, because the Minister made a clear statement about his intent, which was welcome. We may wish to return to this at a later stage, but if colleagues are content then I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

I beg to move amendment 128, in clause 92, page 97, line 31, after “enhancing” insert “the significance of”.

This amendment adds to the description of the purpose of sensitive management of heritage assets.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Mark. This amendment looks at not just an asset, but the significance of an asset. Preserving or enhancing an asset may not be possible, but preserving its importance and significance could be.

In York, there is much to determine the social history of our city. Of course, assets are often thought about in terms of bricks and architecture, rather than their social significance and the way that has fed into the wider architecture of a place. In York, there is a process that prevents anything from obliterating the view of the Minster, for instance, and thus its significance as a centre and a beacon across not only York, but North Yorkshire. It can be seen from miles away, so the building of flats as is happening currently, or the plans proposed on the site of the gasworks, would remove the significance of that asset. Preserving it is really important. Likewise, the centre for heritage arts that is currently being developed to go to planning is causing concern about the way it could detract from the view of the Minster. Although it is not directly impeding on the material asset, its development could have significance.

Another example many will know of is Bootham Crescent, the former home of York City Football Club. It was built in 1932 and has only just closed. The stands were something to behold. Maintaining the spirit of Bootham is important. It is where many people have laid ashes to rest. There are significant tunnels under the ground, which have important graffiti on them—fans would cross the stadium through them mid-match and fights would break out. Maintaining these assets is about the working-class population of York and the significance of football to them.

York Central—here we go again—was the home of the British Rail carriage works, and has real significance for the blue-collar workers of our city, who made a tremendous contribution to the railways. Yet this could well be wiped out by the York Central development, so none of its significance to the building of the railways over 100 years would remain. Therefore, it is not just about the asset itself and how important it is, but is about the social story that can be told by it. That is why I believe that my amendment is important for looking at how heritage assets are preserved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell]

I think we will go on to have a further discussion about this matter. Given that the concept is within the NPPF, as the Minister said, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Rachael Maskell]

I beg to move amendment 136, in clause 92, page 98, line 34, at end insert—

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 138, in clause 92, page 98, line 34, at end insert—

[Rachael Maskell]

Romans, Vikings and medieval Britain are often on people’s minds as they visit and walk the walls of our city, yet the social history of York has a far more powerful application to our city’s development. The amendment highlights the importance of that. I think of Bootham Park Hospital, built in 1772, and the history that it made in managing mental health in our country and really advancing mental health treatment; only in 1796 did the Retreat open and improve mental health provision. Those assets have been disposed of to the private sector, which just wants to turn them into commercial outlets. Of course, that does not take on board their significant contribution to mental health in our country, and how it changed the way mental health was dealt with across the world. We are losing the significance of those assets because there is simply not enough protection in law to preserve that amazing history.

I can give other examples—for instance, the Castle Gateway project in York. Clifford’s Tower is very significant to our nation’s history, particularly Jewish history in our country. It is also a site of justice. It is where Lascelles fought Wilberforce to come to this place to fight slavery. A significant debate took place there, yet the Castle Gateway project would turn it into parkland. There would be no reference whatsoever to the significance of that major piece of British history. It is therefore really important that we look at how we can build in such assets, and recognise the incredible fabric of social history.

Amendment 136 is therefore really important, as is amendment 138. I hope that the Government will understand the significance of it too, given the felling of ancient woodlands—bulldozing our cathedrals of nature. Our natural heritage must also be preserved.

--- Later in debate ---

Natural England is also producing new guidance on national park and areas of outstanding natural beauty management plans, with the intention that management plans should set out clear actions, aligned with local management plans and national priorities such as those within the 25-year environment plan, including on beauty, heritage and engagement. For those reasons we do not accept amendments 136 and 138. I hope I have provided sufficient reassurances to the hon. Members for York Central and for Westmorland and Lonsdale to enable them to withdraw their amendments.

[Rachael Maskell]

I listened carefully to the Minister’s response. First, I want to thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale for setting out the implications of his amendment for natural and rural heritage; we can see how that can rapidly disappear into a developer’s dream and a local community’s nightmare. A highland clearance in the modern era is something that we have to take stock of. The protections clearly are not there, in the same way that protections are not there currently under the NPPF, because we are seeing significant sites of social history also having a diminution of their significance through the developments being brought forward. Although the Minister is right to say that there is legislation that can address the issues, there is clearly a mismatch in what happens in practice. As a result, I still have significant concerns.

The Minister talked about the fact that sites of social significance are not currently recognised in the legislative framework, and I will certainly take that back to archaeologists because they would want to see significant change—perhaps even a Bill in its own right—to address that. Because of the way that many developers are currently behaving, I fear we will lose much of our significant past, so we need to find mechanisms to protect us. On the basis of exploring further legislation, I am happy to withdraw my amendment now, but we will return to it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

[Tim Farron]

I am grateful to the Minister for his detailed response to the amendments.

The landscape review does give potential for there to be additional protections for areas of outstanding beauty such as the north Pennines and Arnside and Silverdale in Cumbria and across north Lancashire. It is worth bearing in mind that landscape heritage is lost quickly and subtly and not often as a result of a direct planning proposal. It is not that developers come in and decide to build several hundred properties in Longsleddale; it is that Longsleddale changes because farmers cease to be farmers and the area ceases to be farmed.

We therefore see—moving away from Lonsdale to other parts of the lakes and dales—the dry stone walls crumbling, with the loss of that vital part of our heritage going. We see the barns crumbling. The historic heritage species disappear, and access to the fells and dales disappears as well. The subtle but perceptible feel and aesthetics of those places—not just those that we have grown up with, but that have been the feature of a lived experience over hundreds and hundreds of years—begins to change.

Landscape heritage is lost quickly and subtly, and partly in response to Government action or inaction, whether accidental or deliberate. We have a food strategy, or an approach to farm funding, that is almost deliberately written to reduce the amount of food that we produce in this country. As a result, it will be a less-farmed environment, and it will look different. Given that the tourism economy of the Lake district, Yorkshire dales and Cumbria is worth £3.5 billion a year, that will have a huge impact monetarily and economically, as well as aesthetically.

I am happy not to press my amendment to a vote. We will keep a close eye on what the Government intend in terms of safeguards for our landscape heritage and culture, and we will wait to see whether greater protections are provided as the Bill progresses.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Farron]

This short placeholder clause has all the hallmarks of a post-it note stuck on the A board by the boss on an away day that nobody had the courage to say was silly. The boss has gone now, so we could just take it off the whiteboard. The Government are trying to think about democracy and involving people in a hyper-local way in planning. Let us be generous and say that that is commendable. I will not vote against the clause either, but to have a placeholder clause, with a total absence of detail, seems very peculiar. The Conservative-led Local Government Association talks of its fears about the risk of

“stifling the production and implementation of local plans.”

That will need to be answered very clearly in any further work on the clause.

There needs to be some clarity on the specific requirements that will need to be met in order for a street to vote in favour of or against a proposal. If we are to go ahead with this, surely it is right to do some learning via a pilot process before we roll it out everywhere. Not only do I understand but I am ahead of the Government when it comes to desiring to involve local people in a genuine democratic way. Other members of the Committee are as well. We have given the Government, through the Committee, opportunities to do just that. The hon. Member for York Central tabled amendments on a deliberative planning process, and this morning I sought to give the Government the opportunity to give communities power over their own housing stock, to ensure that they preserved an appropriate amount for permanent dwellings. Those were rejected, but we will have a referendum on Terry and June’s new garage.

As the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich indicated, we are all seriously in favour of local democracy, but I am concerned that the proposal will potentially be very divisive, and that we have not thought it through. We reject genuine local control and go for this instead. It feels like a triumph of the trivial over the useful. There are other questions that we could ask. How do we define a street? Does the 6-mile-long Kentmere valley count as a street? If we were serious about this, we would not have a post-it note on the whiteboard. Either fill it in or take it off, but I am sceptical.

[Rachael Maskell]

I will add my scepticism to the comments that have already been made. I have so many questions about the clause. When a clause throws up the number of questions that this one does, the Government should withdraw it. I understand that they want to involve communities, but there are many ways of doing that far more comprehensively. I do not know whether the Minister’s constituency is like mine, but people are saying that they want involvement and consultation; they are certainly not hammering at my door in order to have a referendum, vote or whatever we want to call it over a particular commodity. They want good planning put in place.

We have been discussing the opportunity for people to have a real voice in things, as in the situation that we have, with whole swathes of my city bought up by people trying to turn it over to Airbnbs. If they buy a number of properties on a street and have a monopoly on that street, could they push through developments? That would mean they are exploiting the opportunity being set out by the Minister in the legislation. Indeed, people in the surrounding area would have no say whatever. That is open to abuse without tighter controls in the legislation.

This measure is a way of democracy-washing the Bill: we are taking away significant powers through the national proposal from the Minister, under which the Secretary of State could impose planning decisions on communities, but then saying, “By the way, you can have a vote on an extension on your street.” That democracy-washing approach does not wash with those on the Labour Benches. We want something more enduring that involves more debate, listening and engagement to get an outcome that is right for communities. The Minister must answer these questions.

This feels very much like the Minister is saying, “Children, you can vote on something on your street, while we grown-ups get on with the big development plans.” It is those plans that will affect whole swathes of the community, perhaps through national development management strategies taking over the big decisions, while people can only vote on an extension—or not—on their street.

We need to think about the context in which we want communities involved in planning—which we absolutely do—and decisions made. But this democracy-washing simply does not wash with me or my Labour colleagues.

[The Chair]

I call the Minister to respond on Terry and June’s new garage.

--- 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.