Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Twenty Sixth sitting)

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 20th October 2022 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

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

New Clause 44

Mission on environmental equality

“(1) When preparing a statement of levelling-up missions under section 1, a Minister of the Crown must include a mission on environmental equality.

(2) The environmental equality mission must include the objective of ensuring equitable access to high quality natural spaces.”—(Rachael Maskell.)

This new clause would require the Government to include a mission on environmental equality, incorporating equitable access to nature in particular, within the levelling up programme.

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 46—Nature restoration duty—

“(1) It is the duty of relevant Ministers to identify and maintain a network of sites for the purposes of restoring and protecting the natural environment in local areas.

(2) By 2030 and thereafter, the network must include at least 30% of land in England that is protected, monitored and managed as a "protected site" or other effective area-based conservation measures for the protection and restoration of biodiversity.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), ‘protected site’ means a site that satisfies the following conditions—

(a) habitats, species and other significant features of the natural environment with biodiversity value within the site are strictly protected from direct and indirect harm;

(b) management and monitoring provisions are made to ensure that habitats, species and other significant features of the natural environment with biodiversity value within the site are restored to and maintained at favourable condition and are subject to continuing improvement; and

(c) provision is made to ensure that conditions (a) and (b) are met in perpetuity.

(4) In carrying out duties under this section, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that—

(a) any areas of special interest for biodiversity in England as defined in section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981;

(b) all irreplaceable habitats; and

(c) areas identified in Local Nature Recovery Strategies that are protected in the planning system and managed for the recovery of the natural environment

have been identified and designated as a protected site.”

This new clause would require relevant Ministers to identify and maintain a network of sites for nature to protect at least 30% of the land in England for nature by 2030. The clause defines the level of protection sites require to qualify for inclusion in the new network and requires key sites for nature to be included within it.

[Rachael Maskell]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone, on the final day of our proceedings on this incredible Bill. I want to place on record my thanks to all the Clerks for the support they have given the Committee, particularly when writing our amendments.

There are omissions in the levelling-up agenda. Future generations, let alone the current one, will not forgive a levelling-up plan that fails to focus on the natural environment and to ensure that people have equal access to our greatest assets. Equitable access to the environment needs to be in the Bill through a specified mission. Some 70% of UK adults have said that being close to nature improves their mood, saving the NHS at least £100 million a year, with a nature-rich space leading to healthier and happier people. One in three people in economically deprived areas does not have access to green spaces within 15 minutes of where they live. These measures are therefore vital for our mental and physical health. It is often those who live in urban, deprived communities with the least connection to our natural environment who suffer the most. Making tacking that issue a central mission of the levelling-up agenda would prove that this Government understand that enrichment is for everyone and would bring Government focus to it.

I have constituents who have never been to the country, children who have never run along a beach and adults who have never climbed a mountain, never got lost in a forest and never been to a place where they can breathe the cleanest air. Without nature, our wellbeing is impaired, productivity falls and poverty rises—that is inequality, not levelling up. Access to the natural environment must therefore be a central mission if levelling up is to have any purpose at all.

New clause 46 would place a duty on Ministers to identify and maintain a network of sites for nature, to protect at least 30% of the land in England for nature by 2030, and that land must be monitored and managed for conservation and restoration. If, like me, you miss hedgehogs—perhaps they have no connected corridors—or birds, bees and butterflies, which we have failed to protect from pesticides and whose habitats we have failed to save, you will understand why this new clause is important. If you live somewhere like York and see more and more severe flooding because grouse moor shooting practices have damaged the upper catchment, you will want to see that practice stopped and the land restored. Our incredible natural environment was created to be in perfect balance, but our interference has caused so much harm.

We have a serious duty to monitor the natural environment, end the harm and restore nature before it is too late. Homing in on key sites must be our priority. We have heard so much this year about the climate emergency, and COP15 is highlighting the ruinous state of our natural environment. Just over the weekend, I was reading a WWF report that states that, on average, 69% of populations of mammals, birds and fish have vanished since 1970. We have to stop and save. My new clause would be the first step in that and would show that the Government were serious, not grandstanding, on such a serious issue.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Dehenna Davison)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Hollobone. I am again delighted to find some common ground so early in the Committee sitting; I think we were three minutes in when the hon. Member for York Central mentioned her love for hedgehogs—something that I definitely share. I thank her for these proposals, which aim to address the importance of the environment within the levelling-up framework.

New clause 44 concerns the inclusion of a specific mission on environmental equality. While I fully appreciate the sentiment behind it, the missions as depicted in the levelling-up White Paper are the product of extensive analysis and engagement already. They are supported by a clear range of metrics, which will be used to measure them at the appropriate levels of geography. They take into account the wider range of inputs, outputs and outcomes needed to drive progress in the overall mission. They cover a wide range of policy issues that are all clearly linked to the drivers of spatial disparities.

The Government have already explicitly acknowledged the importance of natural capital in the White Paper. As an asset, it underpins sustainable GDP growth, supports productivity over the medium term and provides resilience to future shocks. Natural capital has been estimated to be worth £1.2 trillion in the UK alone. It also has a place under the 25-year environment plan, which sets out the Government’s plans to help the natural world regain and retain good health. It pursues cleaner air and water in our cities and rural landscapes, protection for threatened species and provision of richer wildlife habitats. Importantly, the Environment Act 2021 already contains provision for the setting of long-term environmental targets for England, which is also referenced in the levelling-up White Paper, so the Government’s commitment to the environment is incredibly clear.

The Bill is designed to establish the framework for the missions, rather than the individual missions themselves. The framework provides an opportunity to scrutinise the substance of the missions and further environmental protections against a range of existing Government policy.

New clause 46 aims to establish a duty on relevant Ministers to identify and maintain a network of sites for nature. The Government have already committed to protecting 30% of land for nature by 2030 and to developing the most appropriate approach to increasing and enhancing protected land as we do so. Protected sites are our best existing areas for nature, providing places within which species can thrive, recover and disperse. The nature recovery Green Paper sought views on how the protected site system in England could be improved to better deliver our domestic and international biodiversity objectives, including our commitment to protect 30% of land by 2030 and wider species recovery. We are considering responses to the Green Paper and will be publishing our response in due course. This is the means through which the Government will implement and identify sites for the 30 by 30 commitment, but I hope the Government will be given the opportunity to respond on the Green Paper first. On that basis, I hope I have provided enough reassurance for the hon. Member for York Central not to press her new clauses.

[Rachael Maskell]

I have to disagree with the Minister that such priority is being given to the natural environment. This has to be a central mission, not least because of the recognition that she has given to the value of natural capital. While the 25-year environment plan sets out an ambition, it is weak on targets and monitoring. We need to go far further, which is what this proposal will do if it is a central mission in levelling up.

On new clause 46, I note that the Government are consulting on the issue, and I am interested in the responses. I will not push these new clauses today, save to say that the natural environment does not have high enough priority in this legislation, but it is essential for our future. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 45

General duty to reduce health inequalities and improve well-being

“(1) For the purposes of this section ‘the general health and well-being objective’ is the reduction of health inequalities and the improvement of well-being in England through the exercise of functions in relation to England.

(2) A public authority which has any functions exercisable in relation to England must prepare and publish a plan to be known as a health inequalities and well-being improvement plan.

(3) A relevant planning authority must have regard to the general health and wellbeing objective and that plan when preparing relevant plans, policies and strategies.

(4) A relevant planning authority when making a planning decision must aim to ensure the decision is consistent with achieving the general health and well-being objective.

(5) In complying with this section a relevant planning authority must have special regard to the desirability of—

(a) delivering mixed-use walkable neighbourhoods which accord with the 20 minute neighbourhood principle; and

(b) creating opportunities to enable everyday physical activity, through improving existing and creating new walking, cycling and wheeling routes and networks and natural spaces.

(6) For the purposes of subsection (5)(a), neighbourhoods which accord with the 20 minute neighbourhood principle are places where people can meet most of their daily needs including food shops, schools, health services and natural space within a 20 minute return walk of their home.

(7) Where the relevant authority is a local authority, in complying with this section, the authority must—

(a) include specific objectives for access to natural spaces and ensure that those objectives are met;

(b) ensure that the objectives established under subsection (a) set out standards for high quality accessible natural green and blue spaces, using Natural England’s Accessible Natural Greenspace Standards as a baseline, and going beyond these standards where possible; and (c) implement and monitor the delivery of those objectives.”—(Rachael Maskell.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Rachael Maskell]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

We are a sick nation physically. Our health outcomes are regressing and we are sinking into a mental health quagmire. Levelling up has to address this agenda, or else it has no purpose. The new clause recognises the inequality and demands change. It should be welcome and should integrated into the Bill, not least with the health disparities White Paper scrapped. If we have poor planning, residential or economic, people’s health is impacted. If we have poor transport planning, pollution reduces their life expectancy. If someone has a cold, damp house or faces housing insecurity, they will have poor educational outcomes and a poor job, poor pay and poor prospects, and they will get trapped in a cycle. Levelling up should break them free of that.

In his 2010 “Fair Society, Healthy Lives” review, Professor Sir Michael Marmot understood this. It is his life’s work to consider how planning, transport, environment and housing must come together to address wider health determinants. The new clause seeks to heed his work and to act. Planning has the most significant role to play, yet it does not have statutory engagement with this agenda. We urgently need to address inequality and shape sustainable, thriving and healthy places for physical activity and mental wellbeing—natural places for walking, cycling and wheeling that have clean air and that are accessible. Although there is an existing legal duty on local authorities and the Secretary of State to improve public health in England, there are no corresponding legal duties to reduce health inequalities and improve wellbeing in local authorities, but they are the delivery vehicle of this agenda.

A health inequalities and wellbeing improvement plan must integrate health, planning, transport, environment and housing to address social determinants. Let us make one. Delivering 20-minute neighbourhoods would not only change the way we live our lives, but build community for all, creating, as a planning purpose, opportunities for active travel and natural space, enhancing wellbeing and economic output, and levelling up. Building in natural green and blue spaces is therefore vital to the planning and levelling-up agendas.

We have talked for years—decades—but talking does not make anything happen. We need action, infrastructure, obligations and a further levelling-up mission. Let us legislate and support the new clause.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your guidance today, Mr Hollobone. On this last day of the Committee, I want to put on record my thanks to the Clerk here and those who are not present for their work and support throughout the Committee. I also thank colleagues on both sides. Although I have been disappointed that the Government have not accepted amendments from the Opposition or from their own Back Benchers, I have nevertheless appreciated the courtesy with which that has been done. I have enjoyed this time on the Committee with all Members present—I genuinely mean that.

I have a few words to say on the new clause. Health inequalities are hugely significant for levelling up, and I want to pick just two issues that affect rural communities—not just mine, but others too. I will start with GPs. In my constituency alone there has been a 17% drop in the number of GPs in the past five and a half years—that is more than one in six GPs gone—and the average GP there serves 403 more patients than they did in 2016. Any Government criticism or implied criticism of GPs not seeing people quickly enough needs to be seen in that context. Let us support our GPs with the resources they need, rather than lambasting them.

It is worth pointing out that that period coincides with the time since the Government got rid of the minimum practice income guarantee, and I am going to argue that those things are connected. The minimum practice income guarantee was money that supported small, often rural, surgeries to ensure they were sustainable. Its removal has led to the closure of a number of surgeries, including the current threat to the Ambleside and Hawkshead surgeries in my constituency. A new small surgeries strategic rural fund could support those surgeries, make sure we do not lose more and bring some back.

The second issue is about cancer. In the north of Cumbria, 59% of people with a cancer diagnosis are not seen within two months of their diagnosis—they are not being treated for the first time for more than 62 days after diagnosis. In the south of Cumbria, the figure is 41%. Either way, that is outrageous. People are dying unnecessarily.

There are a whole range of reasons for that. One is the lack of easy access to radiotherapy. According to the Government’s national radiotherapy advisory group, any patient who has to travel more than 45 minutes one way for radiotherapy treatment is in receipt of “bad practice”. That information was published a few years ago now, but it still absolutely stands, clinically and in every other way. There is not a single person living in my constituency who can get to treatment within 45 minutes—not one. Mobile or satellite units at places such as Kendal and Penrith are absolutely essential. If we are going to tackle levelling up and health inequalities between rural areas and others, we need to ensure that small rural surgeries are properly funded and that there are satellite radiotherapy units.

--- Later in debate ---

Although I understand the spirit of the new clause, the Government must oppose it because the new approach to co-ordinating local efforts to improve health outcomes and policies in place as part of the planning system already ensures that those important issues are considered by public authorities. I kindly encourage the hon. Member for York Central to withdraw her new clause.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am incredibly grateful to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale for raising the situation in Cumbria, including the shocking statistics about what is happening around cancer care in that area, of which he is an incredible champion.

My challenge to the Minister is this. The Government have lots of initiatives, but no co-ordination, focus and drive to deliver, which is why creating a duty to address health inequalities is important. ICSs are distracted by the crumbling of the NHS and have so many priorities placed on them. The planning expectations are just not being met and delivered, as there are other pressures and priorities that come through the planning system.

Public health is an important issue for all of us, but it does not fall within the ABCD of the Secretary of State’s priorities for the health services. This is another missed opportunity to create a mechanism to measure and manage health inequalities and disparities through the planning system. It absolutely belongs within levelling-up legislation; it is a shame that the Minister will not support that.

I will not push the new clause to a vote, but I hope the Minister will take on board those points and see how they can be further integrated into the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 47

Churches and church land to be registered as assets of community value

“(1) The Assets of Community Value (England) Regulations 2012 (S.I. 2421/2012) are amended as follows.

(2) After regulation 2 (list of assets of community value), insert—

‘2A Parish churches and associated glebe land are land of community value and must be listed.’”—(Rachael Maskell.)

This new clause would require parish churches and associated glebe land to be listed as assets of community value, meaning communities would have the right to bid on them before any sale.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Rachael Maskell]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 47 raises quite a niche issue, but none the less an important one. The post office is long gone; the village shop has closed; the pub is now holiday lets. Some may not realise that the Church of England is currently looking to dispose of 356 churches. They were paid for and built by parishes and are now under threat. They are the very last community space, sucked out by the secularisation of society. The need for financial prudence over community value and a spiritual space within a community has never been more apparent. Having met with the Save the Parish campaign, I believe that these spaces are too important to just go to the market. Instead, parish churches and associated glebe land should be designated as land of community value.

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

I am curious as to why the hon. Lady is defining this as narrowly as parish churches. For example, a church in my constituency was never a parish church—it was attached to a mental health facility that has long closed—but it is just as architecturally beautiful and as much a piece of heritage as the nearby parish churches. There are many similar chapels out there; in many cases they were attached to hospitals or military facilities. They also add community value and need saving. Will the hon. Lady expand her scope to include those premises?

[Rachael Maskell]

I am incredibly grateful to the hon. Member for Buckingham for raising that issue. He is absolutely right; we need to look at the broadest possible scope. This particular issue has been raised within the Church of England, but he is right—there are many places of worship that should be marked as community assets.

When those assets are disposed of, communities should have a right to access them and bid for them, as we have discussed during previous stages of the Bill, rather than them going straight to market sale. That leaves communities devoid of any assets whatsoever. It is so important for communities to have the option to maintain an asset and use it for multiple purposes, including as a place of worship or as a place to serve the community.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)]

I thank the hon. Member for York Central for putting forward the new clause. She powerfully made her point about the importance of church properties and church land at the centre of our communities. We have all recently seen buildings that have brought communities together for decades and centuries, very sadly, no longer able to continue in the way that they have previously, and they may be released for other purposes. I accept that; we all regret it and many people in the communities regret it. I have an example in my constituency: there was a long-standing campaign for St Andrew’s Parish Church in Barrow Hill, which concluded only a few months ago. It was an early version of a church built along the lines of the arts and crafts movement. It has significance, and yet it looks as though it will leave ecclesiastical aegis.

I completely understand the hon. Member’s sentiment and she has made a cogent case for the new clause, but the challenge—and why I will ask her to withdraw it—is that the assets of community value scheme allows local communities to make applications to retain community assets where they think it is reasonable and proportionate. On balance, while I accept her point, it would be better to allow local communities to continue to make those decisions. When the challenges that she highlighted arise, I hope that communities try to ensure that churches are protected as much as possible.

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is absolutely right that, historically, we have attempted to address such issues, both through the continuation of the asset of community value process, which allows local communities to try to intervene should they feel that appropriate, and the community ownership fund, which is £150 million of taxpayer subsidy that supports communities to save at-risk assets.

Although I accept the point made by the hon. Member for York Central, my personal preference, and that of the Government, is that local communities reserve the right to request assets of community value and to go through that process. Automatically designating churches as assets of community value may not be appropriate in all circumstances. I ask that the hon. Lady kindly withdraw the motion.

[Rachael Maskell]

I want to pick up on a couple of points. I thank the hon. Member for South Suffolk for raising his concerns. Considerable public money is invested in many such historic buildings before they end up at market, so we need to consider that opportunity. However, churches are not just ordinary buildings; they are very special buildings in our communities. We must consider the broader value that such places bring to our communities. Although I will not press the motion to a Division, I hope that the Minister will regard this as a new issue on his desk and that, when we have debates on later stages of the Bill, he will look further at how we can protect these vital community assets. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 48

Requirement to hold a referendum for large and strategic sites

“(1) A planning application which a local planning authority has received is subject to approval by residents in a referendum in either of the following cases—

(a) the planning application is for a site of two hectares or over, or

(b) the planning application is for a site of one hundred housing units or over.

(2) The local planning authority may not approve an application under section (1) unless the result of the referendum is to approve the application.

(3) Where the result of the referendum is not to secure an application the applicant may resubmit an application to the local planning authority if the following conditions are met—

(a) they have carried out further public consultation on the plan, and

(b) the plan has been substantively revised as a result of this consultation.”—(Rachael Maskell.)

This new clause would require planning applications for large and strategic sites to be subject to approval by residents in a referendum.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Rachael Maskell]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 49—Requirement to hold a referendum where planning permission has been granted—

“(1) A planning application which a local planning authority has received is subject to approval by residents in a referendum in either of the following cases—

(a) where outline planning permission has been granted, all applications for sites with over fifty housing units that have been in place for five years or more without the approved development being completed, or

(b) where full planning permission has been granted, all applications for sites with over fifty housing units that have been in place for three years or more without the approved development being completed.

(2) The local planning authority may not approve an application under section (1) unless the result of the referendum is to approve the application.

(3) Where the result of the referendum is not to secure an application the applicant may resubmit an application to the local planning authority if the following conditions are met—

(a) they have carried out further public consultation on the plan, and

(b) the plan has been substantively revised as a result of this consultation.”

This new clause would require that applications which have already been granted are subject to approval by referendum after a certain period of time for large sites.

New clause 50—Requirement to hold a referendum: affordable housing targets—

“(1) A planning application which a local planning authority has received is subject to approval by residents in a referendum if—

(a) the planning application is for a site of fifty housing units or more, or

(b) the planning application is for a site identified for housing in an adopted or draft Local Plan

and the application fails to meet the local planning authority’s quota for the delivery of affordable housing.

(2) The local planning authority may not approve an application under section (1) unless the result of the referendum is to approve the application.

(3) Where the result of the referendum is not to secure an application the applicant may resubmit an application to the local planning authority if the following conditions are met—

(a) they have carried out further public consultation on the plan, and

(b) the plan has been substantively revised as a result of this consultation.”

This new clause would subject planning applications for less affordable housing to approval by residents in a referendum.

[Rachael Maskell]

Communities are very much removed from the planning system, as I have mentioned multiples times to the Committee. However, what comes before a local planning authority is the future of a community’s homes, jobs, streets and town centres. On larger sites, that can have even more significance. The new clause provides that, on sites of more than 2 hectares or of over 100 housing units, the public would be given a meaningful say over developments.

York Central, which will become Airbnb central before long, is a development of 2,500 units on a 45 hectare site. The units are too costly for local people, and the wrong kind of housing for my community, so they will simply be assets for investors. No one in York wants the development to go ahead as planned, but no one has had a say. In fact, the community has been ignored and snubbed, while all those who will gain capital receipts, and our inept council, nod it through. People need a say, and how better than through a public vote? They want the site to be developed, but with homes and jobs for them. Where developers have not advanced their planning, they too should be given an opportunity to have a say over those sites. People in communities should be at the heart of planning; they are instead ignored.

I have one objective: for people to be given back their communities. Communities should have homes, jobs and natural assets that benefit them, and be empowered and valued. Instead, landowners—public and private—developers, and poor planning ride roughshod over them. They extract what they can for their gain, rather than for investment for others. That has to stop, and new clause 48 seeks to stop it. New clause 50 would change the balance of housing developed, so that, rather than market profiteering, the community determines its own gain. Through a public vote, communities would be able to deliver affordable housing.

I believe that we are all on one side in wanting that outcome; it is just that Labour plans to do something about it. My earlier new clauses, through which I sought a process of deliberative democracy, would of course be more powerful, as the right solutions would be achieved from the very start.

[Lee Rowley]

This is an interesting set of new clauses, on which I could detain the Committee for many hours, although I wonder whether it would be keen on that. In the interest of brevity, I will limit my comments, because the clauses go to a philosophical question about where and how decisions should be made, and about the rights of individuals to at least propose activities on their own property with their own capital.

A single principle that has been part of the planning system for many decades is that people have the right to make applications within an existing and approved framework or, if that existing and approved framework is not in place, within the broader national planning policy framework, and for them to be heard. Although I understand the point made by the hon. Member for York Central, that important principle should be upheld.

There is a broader question about whether we should seek to disintermediate the planning system more generally in terms of public involvement, but that is probably one for another forum. I would be happy to debate that question with the hon. Lady, as it raises a number of broader and more interesting issues. As an expert in this area, she will know that it is important to note that the significant number of interventions currently in the planning system allow people to have their say.

I do not necessarily think that the system is broken, but a lot of people feel that their voices are not heard at the right time or in a substantive way, and I completely appreciate their frustration, even if I am not sure about the kind of structural reforms that the hon. Lady proposes. Fundamentally, if local councillors do not consistently do the right thing on planning—if they fail to bring forward local plans, fail to be clear about what should or should not go into plans and where things should or should not go, and fail to create a framework because there has been no local planning, or the framework is wrong—residents should vote them out and replace them with councillors who will. That is what happened in North East Derbyshire in 2019, and I encourage all local residents who feel that their councillors are not consistently doing the right thing on planning over many years to look at whether they have the right leadership in place.

Although the hon. Lady made a strong point—with which I agree—about the importance of democracy in the planning system, I hope that she will not press the new clauses, as I do not think they are necessarily the way to go at this time.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am sure the residents of York will heed the Minister’s advice in May and ensure that they have a council that engages with them and listens to their needs. While we wait for that event, I think it is clear that, across the planning system, communities may have a voice but they do not have the power to influence decisions. We need to ensure greater democratisation of our planning system, which should be about people and communities, and their homes, futures and jobs. At the moment, the planning system is insufficient in helping people to level up, which is what the Bill is all about.

The Minister has heard my arguments, and I am sure that we will debate this further, but I trust that, in the interim between this stage and Report, he will give further consideration to how that balance can be tipped more towards communities, ensuring that they have a proper say, so that that the Bill does not become another developers’ charter under which developers hold all the cards and all the power. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 51

Disposal of land held by public bodies

“(1) The Local Government Act 1972 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).

(2) In section 123 (disposal of land by principal councils), after subsection (2) insert—

‘(2ZA) But the Secretary of State must give consent if the disposal is in accordance with section [Disposal of land held by public bodies] of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2022.’

(3) In section 127(3) (disposal of land held by parishes and communities), after ‘(2A)’ insert ‘, (2ZA)’.

(4) The National Health Service Act 2006 is amended in accordance with subsection (5).

(5) After section 211 (acquisition, use and maintenance of property) insert—

‘211A Disposal of land held by NHS bodies

Any power granted by this Act to an NHS body to dispose of land is exercisable in accordance with section [Disposal of land held by public bodies] of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2022 as if the NHS body were a local authority.’

(6) Subject to subsection (8), a disposal of land is in accordance with this section if it is in accordance with the Local Government Act 1972 General Disposal Consent (England) 2003 published in Department for Communities and Local Government Circular 06/03, as amended by subsection (7).

(7) Those amendments to the Local Government Act 1972 General Disposal Consent (England) 2003 are—

(a) after paragraph 1 insert—

‘(1A) This consent also applies to any NHS body in England as if it were a local authority in accordance with section 211A of the National Health Service Act 2006;’;

(b) in paragraph 2(b), for ‘£2,000,000 (two million pounds)’ substitute ‘£3,000,000 (three million pounds) or 40% of the unrestricted market value, whichever is greater’;

(c) for paragraph 3(1)(vii) substitute—

‘(viii) a Police and Crime Commissioner established under the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011;’;

(d) for paragraph 3(1)(ix) substitute—

‘(ix) the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime;’;

(e) for paragraph 3(1)(x) substitute—

‘(x) the London Fire Commissioner;’;

(f) after paragraph 3(1)(xii) insert—

‘(xiii) a combined authority;

(xiv) a mayoral combined authority;

(xv) the Greater London Authority;

(xvi) any successor body established by or under an Act of Parliament to any body listed in this sub-paragraph.’.”

(8) The Secretary of State may, to reflect inflation, further amend the cash value that the difference between the unrestricted value of the land to be disposed of and the consideration for the disposal must not exceed.—(Tim Farron.)

This new clause would bring an amended and updated version of the Local Government Act 1972 General Disposal Consent (England) 2003 into primary legislation, extends its application to NHS bodies and clarifies that the Consent applies to Police and Crime Commissioners, MOPAC and the London Fire Commissioner.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Tim Farron]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 51 addresses an outdated element and we hope that the Government will take it on board. Land and property sold by local authorities, the NHS, the fire brigade and police forces should, where possible, be prioritised for public services and social and affordable housing, which benefit the local communities that those buildings previously served. As things stand, however, the law is ambiguous and outdated when it comes to the sale of publicly owned assets below what is known as “best value”, which is defined as the market value—the highest price achievable on the open market.

This situation has been illuminated by the case of Teddington police station, a publicly owned asset in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), where local residents have thrown their support behind a bid to turn what is now a disused building into affordable housing and new premises for a GP’s surgery, so that the building can keep serving the local community.

The Mayor of London has consistently argued that he has a statutory duty to achieve best value and is minded to favour the highest bidder. That is likely to be a property developer with deep pockets looking to turn the former Teddington police station into luxury flats. The Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime is currently seeking legal advice, for which we are grateful, on whether they can legally sell the site for less than its maximum market value where it achieves social value, following a campaign led by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham.

Doubt has arisen, because the original law allowing the sale of public sector assets below market value is obsolete. It includes public authorities that have long since ceased to exist, but not their successors—their current equivalents. It allows a difference of price of £2 million, a sum that has not increased with inflation over the past two decades, or almost two decades. It is long overdue an update and an upgrade.

So, the new clause would be that much-needed update, ensuring that local authorities and other public bodies can once again place the good of local communities at the heart of the process when selling off assets. The new clause seeks to do four things. First, it would include new local authorities created since 2003, such as police and crime commissioners and indeed the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, and it makes it clear that any future iterations of those authorities would also be covered.

Secondly, the new clause would expand the list of public authorities to include the NHS, combined authorities and the Greater London Authority. Thirdly, it would increase the maximum difference in value that a public authority can accept for a bid that benefits the local community, raising it from £2 million to £3 million, to account for inflation since 2003. Finally, it would introduce a percentage value difference in addition to the cash value, to level up across the board and take variations of land prices across England and Wales into account.

This seems a wise and timely new clause, which we hope the Government will accept, and I commend it to the Committee.

[Rachael Maskell]

I, too, want to support the new clause and briefly draw attention to the way that we need to ensure that public land is used for public good. Whether it has been NHS Property Services, which has been selling off land to private developers, or Network Rail, which has been using its land to maximise capital receipts, or the Ministry of Defence selling off much of its estate, which we know has not gone well for the Government, we need to ensure that this type of land is used to build the homes that people need now and in the future. I can cite many examples of places in York where it feels that the city is, bit by bit, being sold off—not for the public benefit, but for the benefit of developers. That is why I will support this new clause today.

[Lee Rowley]

I thank the hon. Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale and for York Central for expressing their views on this new clause.

The legislative framework governing the disposal of surplus land is, as the hon. Gentleman outlined, a long-standing one and it is designed to protect taxpayers’ money. The starting point is that land should generally be disposed of at the best price that is reasonably obtainable. However, as he also indicated, there are on occasions the opportunity to dispose of land for less than its maximum value where that creates wider public benefits, such as facilitating community projects. Therefore, it is possible, with the Secretary of State’s consent, for local authorities to dispose of land at less than best consideration in some circumstances.

As the hon. Gentleman also indicated, a general consent is in place for disposals where there would be a loss of value of up to £2 million, and in those cases it is at the discretion of local authorities, and above this threshold—as he also indicated, because he is seeking to change it—disposals require a specific application to the Secretary of State for consent. The legislative framework is designed for local authorities and other locally accountable bodies. It already includes the fire commissioner, and other bodies are accountable in different ways to different regimes.

So, while I completely appreciate the sentiment that the hon. Gentleman expressed, and I have read the correspondence from the hon. Member for Twickenham—although I cannot comment on individual cases, I know that she is making a very clear case regarding a particular instance within her Twickenham constituency—I ask him whether he would be prepared to withdraw the new clause. I know that it seeks to offer solutions.

As a new Minister, I would be interested to understand in more detail from the hon. Member for Twickenham the specific problems that she sees, and while I cannot give her any guarantees, if she wants to write to me with that detail I will happily read it and go through it in more detail. However, at this time I ask him whether he would consider withdrawing the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Norris]

Across England there has been a steady decline in the availability of public toilets—something that does not get a lot of airtime in this place, so this is a good opportunity to rectify that. I do not intend to press new clause 59 to a Division. I wrote the new clauses a long time ago—we have been doing this for a long time—and I did not anticipate that it would be quite so close to a Budget or whatever we call the 31 October event. I do not think the Minister will be keen to make spending commitments prior to that, and I also know that our shadow Treasury team would not be keen for me to make a commitment on its behalf. However, it is an interesting idea and one worthy of discussion.

In 2016 a BBC report highlighted that local authorities had closed one in seven public toilets between 2010 and 2013. The report identified 10 areas in England and Wales with no council-run toilets at all. By 2018, the follow-up report found that the number of areas without any public conveniences had increased to 37. That is a trend likely to accelerate with the pressures on local authorities. It has led to closures or transfers to perhaps voluntary groups or charities. The good will engendered in that is a welcome thing, but it means that accountability for that essential social infrastructure has been lost. We have to be clear about this. I do not think public toilets are a “nice to have”. Lack of adequate facilities disproportionately affects all sorts of groups, including people who work outdoors, people with ill health or disability, the elderly and the homeless. Such essential facilities can make the difference between being able to confidently leave the house or not.

In June this year, the Bathroom Manufacturers Association published results of a survey of 2,000 members of the public. They had been asked about toilet provision in their area. The results were significant: 58% of those surveyed said that there were not enough toilet facilities in their community, and 43% did not believe that there were enough for disabled people, for example. If we are to reimagine our high streets—a theme of some of our debates—encourage mobility, meet equality ambitions and level up communities, improving public toilets will be part of that.

[Rachael Maskell]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Public toilets are also a public health measure. We have to look at them within that agenda. Changing places are also important, so that disabled people can access public toilets too.

[Alex Norris]

Yes, changing place toilets are hugely important. I pay tribute to Martin Jackaman, the pioneer of those places and a Nottinghamian. Where available, changing places have been life-transforming for some of the most profoundly challenged families in the country. We want more such places, and to be clear that everyone going out in their city or town centre should have access to such provision—with a hoist and all those things that make the difference. That is why the issue is important.

On my new clauses, first, new clause 57 proposes a review of public conveniences. The Government would be asked to form an independent panel to assess the level of need for public conveniences within various communities and, having determined that need, to assess the level of provision. If there is a gap—I suspect there might well be—the panel should ascertain its root causes and make recommendations about what might be done to rectify the situation. I hope that the Government will encourage the devolved Administrations to undertake similar exercises.

Secondly, as addressed in new clause 58, one of the barriers to improving provision is a bit of a gap in ownership of the problem. Therefore, my new clause suggests that there should be a new duty on tier 2 councils to produce a local public convenience plan. That is not to dictate how councils use their resources, but it seems reasonable to have a plan for provision in the area. One would hope to work with partners for public convenience provisions and accountability.

Thirdly, new clause 59 is one proposal that could close the gap more quickly. Where businesses—we should recognise that many businesses up and down the country already do this—allow their toilet facilities to be used by non-patrons, that is a wonderful thing. If they do so, that could be reflected in the business rate. I am interested in the Minister’s views. My new clause might not be ready for the legislation today. That range of things would help close the gap in provision. We cannot afford to do nothing in this area. The gaps should close, but they continue to be a limiting factor on our high streets and in our town centres. I am interested to hear the Minister’s views.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The proceedings of this Committee over the many months of its existence clearly detail the unwillingness of Ministers to address the issue of inadequate funding, which is the root cause of many of the challenges local planning authorities face. However, the Government have conceded that those authorities have performance and service quality issues that need to be addressed, and they have committed to developing a planning skills strategy for local planning authorities as a result—an issue I will return to when we discuss new clause 71. With a view to making the planning system more effective at a local level, new clause 70 seeks to probe the Government on a proposal included in their 2020 “Planning for the future” White Paper, as well as older studies such as the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission’s final report and the Barker review of land use planning—namely, making it a requirement that each local planning authority appoints a chief planning officer or place-maker.

In the immediate post-war decades, the corporate and strategic influence of planners in local government was institutionalised in the senior position of the chief planning officer. However, despite planning being a statutory function, a combination of factors over recent decades has led to a situation where only a minority of councils now employ a head of planning who is a member of the senior management team and reports directly to the chief executive. Analysis undertaken by the Royal Town Planning Institute suggests that one in 10 local authorities does not fund a head of planning role of any kind. That progressive downgrading of the status and prominence of planning officers within local planning authorities, entailing a loss of skills capacity and the dilution of planning as a strategic function, has had a detrimental impact on planning outcomes, including in terms of design standards and quality.

Placing a duty on local planning authorities to appoint a chief planning officer, as provided for by new clause 70, would help ensure not only that councils attract professionals with the necessary high-quality expertise on creating places, connecting communities and spatial planning but that the spatial implications of other local authority functions are properly considered when it comes to planning decisions and local plans, thereby making the system more effective and ensuring that all aspects of place-making are properly considered at a corporate level.

[Rachael Maskell]

This is a really important new clause. York no longer has a chief planner, which means that planning decisions are often delayed and that the challenge is not brought to developers that are trying to bring forward their plans for fear of litigation. That is a serious consideration for local authorities, which is why this is such an important new clause.

[Matthew Pennycook]

That example perfectly illustrates the pressures that planning departments are under. There is a general resourcing issue. We know that applications can be delayed by months, if not years, because of a lack of staff. When planning officers move on, applications and all the knowledge around them can be delayed.

There is a wider point, in addition to those general resource pressures, which is that employing chief planning officers with the necessary skills, who sit at an appropriately senior level within the local authority, would have a number of benefits and would help the Government implement the new measures and the burdens they are placing on those authorities through this Bill. As the Minister will know, the Scottish Government introduced legislation in 2019 that requires each planning authority in Scotland to have a chief planning officer, and new clause 17 would achieve the same outcome in relation to England. We believe inserting such a requirement into the Bill would not only assist local planning authorities in implementing the new planning and regeneration measures it contains but would help improve the overall functioning of the planning system, and on that basis, I hope the Minister will give it serious consideration.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Twenty Fifth sitting)

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th October 2022 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Welcome to the afternoon sitting. We now come to new clauses 2 to 7, which have already been debated. Does Rachael Maskell wish to move any of the new clauses formally?

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

We wish to bring them back later in proceedings, at which point we will press them to a Division.

New Clause 8

Industrial support reporting

“(1) The Secretary of State must prepare annual reports on—

(a) the rates of the matters in subsection (2), and

(b) the extent to which the fiscal and regulatory framework supports growth in those matters in areas with rates of poverty, unemployment or economic inactivity above the national average.

(2) The matters are—

(a) new factory openings,

(b) investment in new factory equipment,

(c) the introduction of tailored skills-acquisition programmes, and

(d) the creation of manufacturing jobs.

(3) The first such report must be laid before Parliament before the end of 2023.

(4) A further such report must be laid before Parliament in each subsequent calendar year.”—(Mrs Lewell-Buck.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on the rates of, and the extent to which the fiscal and regulatory framework supports, new factory openings, investment in new factory equipment, introduction of tailored skills-acquisition programmes and creation of manufacturing jobs in areas with rates of poverty, unemployment or economic inactivity above the national average.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause is tabled in my name and that of hon. Friends and hon. Members right across the House. Time and again, we have heard from the many Ministers who have sat opposite us during our short time considering the Bill that the Government are committed and serious about levelling up, yet time and again, when the Opposition have suggested amendments to support and strengthen those aims, the Government have voted against them. I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to new clause 8, as it will actually help the Government.

The Government have struggled to define what levelling up means and, consequently, how its success can be measured. In fact, in their own technical annex to the White Paper, when addressing how they will measure boosts in productivity, pay, jobs and living standards—especially in areas where they are lagging—the Government state that further work needs to be undertaken to refine the metric. I humbly suggest that new clause 8 does just that.

Legislating for a reporting mechanism that is linked to a revival in manufacturing will focus the efforts of this and any future Government into job and skills creation, as well as the promotion of the UK as a manufacturing powerhouse once again. For too long our economy has been reliant on the service sector, where jobs can often be low paid and insecure, especially in coastal communities such as mine—coastal communities, towns and cities that were once the manufacturing hubs of the UK.

In the last 12 years we have seen a marked increase in low rates of economic growth, leading to stagnation in productivity and living standards. That is felt most starkly in the north-east, where Hartlepool, Redcar, Cleveland, Darlington, Newcastle, South Tyneside and Sunderland have all seen significantly decreased manufacturing outputs compared with 2010. The consequence has been an over 50% decrease in apprenticeships in engineering and manufacturing technologies in every single north-east local authority since 2010. Manufacturing makes up only approximately 9% of UK output, compared with 17% in the early ’90s. In other countries, such as Germany, Japan, Switzerland and South Korea, it is nearly as high as 25%.

The UK brand is still powerful; we have the skills and talents to be making and doing so much more. I do not have all the answers, and I know it can be difficult to create the right environment for manufacturing to thrive, but there are plenty of people smarter than me out there who have thought it through and do have the answers. What we need is a Government who are willing to listen to them, and to be held accountable for any action they take. New clause 8 would do that.

I suspect that the Minister will try to explain why the Government do not support the new clause. I suspect that she will explain that there is already provision for measuring and monitoring the missions in the Bill. However, new clause 8 goes further than that: it cuts across nearly every one of the levelling up missions but, more than that, it targets them directly at the very areas that the Bill claims it wants to level up. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s views on the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This new clause gets to the heart of a frustration for many communities, be it Maids Moreton in my constituency, Ickford or many others. Planning permission is granted—or conceivably in some places not granted—but the community is opposed to the application. Conversely, the community wants it, but it is not given permission. We know that, as it stands at the moment, there is little power for communities to challenge that, short of the judicial review process. We all know how much judicial reviews can cost and how unlikely they are, in many cases, to succeed, because they are dependent on technical legal requirements, as opposed to the wider planning law environment.

The new clause would bring in a community right of appeal. It would mean that a community that felt particularly hard done by as a result of a decision of a planning authority, rather than being forced down the route of judicial review at great—often unaffordable—expense, could lodge an appeal, just as a developer can who is not content with the way that their application has been determined. This is about fairness—about giving those on both sides of the debate the same right of appeal. It is a point of principle that I hope the Government will listen to, and I hope that they find a way of getting this measure into the Bill.

[Rachael Maskell]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Mark. I add my support for these measures, because it is incredibly important that power be given back to people in communities. On many occasions, I have seen developers across York move into a space and determine the future of a community without engaging it, even if only in a consultative way. Occasionally, the community may be lucky enough to meet the partners cursorily, yet those developers will derive serious profit from the land. Also, what they place on the land will have huge implications for local housing prices and economic opportunities for the community, but the community is completely disregarded.

That feeds into a wider agenda around people identifying with their place. Across society, we are wrestling with that issue, and with people having a franchise in place. People are feeling more and more disconnected from their locality. It is crucial that we find a way, across communities, to rebalance people’s right to steer through a mechanism. In debate on my earlier amendments, I talked about deliberative democracy. The community should absolutely be involved in processes before they get to a certain point. It is far better to prevent an incident than to try to recover once it has happened. It is important to find a way to give people franchise over their community, particularly when we contrast the harm that could be done with the profit that developing companies and landowners will reap. This huge extraction economy, as I have been calling it, is playing off the localism that people want in their vicinity, and causing a lot of stress and tension, because while it benefit others, it causes the community harm. A community right of appeal will start to tilt the balance back towards local people, which is absolutely essential.

[Tim Farron]

This important new clause gets to the heart of a historical imbalance, injustice and inequity in the planning system. Developers, who tend to have significantly more resources than those who question or oppose a development, have the right to appeal against the local authority or national park that turned down their planning permission, and they have the resources to see that through; but what happens if a community that has opposed a development loses? It may have opposed not development, but the nature of the development proposed. In my constituency, we are very often happy with the number of houses proposed, but outraged that none of the houses is affordable to local people.

The ability to challenge a developer and a decision seems to be at the heart of democracy. To really level up, we must not just level up geographically, but level out the imbalance of power between developers, many of which have substantial resources, and local communities, who, generally speaking, do not.

The new clause is a sensible move in the direction of winning people’s consent to the planning system, so that communities do not feel that things are being done to them. If levelling up is to mean anything, and if devolution is to mean anything, the Government should surely want to embrace proposals such as this.

[Lee Rowley]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions. At a high level, the new clause is attractive, and I am tempted by it, but for reasons that I will outline, I am afraid that we will be resisting it. I completely accept the way in which all three of my colleagues have articulated the issues. I am sure that everybody in this room has stories of cases in which, although planning applications have gone through the process, there is a general lack of consent from the community to the manner in which they went forward.

Notwithstanding that, and notwithstanding my acceptance of the points that the hon. Member for York Central rightly made about the importance of franchise of place and embedding local consent in decision making, two fundamental principles mean that I am unable to accept the new clause. First, it is absolutely vital that we retain the principle that those who own land have the right to make applications, and to understand the processes that they can go through. Once that due process has been concluded, those landowners have the right to do as they wish with their land, within the established framework that the Government deem it reasonable and proportionate to apply.

Secondly—I recognise that I am speaking to people with a great interest in this area, and I am probably telling them lots of things that they already know—we would all accept that planning is a long, difficult and convoluted process at the best of times. In another part of my portfolio, I am looking at the reasons why a large proportion of local authorities do not have a local plan; a local plan is one of the processes through which discussion takes place and consent, hopefully, is given to development. That is a multi-stage, multi-consultative process in which people can put forward ideas, and in which those ideas can be tested, and then accepted or not, first in the community, and then with an additional body looking at them. Once that process has concluded, on most occasions, there is the opportunity for planning applications to be debated in principle. The community has the opportunity to get involved at that stage, and then once again in the case of reserved matters.

That is a very imperfect process, and we will all have lots of experience of it not leading to communities liking, or particularly wanting, individual applications. However, it is important to note the multi-stage nature of the process and the multiple elements of consultation in. While I understand the sentiments behind the new clause and the frustrations that have been articulated, and while I recognise that the system is very imperfect, I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham to consider withdrawing the new clause. As many Members know, and occasionally remark on, I am only six weeks in post, but I have spoken to a number of people who have been involved with these matters for years. I understand that this proposal has been around for many decades, and one of the reasons why it has not been taken forward is the fundamental change it would make to the planning system. I accept and understand the importance of the new clause, but we are not able to accept it.

[Rachael Maskell]

I appreciate that the Minister was not here for earlier stages of debate on the Bill. Will he consider my suggestion about greater community engagement and involvement, and my point about ensuring deliberative democracy when sites are brought forward for use? It would be a way of trying to address the problem at source, rather than retrospectively, and it would give communities that engagement, franchise, and opportunity to determine how the community develops.

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments. We may have another discussion about deliberative democracy when we debate another amendment in a few minutes’ time.

I am a great advocate of local communities having as much involvement in these discussions as possible. It is a shame when councils—I experienced this in North East Derbyshire a number of years ago—do not emphasise the discussion at the appropriate point, and people do not feel as involved as they need to if they are to understand what happens later in the process. I hope that local councils take opportunities to be as broad and open in their discussions as possible. I am also a big fan of neighbourhood plans, because they give communities the opportunity to be more involved in discussion. There are parts of the system that can be used at the moment, though I respect and acknowledge the challenge of involving local communities in it. I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I welcome the Minister’s comments, and as I acknowledged, it is a difficult issue to navigate. It almost reopens some of the devolution questions. It is an anomaly that many London colleagues, certainly on the Conservative Benches, feel and I welcome the Minister’s commitment to work with them and me. Like him, I was a London borough councillor just a little way up the river from him for 12 years, some moons ago, and felt the same pressures. If he is willing to work with London colleagues to find a satisfactory way through this, I am content to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 34

Local government capital investments: economic appraisal

“(1) This section applies to local government capital investments of a value of £2 million or more.

(2) Before making an investment to which this section applies, a local authority must—

(a) commission an economic appraisal of the investment, and

(b) publish the findings of that appraisal.”—(Rachael Maskell.)

This new clause would require local authorities to commission, and publish the findings of any capital investment of the value of £2 million or more.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Rachael Maskell]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

It is a pleasure to move the new clause and to give the hon. Member for Buckingham some respite. The new clause relates to fiscal responsibility in local government. Without proper viability being sought, local authorities can pay millions of pounds on projects and never reap the return. That is why the new clause relates to capital investments and economic appraisals, which should be undertaken and understood, but without a Green Book-style appraisal, local authorities can end up paying and developers and landowners gaining, with ultimately no reward and benefit to the local community. The new clause is designed to ensure that the finances on any project are transparent and for the benefit of local people. It would ensure that there is gain for all and not ultimate loss, not least given that we are talking about the use of public resources. That is why the new clause is important.

The case study to which I want to refer particularly is that of the York Central site. The cost of bringing that site forward is now believed to be £200 million of public funding. As that project moves forward, more and more is being demanded from public sources to fund it, and yet the local authority may never see a return on that investment. City of York’s infrastructure investment was planned to be around £35 million, but it has now been given an estimated debt cost of £57 million based on April interest rates, which will clearly be significantly higher now.

The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has also put in £77 million and it is believed that more than £50 million will have to come through the Mayor’s budget once it is approved and in place—we are expecting that to be in 2024. In a briefing, councillors were told that the council would need to put in £85 million and debt costs to fill the gap, but we could now be talking about nearer £100 million rather than the £35 million once rejected. As a result, it is necessary to weigh up the viability of the site not for the developers, as set out, but for the local authority. It is that check that is not required for such a project today, but it is really important, not least because local authorities simply do not have the necessary margins and, as a result, have to cut back on vital services to fund such capital projects.

My amendment therefore calls for prudence. On sites where any capital investment over the value of £2 million is made, there must be an economic appraisal commissioned and then published assessing the financial viability of the site to the authority. York Central has been developed for housing, so it will not reap the opportunities that a larger business owner could bring in nor those to do with council tax, as most of the properties being developed will be for investment, not for local residents to live in. They will either be empty units, leading to a cost to our city, or will be turned into Airbnbs, a matter that I will turn to later. Of course, Airbnb falls under the thresholds of flipping the property, not paying council tax and not paying business rates either, so the local authority loses millions of pounds as Airbnbs dodge the system.

At a time of significant austerity in local government, it is crucial that more scrutiny is given to the costs it has to expend on sites. My amendment simply calls for proper governance over finances and, at a time when the whole nation is looking at how Governments at all levels are more prudent with the spending of their money, it is right to bring forward such a measure to ensure that public money is spent in a way that will see its return and will be for the benefit of the people, not the developers and landowners who ultimately gain from such development.

[Dehenna Davison]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for York Central, who always talks incredibly passionately about her constituency. I thank her for bringing her experience of the capital project she mentioned to the Committee. As a Conservative, my ideology tells me that ultimately we always need to get best value for taxpayers’ money.

The Government recognise the importance of local capital investment for economic growth, improved public services and meeting our priorities, such as on housing delivery. That is why we need a robust system that supports the benefits of local decision making and allows sensible investment while safeguarding taxpayer’s money and protecting the local government finance system. Unfortunately, in recent years a small minority of local authorities have taken excessive risks with taxpayers’ money; they have become too indebted or have made investments that have ultimately proved too risky. That is why we need to ensure that the system is fit for purpose.

The changes made through clause 71 provide a flexible range of interventions for the Government to investigate where capital practices may have placed financial sustainability at risk and to take steps to remediate issues if necessary. We think that that is sufficient to address risk.

We have recently taken a number of steps to improve the transparency of local authority capital investment and borrowing. Last year we completed our data survey, which is designed to extract new data from local government and fill our identified information gaps. As of February 2022, we amended our regular statistical returns to obtain more detailed data on local authority investment activity. That will provide the Government with the clarity they need on the performance of investment assets as well as the location and risk management of investment properties.

The Government regularly review how data can be improved further. Additional data asks need to be considered carefully to make sure that they are appropriate and proportionate to identifying risk. We are also developing an analytical process to pre-emptively identify risks in the sector, including those local authorities that might be engaging in risky activity or non-compliance with the existing framework. This includes better use of the quantitative data we collect, combined with intelligence gathered from sector engagement and monitoring.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful for the Minister’s contribution. However, will she acknowledge that even if the viability of a site stands up, some of the investors in it may not? What ultimately happens is that local authorities become the backstop for financing and have to fill the gaps in order for those sites to be brought forward. As a result, the benefit goes to the developer and the risk sits with local authorities.

[Dehenna Davison]

I have certainly heard what the hon. Member has said, and we all have examples from our own constituencies and authorities. The current legislation and statutory codes allow local government to appraise risks as they stand. Alongside that, the monitoring and provisions that we are seeking through clause 71 will provide central Government with assurance. We think that the new clause is unnecessary, and I ask the hon. Member to withdraw it.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. Reflecting on the example that I gave, will she say how her Department would scrutinise the funding of sites such as the one in York Central to assess the viability of the local authority’s having to make increased contributions? Has the Department done that?

[Dehenna Davison]

I will be happy to follow up with the hon. Member on that point in writing.

[Rachael Maskell]

I thank the Minister for her response, but I am not satisfied that what she says will be sufficient to ensure that there are safeguards on local public resourcing that is brought forward on a site, particularly one as important as the York Central site, where eye-watering sums of money are being spent. I will therefore read with care what she writes to me to see whether there are sufficient safeguards. If I am not satisfied, I will want to return to this issue at a further stage of the Bill, but for now I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 38

New use classes for second homes and holiday lets

“(1) Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (S.I. 1987/764) is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 3 (dwellinghouses)—

(a) for ‘whether or not as a sole or’ substitute ‘as a’, and

(b) after ‘residence’ insert ‘other than a use within Class 3B)’.

(3) After paragraph 3 insert—

‘3A Class C3A Second homes

Use, following a change of ownership, as a dwellinghouse as a secondary or supplementary residence by—

(a) a single person or by people to be regarded as forming a single household;

(b) not more than six residents living together as a single household where care is provided for residents; or

(c) not more than six residents living together as a single household where no care is provided to residents (other than a use within class C4).

Interpretation of Class C3A

For the purposes of Class C3A “single household” is to be construed in accordance with section 258 of the Housing Act 2004.

Class C3B Holiday rentals

Use, following a change of ownership, as a dwellinghouse as a holiday rental property.’”—(Tim Farron.)

This new clause would create new class uses for second homes and short-term holiday lets.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Rachael Maskell]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 68—Review of Permitted Development Rights—

“(1) The Secretary of State must establish a review of permitted development rights under Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended).

(2) The review should include an assessment of:

(a) the past effectiveness of permitted development rights in achieving housing targets;

(b) the quality of housing delivered under permitted development rights;

(c) the impacts of permitted development on heritage, conservation areas and setting;

(d) the estimated carbon impact of the use of permitted development rights since the expansion of permitted development to demolition;

(e) the relative cost to local planning authorities of processing permitted development compared to full planning consents;

(f) potential conflict between existing permitted development rights and the application of national development management policies;

(g) the impact of permitted development rights, or other policies in this Bill designed to deliver streamlined consent, on the efficacy of levelling-up missions.

(3) The Secretary of State must publish a report of the recommendations made by this review no later than twelve months after this Act comes into force.”

This new clause would commit the government to carrying out a comprehensive review of permitted development rights within 12 months of the Bill securing Royal Assent.

[Rachael Maskell]

I rise to move new clause 43 and to support new clause 68. They mirror one another and therefore emphasise the need for a review of permitted development rights, which are a major issue in planning.

New clause 43 calls for a change in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015. It would require a review to be published, within a year of the Bill becoming law, on the effectiveness of permitted development rights in achieving housing targets. Much planning permission is granted on the basis of balancing the economic viability of a site in favour of developers. Planning authorities may stipulate the framework around that, but it is not uncommon for developers to come back to authorities pleading that the site does not hold viability and seeking to change the tenure of units planned for it.

Furthermore, we have a housing crisis. The Government are right to want to fix it by setting targets for the number of units to be built, but if those units are unaffordable to a local population, or if they are sold as investment properties—as assets—and remain empty or are converted into short-term holiday lets, the housing demand is not addressed. Worse, property prices can heat up the market, resulting in a greater pool of people who are unable to access housing, which is making things far worse.

By allowing such a liberalisation of planning, not least for developers, the Government are creating a worsening situation. Rather than resolving the housing situation, they are pushing people out of their localities, as people cannot afford to either buy or rent. Now, with the economic crisis, they cannot get a mortgage either, but cash buyers can scoop up properties and then drive revenue through holiday lets. In York, we are seeing that in spades. York Central promises to be such a site of investment properties rather than homes, with the wrong housing in the wrong place heating up the market and exposing our city to even greater numbers of short-term holiday lets. This has to stop.

My new clause would enable a review, which would include an examination of the quality of housing delivered. I cannot tell hon. Members the scale of shoddy workmanship that we are witnessing. Developers hand their properties over to property management companies and then deny responsibility. Water ingress is common. Sinks are fitted just with silicone, and not properly plumbed in. Wiring is half done. Bin stores are turned into inaccessible bike shelters. The list of unresolved complaints is endless.

York is naturally concerned about its heritage and conservation sites, and we want to ensure that its archaeology is preserved, too. On the environment, we know that new developments help to solve the carbon crisis rather than add to it. If measures are not reviewed and taken seriously, we know that transport planning can be poor, as we are seeing on the York Central site. That will have an impact on the rest of the city. I have already mentioned the thorny issue of the cost to local authorities of the mess that is being created.

Reviewing permitted development rights, as the new clause seeks to do, is about addressing all the consequences, foreseen and unforeseen, of rushing planning through, not least at a time when planning departments across our communities are significantly under-resourced and under-powered. The new clause seeks a review, which is needed, and we want to see action following on from that. If the Government committed the resources and time needed to carry out a review of a such a significant issue, they could make such a difference to communities up and down the country. The review would ultimately be of real value to the Government, by ensuring that the planning system is working effectively for the purpose for which it is designed.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I rise to speak to new clause 68, in my name and those of my colleagues, and to speak in support of new clause 43. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Central on tabling new clause 43 and on her powerful remarks, not least about the contribution of the extension of permitted development rights to the affordability pressures in urban parts of the country such as hers.

It is a matter of public record that the Opposition have long-standing concerns about the detrimental impact of the liberalisation of permitted development rights on local communities. The Government have always justified the progressive liberalisation of those rights on the grounds that it removes unnecessary administrative impediments to development in the planning system. There is no doubt that the extension of PD rights since 2013 has boosted housing supply; estimates suggest that it has led to a net increase of around 100,000 dwellings. However, the increased supply secured as a result of deregulatory measures over recent years, and the significantly reduced control of rural and urban land that they entail, has come at the cost of a loss of affordable housing and infrastructure contributions, and an increase in poor-quality housing, with obvious implications for public health and wellbeing.

Evidence of the negative impact of the extension of permitted development for the conversion of office, commercial and industrial units to housing is now ubiquitous. A report published by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in July 2020—at the same time, incidentally, that Ministers were setting out plans for a further extension of PD rights—found that, in comparison with schemes created through planning permission, permitted development schemes were far less likely to meet national space standards and far more likely to have reduced access to natural daylight and sunlight.

Members may well have come across some of the more well-publicised examples of poor-quality PD schemes. Those include the Wellstones site in Watford, which involved the conversion of a light industrial building into 15 flats, seven of which had no windows at all; 106 Shirley Road in Southampton, a former electric and gas fire shop, which was converted into six studio flats, each roughly the size of a single car parking space; and Terminus House in Harlow, a former office block converted into hundreds of homes, many with just one openable window, which has rightly been described as a “human warehouse”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

I know that Hansard will demonstrate the context. I was saying that no system is perfect. I was not making any comment on individual PDRs, but I have said to colleagues on both sides of the Committee that I am happy to discuss individual areas where they have concerns, outside of a proposal for every single one of the 155-odd PDRs to be reviewed in detail within a timeframe that is not particularly proportionate. If there is a problem, let us talk about it in individual areas, but this approach is disproportionate. I hope that the Opposition will consider withdrawing the motion and having a separate discussion about specific instances that have been raised, and others that they are concerned about.

[Rachael Maskell]

I listened carefully to the debate, and I am grateful for all the contributions to it. The Minister will know that we are not putting forward a plan to tear up the whole PDR framework; we are simply calling for a review, as we believe is appropriate. After a scoping review, we would determine which points to drill down on, to ensure that we are looking at the parts of the system that are simply not working. That is the intention behind the new clause. Although it has a broader scope, it homes in on some of the challenges in the system. I therefore do not think that the proposal to put a scoping exercise in the legislation is unreasonable. I welcome the Minister’s offer of dialogue on these matters, which clearly are significantly impacting our communities. Dialogue will be really important. I will not press my new clause to a vote, but I will certainly take up that offer.

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I think the Minister will expect, I am naturally disappointed by his response. There are times when hiding behind the fact that there are trade-offs in balancing problems is appropriate; there are times when it is just a fig leaf, and not doing anything about a glaring problem. His own Department has produced evidence that it is not just a problem at the margins. I encourage him to go and see some of the sites being allowed on appeal because of national planning policy. It is not a problem at the margins; it is endemic, and intrinsic to the liberalisation of PD rights that has been allowed over the past nine years.

It is a straw man for the Minister to say, “We can’t do this, because it’s reviewing all PD rights.” Uncontroversial elements of PD can be dealt with very quickly; we are talking about the problematic aspects and the expansion of PD rights over the past nine years. It is causing a huge amount of human suffering, if nothing else. For that reason, not least to signal the Opposition’s intent to deal with this matter if and when we form the next Government, I will press new clause 68 to a Division when the time comes.

[Rachael Maskell]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Nigel Huddleston.)

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Twenty Fourth sitting)

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th October 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Alex Norris]

I am grateful for that. It is of note that those who know of what they speak in this area, particularly on a day-to-day basis, feel the way they do. However, the Minister’s offer is a good one and I will take her up on it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 17 agreed to.

Clause 185

Historic environment records

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

I beg to move amendment 130, in clause 185, page 190, line 2, leave out “an historic environment record” and insert

“or have access to an historic environment record and adequate specialist advisory capacity”

This amendment is intended to ensure that all current models for service provision of HERs are covered by the provisions of Clause 185 and that HERs have access to specialist archaeologists and conservation officers.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. We are making good progress. Although the provision in the legislation on historic environment records is good in itself, it simply does not go far enough. My amendment calls for specialist archaeologists and conservation officers to be engaged in the planning process to a greater degree.

Historic environment records extensively map the physically accessible historic environment and archaeological areas. However, they do not come with a voice, a brain or context. The amendment, which is supported by those who work in the field, recognises the unique importance of specialist archaeologists and conservation officers in the process and the need to draw on their skills and expertise to advance the understanding of a site, which often is missed when just looking at historic records.

Although HERs are an important starting point, it is about the interpretation of the relevance of a site and using that specialist knowledge combined with the records that makes a significant impact on the site and makes it significant. Eighty areas in England are covered by HERs; two thirds of records are held online and are accessible via local authorities. An archaeologist can interpret the HER data, bringing it to life, placing it into context and giving the site relevance, weighing the possibilities and asking the challenging questions about that site: why is it there? What is it about? How does it impact on us, past and present?

I use York as an example of the discoveries made, because there have been so many incredibly significant finds in the city that have led to further exploration and understanding of the context of our history. Ensuring that we engage specialist archaeologists and conservation officers extends the understanding of our past and the influences on us. In York there have been so many finds on the Coppergate site. People think about the Jorvik centre, but behind that is the understanding of our city as an international place of trade, and what that meant then and today for diversity in our country and where we all come from. Those issues are so important in the archaeological context, but we would not get that from an HER. That is why it is so important to extend the legislation to ensure that we have those minds and that knowledge applied to the records, to ensure that there is significance.

I think about the Richard III finding in Leicester. Had the minds not been there, that site could have so quickly been missed. Yet the discovery of Richard III has given a huge economic opportunity for that city, not least from tourism. It is important that the skills that we have educated people in, which they have applied in their science and their art, can be brought into the process. That will ensure that we have the specialist archaeological and conservation officers’ engagement with the historic environment records, which will give real value to this process and ensure that we are not just looking at a paper exercise, but using the science and arts of archaeology and conservation to ensure the value of that site and build it into the identity of the community.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am grateful to the hon. Member for York Central for introducing this amendment. We agree that historic environment records are an important source of information about the historic environment of any given area, especially its archaeology. I defer to the hon. Member for York Central in terms of her knowledge of the history, particularly in her area. HERs can help the public learn more about where they live and ensure that local plans and planning decisions are informed by an understanding of an area’s history. I am glad that the hon. Lady and others have broadly welcomed clause 185 and the fact that we are putting historic environment records on a statutory footing for the first time. I know that the heritage sector has warmly welcomed that as well.

I completely understand the sentiment behind the hon. Lady’s amendment. The first philosophical question we have to deal with is not whether this is a good thing in principle, but whether it is necessary to have it in primary legislation. My gentle challenge to the hon. Lady—and the reason that in a moment I will ask her to withdraw her amendment—is that I am not convinced this necessarily needs to be put forward in primary legislation in this instance, given what I am about to outline and the fact that there will be other opportunities for her to make her case and for the Government to consider what is possible.

Furthermore, though I understand the intent behind the amendment, we are concerned that the wording may potentially water down some of the statutory duties of local authorities, if it is looked at in certain ways. It may also be inconsistent with the current drafting of subsections (4) and (5), which provides for how the duty should be discharged by a local authority. I know that is not the intention of the hon. Lady, but it is something that has been raised by officials in discussion and appropriate assessment of this. Consequently, I will ask the hon. Lady if she would be minded to withdraw her amendment. She may be aware that we intend to publish accompanying guidance alongside the intention of putting HERs on a statutory footing. That will give some clearer views about how those records can be maintained. If she is willing, we will be happy to receive more detail about her concerns, and I will ask that officials give those concerns complete consideration when we are creating that guidance. I hope that some of the understandable concerns she has outlined today can be assuaged through that process. Therefore I will ask the hon. Member if she is content to withdraw her amendment.

[Rachael Maskell]

I welcome the Minister to his place. I take the challenge straight on. First, I reiterate the point that records themselves do not have application—they are presented in the way they are but they do not have a voice, they do not have context and understanding and they certainly do not have a brain, though they are written by those who do. Of course, archaeology is about a process and a journey; it is not static, but is moving the whole time. Therefore that context is really important to engage with.

I issue a challenge back to the Minster on the matter of watering down the role of local authorities. We all have a huge responsibility to preserve our heritage, understand our history and ensure that we are using the science of that. I know that archaeologists know more about science than we do, but we draw on the opportunities that that presents, which takes us into a stronger future as well as having commercial benefits. However, I am heartened to hear that there will be guidance that looks specifically at HERs and their application. I hope that when drafting the guidance the Minister ensures that specialist archaeologist resources are drawn on, as well as that of conservation officers, so that the maximum opportunity can be derived from looking at the historical context within the planning system. I will closely examine that guidance. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

--- Later in debate ---

At the beginning of the pandemic, the Government did good work—let us give them credit—in ensuring that the majority of people who are street homeless became not street homeless in a matter of weeks. That showed what we can do if we put our minds to it. However, even considering reinstating the essential principles behind the 1824 Act, through clause 187, is morally wrong in any era. The Government should withdraw the clause immediately.

[Rachael Maskell]

I, too, rise in disgust at the piece of legislation before us today, and I urge the Government to think again. It is an insult not only to Parliament, which strongly voted to abolish the Vagrancy Act 1824 just this year, but to those incredibly vulnerable people who find themselves on our streets, for whatever reason. It is not for us to judge them; we should provide support and pathways for people out of that situation.

Yesterday at the Dispatch Box, the new Chancellor announced a new era of compassionate Conservatism. Today, we have this legislation before us, which is anything but. It is about othering people—the most vulnerable people in our society. It is about calling them out, and using despicable language to describe them: “vagabonds” and “rogues”. These people are incredibly troubled. Today, language has moved on. We recognise that people who have serious mental health problems or addictions need support. We recognise people who simply do not have the money to survive in our society. That population is growing. There are three people officially registered as on the streets in York, yet when I went out the other morning, there were 23 people sleeping rough.

This is not just about people who are sleeping rough. Many people who are living in hostel accommodation, sofa surfing, and so on find themselves begging on the street. Many people I talk to—and this is where the Government must engage with the community—simply find applying for social security too complicated. They are fed up of being rejected by the complex process of getting access to the public money to which they are entitled. They therefore turn to begging as a mechanism by which to survive, feed themselves and get through the day or night. Many people have multiple challenges pressing down on them, including financial debt and other things that they owe.

To put into legislation once again, having just repealed them, measures that criminalise people who are trying to find their pathway through life—trying to survive—is an abomination. It is completely unacceptable to criminalise those individuals. This measure is not just about civil penalties; it is about the criminalisation of the most vulnerable people. Any compassionate Government would reach out and recognise their duty, and would recognise their blame and responsibility for allowing people to fall into that state. The language used is horrific. It is a horrific piece of legislation. I urge the Government to U-turn on it, and will praise them for it if they do. It is prejudicial and insulting, and it is certainly not beign done in my name, or in the name of my hon. Friends who are signed up to the amendment, which is significant.

Although the Conservative party is desperately trying to rebrand itself, deep down the roots of prejudice seem to continue to exist. If this Government spent time with those vulnerable people across our society, and understood their pathways and stories, they would not write such appalling pieces of legislation. It is not for any of us to judge those individuals, or to place our prejudices on them. It is for us to provide support and pathways out, so that they have the future that we have been afforded, and the opportunities we have had the privilege of having. We need to enable people to have that fresh start, however many attempts it takes. We need restitution and opportunity, not blame and criminalisation of the most vulnerable people in our communities. It is therefore disgraceful to see this measure before us, and I trust that the Minister will withdraw the clause.

[Dehenna Davison]

The hon. Lady made a very good point when she said that it is for us not to judge, but to provide support and pathways, and the Government are absolutely committed to that. I have already outlined the rough sleeping strategy, which was announced just a few weeks ago.

I want to reassure the Committee that the Government are absolutely committed—we have repeatedly been clear about this—to not criminalising anybody simply for having nowhere to live. The intent of any replacement legislation will not be to criminalise people for being homeless. I want to put that point very firmly on the record.

On our support for rough sleepers, we want to ensure that rough sleeping is ended in a way that is sustainable in the long term. That means preventing people from needing to sleep rough where possible and, where rough sleeping does occur, ensuring that those spells are rare, brief and non-recurring. We recently published our strategy, which is backed by more than £2 billion of funding over the next three years. As part of that, we announced the new £200 million single homelessness accommodation programme, which aims to provide up to 2,400 supported homes for rough sleepers by March 2025, and £500 million to provide 14,000 beds for rough sleepers and 3,000 staff to provide tailored support across England. That support is absolutely crucial in ensuring that those who are homeless can get back on their feet. The support includes helping individuals to find work, manage their finances and access mental and physical health services. We will fully enforce the landmark Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, which we believe is the most ambitious reform to homelessness legislation in decades.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dehenna Davison]

As I outlined, this is a placeholder, and we are analysing the consultation responses. The commitment I have given is that no criminalisation will result from the fact that someone is homeless. I want to put that point on the record incredibly strongly.

I cannot pre-empt the outcome of the consultation, but I have spoken to the Minister with responsibility for rough sleeping, who has committed to writing to Committee members to outline the next steps. As I say, this issue does not usually sit within my brief, but we are limited by the number of Ministers we can have in Committee today. Hopefully, that Minister will be able to provide additional reassurance.

[Rachael Maskell]

This measure was not brought forward in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, so we have had a period in which the Government have not had the opportunity to criminalise people for being homeless or begging on our streets. Nothing has changed since Parliament as a whole gave the Government a clear indication that it wanted to see off a 200-year-old piece of legislation, yet today, Government are trying to resurrect the opportunity to criminalise people.

The Minister says that there is no need for the measure, but it is hardwired into the legislation. It is the text of the statute, not what the Minister says, that decides what the Government have the capacity to do. The clause is completely unnecessary, yet the Government push it before us. Will the Minister explain the context of having such measures written into the Bill? We have not had them for the past six months; indeed, she says, while still analysing her consultation, that we will not need them moving forward. The measure is seen as a draconian move, and should be taken out of law.

[Dehenna Davison]

I genuinely thank the hon. Member for her passion on this issue, which is prevalent in the City of York, and she has campaigned on it well and strongly in recent years. The best thing that I can do is ask the Minister with responsibility for homelessness to write to her directly. Indeed, he has committed to writing to all Committee members to set out the next step. I hope that he can provide some reassurance. However, at this stage, I ask that the clause remain part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 187 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 188

Data protection

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

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Twenty Third sitting)

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 13th October 2022 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause 164 stand part.

That schedule 16 be the Sixteenth schedule to the Bill.

Clauses 165 to 168 stand part.

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Hollobone. I have a few points to make about clauses 164 and 165. The first is a drafting issue with schedule 16, which is not mentioned at all in the substantive text of the clauses now under consideration, and which is the only schedule not to be referenced. I do not know what bearing that has on the schedule, because it refers to clause 164. The lack of reference to the schedule in the clauses does not follow the usual processes, so I draw that to the Minister’s attention.

I want to pick up on two issues relating to the content of the terms of the contract for the tenancy. This is about practicalities. Many of our vacant high street premises were department stores. That is the nature of the businesses that have vacated the market over the last few years in particular, leaving large premises vacant on the high street. Few businesses will be able to replace that footprint.

In places such as York, where there is 65% penetration of independents, there is real opportunity for small and new businesses to get a foothold by occupying those premises, but the legislation is not clear on how such contracts would be handled. Would there be subcontracting opportunities whereby a body could take a major contract and then subcontract to a smaller business? Or could a multi-purpose auction allow a consortium bid from a number of businesses? We want those premises to be occupied in future, so can the Minister clarify how the legislation would deal with such a proposal, because I cannot see it written into the Bill?

Another issue in my constituency, which may happen elsewhere, is that of premises being opened to licensing. In York, a takeover by licensed premises is having seriously ugly consequences. One thing we do not want is those big department stores becoming super-nightclubs right in the middle of a designated shopping area. My concern is that some people might try to take advantage of the legislation to advance such businesses. What controls can be put in place so that local authorities have oversight of tenancies and can ensure that the use of premises is in keeping with the direction of travel they want for their local communities? I cannot see any clarity in the Bill about how such matters would be handled or about controls to ensure that the use of those premises is in keeping with the local community’s aspirations.

[Alex Norris]

I have three questions. Clause 163(1)(b) provides the power to contract for a tenancy if

“the period of 42 days beginning with the day on which that notice took effect has elapsed”.

I understand why there needs to be time, but I am not sure why a minimum time has been set quite so quickly. It might take a number of weeks to get a tenancy together, but why include a hard six-week period that will add to and elongate the process?

Clauses 164(5) and 166(3) address, respectively, pre-tenancy works and work that the local authority might have to do

“in order to make an effective grant.”

Are the costs incurred by a local authority in making a premises ready rechargeable?

Clause 165(7) provides for a reserve power to make regulation. I will not rehash that argument, but for clarity, do the Government expect a relatively simple tenancy equivalent to a general market or high street tenancy?

[Dehenna Davison]

I am grateful to the hon. Members for York Central and for Nottingham North for their remarks.

The hon. Lady raised a good point. On her drafting concern, clause 165(6) refers to schedule 16. Will she please let me know if that is not clear, and I will ensure that it is rectified? But my expert team have told me that that is the case. We can pick this up afterwards if need be.

[Rachael Maskell]

Schedule 16 refers back to clause 164, not 165, according to the note next to the schedule, on page 320. I am curious, shall we say, and that further adds to my curiosity, because there is no true cross-referencing, then, to the right clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell]

If premises were to be wholly let, but let in separate lots, how would that be covered by those clauses? It seems that the Minister is talking about, for example, half a building being let. However, if we are talking about half a building to be used in 10 separate sections, how would the legislation cover that scenario?

[Dehenna Davison]

I will write to the hon. Member on that specific scenario and provide additional clarity. The definition of short-term tenancy is also found here, which limits the term of tenancies granted under high street rental auction powers between one and five years. It also includes setting out what is meant by local authority. They are district councils in England, and county councils where there are no district councils, London borough councils, the common council of the City of London and the councils of the Isle of Skye. The clauses underpin the workings of this part of the Bill, and I urge the Committee to support them.

On new clause 55, I am grateful to hon. Members for seeking to ensure that local authorities have the resources necessary to auction vacant high street premises. I agree that is incredibly important. I want to reassure hon. Members that we intend to work with local authorities to produce detailed guidance to help them through the auction process, minimising burdens wherever possible. The provision would permit local authorities to charge landlords for costs associated with the high street rental auction process. The details of the rental auction process, including how we will distribute the costs of the process, will be set out in regulations following consultation with local authorities, landlords and tenants. I do not believe publishing a report within three months of the Act being in force, when local authorities may only just be starting to engage with the process, will benefit the aims of the Bill.

To go back to the point about premises being partially or fully let, as raised by the hon. Member for York Central, we will consult on a standardised lease that will deal with sub-lettings. There will be a consultation on that point to ensure that we get the policy right.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful to the Minister for raising that, but I wonder how will relate to the legislation. Obviously, this is the authoritative source. While the Minister may be consulting, is she saying that there will be greater clarity brought within regulations? How will that come forth? I think it will be of real interest across the country. It is the very scenario that the clauses are trying to address. Can the Minister bring more clarity?

[Dehenna Davison]

Absolutely. I go back to my earlier point; we all see those larger units that need to be let out, and we know that smaller businesses or community groups would be able to benefit from those smaller spaces. We intend to set this out later in regulations once we have consulted again to ensure that we get this absolutely right. It is a novel policy, so it will take some tweaking. We want to get it right to ensure that it works and fulfils the ultimate aim of getting our vacant high street premises filled.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Twenty Second sitting)

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 13th October 2022 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 151 stand part.

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

I want to make a brief point on clause 151, which is being taken together with clause 150. It relates to subsection (3), which mentions the exclusion of warehouses.

Of course, every community is different. In the centre of York there have been a number of warehouses along a street called Piccadilly, and we have seen those warehouses brought back into use through some really innovative work in our community. I think about the site now known as Spark, where containers were brought in for a limited period, but that has now been extended due to the success of that site in what was a warehouse. Those containers contain community interest companies—new, little businesses that are feeling their way right at the heart of our city and learning their trade. They are also building new standards around the environment and really adding to the community. Spark is bringing that whole part of York to life, particularly with the younger community, and it has really good values. We see little shops, a little community being built and a social space where the community can sit. There is also space where classes take place and the community is really involved.

Excluding warehouses and sites of warehouses would seem to be an omission from the legislation, because it is not using those opportunities. Piccadilly leads on to our main high street, so this would be a really important inclusion. Surely, it should be for local determination to say whether such a site would be suitable for a high street auction, rather than discounting that within the Bill.

[Alex Norris]

I have two quick points. First, to reiterate— I feel like I should do that thing on “Countdown” where I show my working—I share that view on clause 151(3), and I hope the Minister can address that. I also wanted to talk about subsection (2)(b), which reads:

“the local authority considers them to be suitable for a high-street use.”

In this case, “them” refers to qualifying high street premises. That gets to our concerns that it might be in the eye of the beholder. I wonder whether the Minister might talk about what safeguards there are in this case.

New Developments on Green-belt Land

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Wednesday 12th October 2022 Westminster Hall

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

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) on securing the debate.

Before asking what is being built on the green belt, we have to ask what is being built on brownfield sites. In York’s case, it is assets for investors rather than homes for families and communities. CPRE estimates that more than 26,000 hectares of UK brownfield land are available for development—enough to build a million homes. Between 2006 and 2016, the proportion of brownfield land used for residential development dropped by 38%, whereas building on greenfield land increased by a staggering 148%. Public money is invested in the remediation of brownfield sites, while the owners land bank before declaring the unviability of any affordable or social housing. It is a complete scam.

Until the Government turn planning on its head, landowners and developers will continue to game the system, using every means possible to derive huge profits from urban brownfield sites by delivering high-priced investor units that do not meet local need and exceed local affordability. In York, again and again, this has meant that scarce land is used for the development of properties for the investment market, student accommodation or hotel rooms, leaving local housing need unmet and pressure to develop the green belt—a developer’s paradise.

Just last week, the Lib Dem-Green York Council agreed yet another multipurpose development, including an 88-room aparthotel and 153 new apartments, more than half of which will be bedsits and will immediately flip into holiday lets. There will not be a single affordable unit. That mirrors a long succession of planning decisions in our ancient city. In York Central, Government agencies are planning to use 45 hectares of brownfield land for the delivery of 2,500 units that are unsuitable and unaffordable for local families, thereby wasting the land and pushing vital economic and housing development to the green belt.

Every hectare of brownfield land that is squandered for extractive profits puts another hectare of green belt under threat. On each of these new developments, large swathes of properties move to the second home market immediately after completion. Some are never occupied, and many turn into Airbnbs. The revenue pays the mortgage while the asset gains value, pushing up house prices even more and making them completely inaccessible to local people.

Meanwhile, in York, thousands of families are waiting for a home that they simply want to call their own. We cannot pretend that there is any gain for local people; demand is outstripping supply, driving up property value but never delivering the homes people need. They are being driven out of their city to some greenfield site miles away. That impacts the local economy too, with people on the lowest incomes having to make the longest commutes, involving costs they cannot afford.

Greenfield demand is a consequence of failed planning, and I fear that greater liberalisation is on its way. The Government are going in completely the wrong direction. Unbelievably, Dartmoor, the North York Moors and the New Forest are set to fall within the boundaries of freeports and urban centres’ investment zones, free from planning restrictions. The developers’ charter is back, but without a people’s charter for public land for public good, we will never meet housing need. The economic crisis has made things worse.

The only politician to make real inroads in this area was Nye Bevan. In a famous speech, he said that only municipal control could ever develop the housing needed. He was right, and he delivered it. York is plagued with applications for green-belt development, but brownfield land must not be squandered at the expense of our green belt. We cannot stand by when people have nowhere to live. This is not an urban versus rural debate, but one between those who extract profit and those wanting to protect communities. Working together to ensure that brownfield sites are developed for local need will protect the green belt. The Government need to decide which side they are on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) on securing this important debate, although I shall start by disagreeing with her slightly.

In the Lewes constituency, we had a good system. We had a local plan in place, and nearly every town and parish in the Lewes district had neighbourhood plans, which were voted on by local people and put together by parish councillors. That was delivering our housing numbers in the right place and delivering the right type of accommodation, which enabled older people to stay in their communities by downsizing and young families to begin their life in their community with a starter home.

Our issue is that in 2019 the Lib Dem-Greens took over the district council and let that local plan go out of date, and with it the five-year land supply. With that, all the neighbourhood plans have fallen, and since then we have been inundated with applications from developers, who seized the opportunity to target every greenfield site in the constituency for housing development.

The local planning authority has refused most of those applications on the principle that they are not in the local plan and not in the neighbourhood plan, but those refusals are being overturned almost daily by the planning inspector, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell) suggested, and there is inaction from our local council, which is squabbling over housing numbers. Meanwhile, not having a local plan in place means that our communities, parishes and town councils, which worked so hard to accommodate the housing numbers they were given, are being left to face the consequences.

[Rachael Maskell]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Maria Caulfield]

I will not because there is little time left.

That is not fair because the housing being built on those sites is not affordable for local families. It is £400,000 or £500,000 for a starter home, and those are three-bedroom or four-bedroom homes that do not allow our older residents to downsize and stay, or our new young families to start their life in their community. This is not the right housing. We were trying to build communities, not just homes, and the system has failed us.

I have seven key asks of the Minister. Many Members have raised the brownfield first strategy, which was highlighted by the previous Prime Minister and hinted at by our current Prime Minister. We need clarity on that. In Lewes town, we had the Phoenix quarter, which would have delivered thousands of new homes. The Government gave the council £1 million to start that scheme, but not a brick has been laid on the site. Meanwhile, our green fields are being concreted over.

We need to be able to force local councils to get their local plans in place. It cannot be right that we had a plan in place that delivered the housing numbers and the housing that our communities wanted, but that the local plan is not happening because the council is squabbling over housing numbers. All that is now a hostage to fortune. It is the same in the Wealden district of my constituency, which I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne. There has never been a local plan and the district is holding out for the Government either to scrap housing numbers or to deliver a different housing strategy. Meanwhile, every greenfield site is open to challenge from developers.

The standard method was touched on by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Gavin Williamson). I have received letters from the previous Housing Minister saying that it is not a target, just an indication, but local councils do not feel confident enough to take matters to appeal, because when they do so the planning inspector does not uphold that view. The 2014 housing numbers, which form the standard method, as has been highlighted, are inaccurate and out of date.

We need to take the heat out of the south-east. Members across the Chamber might not agree with me, but we are talking about applications in their thousands, not their hundreds. We have GPs who have closed their lists because they cannot cope, schools that are full and roads that are congested. At the end of the day, we are just not building the housing that helps our local communities, and residents have had enough.

On the land banking issue, Oliver Letwin did a review a couple of years ago and said there was no problem—“Nothing to see here, folks.” Actually, I agree with the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne. Wealden district has 8,000 units that have planning permission, but because they are mainly on brownfield sites, it is cheaper, quicker and easier for developers to challenge the council, win at appeal and build on greenfield sites instead.

We absolutely need to support our local planning authorities. In the case of the proposed Mornings Mill development, the council has refused it twice and it has gone to appeal. I am concerned not about the cost but about the principles behind that decision. What is the point of having planning authorities? We might as well give the decision to planning inspectors in the first place. We have tried to build the housing that we are required to build, we did our local plan and our neighbourhood plan, and it cannot be right that decisions by democratically elected councillors are overturned. Developers have the money and legal expertise to be able to win every single case.

Finally, I will address the issue of local plans and five-year land supplies going out of date. Does it really need to take years? They were good plans, and there are only a couple of sites that did not come to fruition. It should take months to revamp that, and we should be able to keep those local plans and the legal protections they provide for our constituencies.

The odds are stacked against our communities at the moment, and we need the Minister’s help. We want to build housing, but it must be the right type of housing for our communities, and we want to build communities and not just homes.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Twentieth sitting)

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 8th September 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Matthew Pennycook]

It is a pleasure to reconvene with you in the Chair, Mrs Murray. I warmly welcome the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam to the caretaker role that he has bravely taken on today. He is the third Minister I have engaged with in proceedings on the Bill. The shadow Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities team are setting new records when it comes to the ministerial attrition rate. It may be overly ambitious to hope that we can get through five Ministers by the completion of proceedings on the Bill, but we live in hope.

On a serious note, I place on record our thanks to the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) for his efforts in taking the Bill through Committee in recent weeks, including before the summer recess, and for the constructive way in which he did so. I hope that we can continue in that vein today.

We had, in our last sitting, an extensive debate on the infrastructure levy, and touched on the issue of viability as part of the design of any new proposal. This group of amendments relates to the infrastructure levy rate-setting process, and how viability testing will be used to inform it. Once again, allowing for the fact that we do not have the detail we need, and for the fact that the required forthcoming regulations will be subject to further consultation, I am assuming for the purposes of these amendments—largely because of the remarkable similarity between schedule 11 and the provisions in the Planning Act 2008 that gave effect to the community infrastructure levy—that the Government are minded to base the IL rate-setting process on that which applies to the process for adopting a CIL charging schedule.

If that is the case, the process will require charging authorities to undertake—if not directly, then by commissioning consultants for the purpose—an area-wide viability assessment. Such assessments would be similar to—and indeed could, where appropriate, be combined with—the area-wide viability testing that forms part of the evidence base for the examination of new local plans. As “full viability assessments”, these will involve a large number of residual land valuations for different development typologies, and potentially strategic sites, to test what IL rates could be supported in different circumstances. It is likely that they would have to consider all aspects of development appraisal, including average values, costs, profit and land value, rather than using gross development value as the value-based metric used to determine specific IL liabilities.

The new levy has broader scope than the CIL, incorporating as it does both infrastructure and affordable housing. Higher rates will be necessary as a result. Given that, and given that GDV—the metric to be used—does not take into account site-specific development costs, IL has the potential to result in significant non-negotiable liabilities, so the stakes involved in the IL rate-setting will be far higher than those that pertain in the CIL charging schedule adoption process. Thus it is almost certain that the IL rate-setting process in any given area will be heavily contested; landowners and developers will task their representatives with challenging the scope of the assessment, its methodology, inputs, assumptions and conclusions, with a view to reducing IL rates and their future liability. There is therefore a strong case for putting in place additional measures to ensure that the IL rate-setting examination process is fair, and I hope that the Government are exploring what might be done to ensure that the Planning Inspectorate is able to draw on the necessary expertise so that that is the case.

The aim of amendment 162 is to ensure that the bar for viability testing in the IL rate-setting and examination process is not set unreasonably high, and that there is therefore a more level playing field between charging authorities and those who might potentially object to a proposed IL rate or rates. The amendment seeks to avoid authorities being compelled to either undertake onerously detailed analysis, bring forward overly complex charging structures or set artificially low rates to compensate for the risk that the Bill creates of developers arguing that specific projects in an area are unviable. It does that by specifying, using the language used in proposed new section 204A(2) of the 2008 Act, that when setting IL rates, charging authorities must consider the economic viability of development in the area as a whole. That would make it clear that in the rate-setting process, the test of viability should not be so specific as to relate to individual sites, unless perhaps they are of strategic significance to the charging authority area, but should instead take into account viability across a range of sites, and the overall delivery of the amount of development envisaged in the local plan. That is in line with current practice, and would mean that IL rates would not be unduly influenced by the characteristics of development sites that may not be typical of the area, and that could result in nil or particularly low rates being set across the whole of it.

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for tabling the amendments. It is clear that the system is not working, because when going through the planning process many developers argue that the site is no longer viable, and therefore make changes to the plans. What should be put in place to ensure that we have more accurate viability testing before planning permission is granted?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for that well-made point. We had, as she will know, an extensive discussion on viability in the last sitting. The system is flawed in many respects, but there are ways in which it has been improved in recent years, and it could be improved further. The Mayor’s threshold approach in London is a good example of how that can be done; it draws in relevant expertise to ensure that contentious sites undergo a full viability assessment.

Our issue with the proposed system is that it is premised on removing the viability issue from the process entirely, but the point here is that the system certainly does not do that; at the rate-setting stage, viability is very much an issue. That needs to be addressed through the amendments. Amendment 162 would ensure that IL rate-setting testing and examination cannot be unfairly manipulated by developers seeking to drive down levy rates, because the amendment would clarify that charging authorities will not be expected to test every development site in their area. It would mitigate the risk that the infrastructure necessary to support development will not come forward, and that amounts of affordable housing will be reduced.

Amendments 163 and 164 are necessary to give full effect to the Government’s commitment that the new system will be, to quote the policy paper, a “locally determined Infrastructure Levy”, with Il rates set locally by charging authorities. The amendments do that by altering the provisions that give the Secretary of State the power to impose specific IL rates, nil rates or minimum thresholds that have not emerged as a result of an examination, or been justified with reference to local evidence. By preventing the Secretary of State from overriding a charging authority in those respects, the two amendments seek to avoid a scenario in which a charging authority is either prevented from developing its own IL rates or, after the lengthy and resource-intensive process of determining the IL rates and thresholds appropriate for its area, and after having them verified by an independent examiner, has them overridden by the Secretary of State.

There is nothing in the Bill to ensure that IL rates imposed by the Secretary of State in the way that the Bill allows would be based on local evidence or subject to independent assessment. There is therefore an obvious risk that the Secretary of State may, on occasion, be persuaded to bypass the IL rate-setting process on spurious grounds. We feel strongly that the process should be genuinely local, and that charging authorities should be confident, if they develop a rate or rates that are approved in examination, that they will be able to apply those without interference from the Department. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on each of these important amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell]

I beg to move amendment 168, in schedule 11, page 288, line 25, at end insert—

“(4A) IL regulations must make provision for a sliding scale of charges increasing in proportion to the share of the development that is on greenfield land, for the purposes of incentivising brownfield development, unless any development on greenfield land is offset by the re-greening of an agreed area of brownfield land in a densely developed or populated area.”

This amendment is offered as an alternative proposition to Amendment 59, adding safeguards intended to prevent extremely dense development in urban centres with an undersupply of open space.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 59, in schedule 11, page 288, line 25, at end insert—

“(4A) IL regulations must make provision for a sliding scale of charges increasing in proportion to the share of the development that is on greenfield land, for the purposes of incentivising brownfield development.”

This amendment would require rates of the Infrastructure Levy to be varied in line with the proportion of the development that is on greenfield land in order to promote brownfield development.

[Rachael Maskell]

It is good to see you in the Chair again, Mrs Murray. I welcome the Minister to his place.

Amendments 168 and 59 have the same objective. Labour has set out clearly that we believe it is important that brownfield sites be developed on first. Many sites across the country have been wasteland for too long. We have a housing crisis and there are economic opportunities, so we very much want to see developments. Such sites are often old industrial areas, which are begging for housing development.

York has the largest brownfield site in the country, adjacent to the station, so we have obviously given much thought to this issue. I am glad that the Government supported our call to make it a site of development. What will go on there is another matter of dispute, but it is welcome that, the site having been derelict for 30 years, we now see roadworks on it—I was looking at them just last weekend—thanks to the additional funding to release it that has been locked in by the railways, but my amendments seek to go further than that.

The White Paper—it is important that we refer to it—suggested that development could be brought forward almost on street corners if sufficient land was available in developed areas. Of course, that takes away vital green space from local communities. My amendments therefore seek to recognise the value of green space in urban environments. It is crucial that we join up the agendas across Government—I often think the Government think too much in their own silo—when looking at the opportunities to create green spaces in urban areas. They could address environmental issues, including drainage and flooding, and mental health issues.

In my constituency, brownfield sites’ being turned over for development has led to a very heated-up urban centre, which has serious consequences. The York Central site and other developments on the west side of the city are taking up spaces that were either old industrial land or school playing fields, which means that we have more traffic. As a result, the west side of York will become gridlocked because the development has not been properly thought through. Within the planning process, the developers are referring back to our local transport plan from 2011, which is well out of date.

If we keep developing on brownfield sites without thinking about the wider consequences, it will have a significant impact on the urban environment and will ultimately create more congestion and pollution, which will have a significant impact on the local community, whose frustrations will grow. We have to make sure that we talk about infrastructure and the transition from car use to public transport or active travel, and we need to take a more holistic view rather than focus on brownfield site development, but my amendment seeks to go further than that in recognising the importance of having some of that land converted into green spaces.

I can give a fantastic example in Tang Hall, a densely populated area of York. It used to be the old refuse site and would have been classified as rich for development, but it was turned into St Nicks environment centre and an incredibly important space for wellbeing. The centre runs opportunities for people experiencing mental health challenges and engages in environmental projects, thereby improving the wellbeing of all residents in the local area. That was a project of yesteryear, but as the housing crisis, which is significant, has grown in York, I have noticed that areas where there is the greatest deprivation—somewhere such as Clifton, where life expectancy is 10 years less than elsewhere in York—also have the least green space.

The former Bootham Park Hospital was on public land, and people would go there and walk around. That space will be handed over to a private company with the disposal of the hospital, but Bootham School will take over the land for its playing fields, which will lock out the public. However, the rest of the estate, where there is currently green space, will be turned into further housing. That involves changing somewhere that is green but categorised as a brownfield site into a developed area, which means that the area will lose public green space. People will not be able to walk their dogs, get fresh air and improve their mental health. We know the correlation between mental health and deprivation, so that is really important.

I can give another example. Acomb had a secondary school in what was the old Acomb Park area, and the school had playing fields. Although the school has been disposed of, the area has been used by the public as a free park for the community, which has been really important. However, the land would be categorised as a brownfield site, and our local council has the intention to develop the site and put more housing there. We desperately need housing—I am not decrying that—but we should re-categorise some brownfield space as green space and then use some current green space as brown space, thereby getting the green lungs into the city. We know from research that that was very much the focus over 100 years ago, because that was how York was built out.

Putting in green lungs will increase the opportunities to improve mental and physical health, to have a better environment and to address some of the issues around pollution and so on. It will also improve the whole area by creating public space and a sense of community. If we see a direct swap with current greenfield sites, I do not believe that the area should be penalised for not building on brownfield sites but choosing to build on greenfield sites. This is about providing greater opportunity and recognising that we can develop brownfield sites first but put in those green lungs in order to place the proposed housing in other areas. We should not penalise local authorities for improving public health and wider aspects of their community. That is a perspective that a joined-up Government would be looking at: how we improve not just homes and units, but communities and people, which is what planning should be all about. My amendment seeks to provide that opportunity, recognising the reality of this in highly populated areas in particular.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell]

I thank the Minister for his authoritative words in recognising the importance of green lungs in urban environments, because they are so important. Often in planning we lose the wider benefits we are trying to achieve when we look just at bricks and mortar as opposed to people and places. It is so important that we bring that to the fore in this debate, so I will certainly refer back to his speech when talking about this issue. It is important to draw that out as we consider how we take planning forward.

Of course, I am disappointed that the Minister does not want to advance my amendment, but I will withdraw it at this stage and see on Report whether the Government will recognise the opportunity to stress the importance of green in brown areas. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Rachael Maskell]

I beg to move amendment 169, in schedule 11, page 294, leave out lines 15 to 28 and insert

“(a) roads and other transport facilities, including routes for good quality active travel including cycling, walking and micro-mobility, parking facilities and street infrastructure including benches,

(b) flood defences,

(c) schools and other educational facilities including nurseries, play areas and family friendly areas,

(d) medical facilities including dentists, diagnostic hubs, general practices and other community spaces to address mental health and promote wellbeing,

(e) sporting and recreational facilities including youth centres and skate parks,

(f) open spaces,

(g) affordable houses,

(h) facilities and equipment for emergency and rescue services,

(i) facilities and spaces which—

(i) preserve or improve the natural environment, or

(ii) enable or facilitate enjoyment of the natural environment,

(iii) provide outdoor space for communities including allotments and forest schools,

(iv) provide flood and drought mitigation,

(j) space for energy generation

(k) space for business incubation

(l) community buildings for social, cultural, religious purposes,

(m) community facilities including post offices, cafes, libraries, support and advice centres

(n) day centres for the elderly or disabled people, including for the purposes of state-provided day or residential care.”

This amendment broadens the scope of inserted section 204N(5), which defines “infrastructure” for the purposes of the Infrastructure Levy.

I appreciate being able to talk about this amendment, not least because although the schedule—I do not mean any offence—is a list of areas the infrastructure levy could be focused on, it is not a comprehensive list. Therefore, I wanted to expand on areas I think are important for the Government to consider in the planning process at this stage.

We are going through perhaps the greatest change to our economy in our lifetimes, whether that was caused by Brexit, covid or, now, the energy crisis, and none of us knows what is around the corner. As we look at planning, we need to think in a more holistic way. Many of these crises are forcing us into that space, and in many ways we have had to do that thinking, which could be positive. Therefore, in looking at the opportunities available to us, I would argue that the definitions in the schedule are too narrow and that the list should be more expansive.

It could be argued that my amendment puts down an even more expansive list but still is not comprehensive, and I will come back to that in a moment because I recognise that a number of other areas could be included. I am sure the Minister will argue that many of the things that I have listed in my amendment could easily fit into some of the points already in schedule 11. However, my amendment provides an emphasis. For instance, proposed new section 204N(3)(a) in schedule 11, which covers

“roads and other transport facilities”,

sets out a car-focused future. Of course, our future should not be dependent on roads and cars. We have active travel, so we should be talking much more about cycleways and footpaths, and opportunities for micro-mobility, which we are seeing the advent of. Proposed new paragraph (a) emphasises development around a hydrocarbon future, as opposed to moving away from that.

I could talk a lot about many of the other areas. We will concur around such issues as flood defences—York is unfortunately at the top of the league for flooding—but I want to come on to such things as schools and other educational facilities. For instance, what about nurseries and play areas? We know that investment in early years is really needed. That goes beyond an educational facility; we need play areas for children. I would argue that play is education, but would that fit within the definition when we came to argue such points within our local planning systems? We need to ensure that there are family-friendly areas and areas where people can feel safe and included. Looking at expanding the definition under proposed new section 204N(3)(c) is very important.

On medical facilities, the world of medicine is changing. Diagnostic hubs are coming forward from the Government, which I very much welcome. We are seeking to get them in my constituency, and we need to think about health in a very different way than we have in the past. Medical facilities will not necessarily just be clinics or hospitals, as we have seen in the past. We are moving much more into social prescribing, particularly on mental health. When it comes to mental health and wellbeing facilities, we need to look at the most advanced place pioneering mental health work, the city of Trieste in Italy, which does not have hospitals for mental health, because people have facilities in the community. Would that be included here, or would it be seen as something very different? Again, I would argue that the brief definition in the Bill is quite outmoded within its own context.

Proposed new section 204N(3)(e) covers “sporting and recreational facilities”, but what about youth centres and youth clubs? The Government brought forward a proposal to develop 300 new youth facilities, and of course we welcome them into our communities. Sadly, in York we are losing ours, but if we introduce more youth clubs and facilities where do they fit into the proposals? We know that we absolutely need them.

My amendment goes further in looking at some of the areas that we particularly need to focus on. My proposed new section 204N(3)(i) focuses on the need particularly for allotments. We have not heard much about allotments in the debate on planning, but I have been talking to the York Allotments Charitable Incorporated Organisation, which oversees our allotments. YACIO has been talking about the impact that allotments have on mental and physical health. We need to go back over 100 years, and look at New Earswick for the model regarding allotments. Many will know that New Earswick is the first garden village in the country. It is not in my constituency; it is in that of my neighbour, the hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy). It was designed for urban clearance—for moving people out of the slums and tenant homes in York into a new village—but every home was allocated an allotment. This was family housing, where people had some garden space, but also an allotment.

If we think of today and the food crisis, and the mental health challenges that we all face in our constituencies, having allotments available for families is incredible for the community and for wellbeing. In York 1,500 people are currently waiting for allotments. There is a real shortage. Being able to develop allotments through the amendment would be really good for the wellbeing of our communities and for the people waiting for them. I said that 1,500 people are waiting, but we have 1,350 allotment spaces, so some people are being told that it could be 10 years before they get an allotment. Bringing plots forward could, again, join up Government, tick lots of boxes, and make things available for our wider communities. I think that is really important. s

What the Rowntrees achieved there with their pioneering social work could have a significant impact if we think about the need. In urban spaces in particular, more and more flats and apartments are being built, but people do not have any green spaces, so where do they have the opportunity to grow their own veg? Community gardens and community allotments where there is a collective share are really important in giving people the opportunity to grow their own food. At a time when there is a food crisis, this is a step for many families in food poverty towards greater resilience. These crises are focusing our attention, and we have to think about these things in our modern age.

Turning to my proposed new section 204N(3)(j), the Government are missing a massive trick—I want to stress that this is so important. I was just listening to a BBC World Service programme, which a constituent drew to my attention, about what other countries are doing in relation to energy. It was a fascinating listen; I do not know whether the Minister heard it. Particularly in the Netherlands, but also in Scandinavia, they are making facilities for local energy production on the outskirts of areas. We are currently in an energy crisis, and we all obviously want the very best for our constituents. I notice that the energy debate has started in the main Chamber; I am sure we are all longing to see what the exact proposals are, but in Scandinavia, they allocate land to be used for energy development and production. That is renewable energy production for a local community, so there is a dependence on local energy, which of course can be built into wider networks.

It is really important that the Bill puts into the planning system those allocated opportunities for the IL to be used for future energy production. If we do not have that in the Bill, those spaces will disappear, and we will miss that opportunity. If we are looking at the opportunity presented by wind, solar and in other areas, this could be part of the solution, not only in relation to local energy prices and the costs that people are having to pay now, but also job opportunities on those sites and for future energy supplies. The fact is that other countries are ahead of us. We often focus on what is happening here in the UK, trying to get those plasters out and stretch them as far as we can, but if we look to Finland, we can see that they are instituting microgeneration and large generation of energy for their local communities. That creates a direct relationship, but it is also fantastic for the climate.

We should be thinking about future opportunities. I think it is remiss of the Government to not include those opportunities in this Bill, so I want the Minister to give this issue some thought as the Bill goes through Parliament. Obviously, it would be great to have support for that today, but if at a later stage of the Bill we can ensure that there is space for energy generation, that would be a real advance and would represent a commitment to the people that energy challenges will be addressed.

I also want to draw attention to my proposed new section 204N(3)(k), which deals with business incubation. We know where there are opportunities for investing in business growth. Often, we think about growing out housing, but we also need to build a high-skill economy with good wages for the future. We want to give our entrepreneurs opportunities; they need incubators and accelerators to grow their businesses, root them and ensure they are successful. We know the great success that comes from businesses, but they need those start-up opportunities. Again, I have been hearing about amazing projects that are building that infrastructure, but it has been because somebody has given them a peppercorn rent or they have had generosity from elsewhere. If we are building new conurbations in particular, we need to think about rooting opportunities in those areas for new businesses and ensuring they get the support that they need to grow, but getting that first building—that first step—can be incredibly challenging. I would certainly want to see that in the legislation.

That takes me to my final proposed new paragraph, although it also draws into some of the other areas. When seeing new developments, we often see a lack of opportunity to celebrate the diversity of our communities. I have been greatly concerned about that in York. Many moons ago, there was a proposal for a cultural centre that was kiboshed for whatever reason and never went forward. We do not have a cultural centre in York. We are increasingly seeing a diverse community and that is fantastic, but not places where people can congregate and socialise. We are seeing greater isolation in our communities, particularly among old people. Nine million people are lonely in our country and they do not have somewhere safe to go and meet other people. Therefore, it is important to be able to build community centres, as well as new churches, mosques and places of worship.

If we think about the old villages and towns, there was no place in the country without a church in every community—a place where the community could gather and members could have their spiritual, social and so many other needs met. Those pillars in our community were the pub and the church. I appreciate that some of those pubs have been facing many challenges, but the church still stands—those buildings still stand.

We need to see those opportunities coming forward for new developments so the community’s needs are met. Those things need investment. The infrastructure levy can be used to support vital community infrastructure. That is drawn out through proposed new paragraph (m), which looks at local facilities, and they can be pooled. It is possible to have a church that is a post office. I do not know whether it could be a pub as well, but it certainly could be a café. We are seeing a lot of those facilities coming together.

Where is the heart of community if we just build? We have all been to those horrific estates where there is no community centre and where there is just housing, housing, housing or flats, flats, flats, but the community is not pulled together. I have seen that in developments in York and it is horrid. People are not centred; they do not know their neighbours, they do not know anybody around them and they are increasingly isolated. As I said, 9 million people in our country experience loneliness. If we think about that wider context of where that goes because of the type of housing—increasingly flats and apartments—being built, if we do not invest in that social infrastructure as well, we are going to end up with a massive mental health and isolation challenge in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

It has been interesting moving around some of the areas where the infrastructure levy can be used, whether for cycles, footpaths or micro-transport. The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich mentioned from a sedentary position that we are going to get the good experience of York. I did not realise that we were going to have the experience of Trieste in Italy as well. It is interesting to hear about that, although I understand that in Trieste they do not have mental health provision in hospitals either because they tend to keep to people suffering with their mental health in their homes. It is a different cultural situation, but the point was taken.

The hon. Member for York Central talked about allotments. I do not want to see the community levy contributing to a dulling of good developers who want to provide community facilities as part of their place-shaping. Allotments are comparatively low cost to design and implement, but have massive social and community value. I very much understand that point. Having been the Hospitality Minister for two years, and now the Minister for Faith, I find the hon. Lady’s proposal to combine those roles in the church/pub really interesting—we will see how that goes.

This is the problem with putting lists in Bills. The list is not supposed to be exhaustive and comprehensive—there are plenty of things that charging authorities can, should and will be looking at, such as those the hon. Lady has outlined. The Bill gives a starting point, but I do not think we need to go further at this stage, because the rest of the Bill gives the local authorities wide powers, allowing them to spend the levy on the infrastructure that their communities need, rather than it being imposed by us in the detail proposed by the amendment.

I reassure the hon. Lady that, should a local authority wish to spend the levy on items of infrastructure that are not expressly stated in the list in proposed new section 204N, as long as it is infrastructure in the common sense and natural meaning of the word, it will indeed be able to do that. The levy can be spent on any infrastructure that supports the development of an area, including funding the provision, improvement and replacement, operation or maintenance of infrastructure, providing that it is in accordance with the original aim of the levy as set out in proposed new section 204A.

The Bill also allows for regulations to add, remove or vary the content of the list to support infrastructure delivery through the levy if it is necessary and if any clarification is needed.

[Rachael Maskell]

Energy should get particular mention in a redrafting of the Bill. Other countries are further advanced; we are behind. That is a specific point, and we should see that change. Does the Minister conclude that all the other issues in the amendment would be facilitated by proposed new section 204A, as set out in that broader definition of the Bill? If that is the case, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

[Paul Scully]

I do not see the need to put energy generation in the list because, absolutely, that and the other areas she raises are included. I am happy to give her that reassurance. As long as the local authority thinks something is needed, and it fits within the definition of infrastructure—I think we can agree that all the points she raises fit within that definition of infrastructure—the answer is yes.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. Just for clarity: if the authority were to bring forward a proposal for microgeneration of energy or an energy facility in order to support a local town, conurbation or whatever, that would be included, too. I made the point about energy having a separate mention in the Bill because it is such a big issue and much broader than some other areas, but would that also be covered?

[Paul Scully]

Yes. If the local authority thinks it is needed, then absolutely. The discourse around housing is often just about the supply of housing, but clearly energy, and energy generation of all sorts, needs to be brought into it. We need to bring in schools, hospitals and medical facilities of all types, and indeed allotments, as she said. Yes, I can give her that assurance, and ask her to withdraw the amendment.

[Rachael Maskell]

I have heard what the Minister has said. I will take his words as authoritative—they will be in the Hansard record of today’s debate—and, as a result, I will withdraw my amendment. The point about energy is significant, not least if I look at the Derwenthorpe development by the Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust in York, which has put energy and a community centre at the heart of that social/private development. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I beg to move amendment 165, in schedule 11, page 306, leave out from line 38 to line 2 on page 307.

This amendment would limit the circumstances under which the Secretary of State could direct a charging authority to review its charging schedule.

This amendment, much like amendments 162, 163 and 164, which we debated earlier in relation to the IL rate-setting process, is concerned with ensuring that the new levy system is genuinely local and that charging authorities are fully in control of developing its discretionary elements at a local level. It would remove proposed new section 204Y(1)(b), which provides the Secretary of State with the power to direct a charging authority to alter its charging schedule in a range of circumstances, including

“in any other circumstances that IL regulations may specify”.

That is of particular concern.

Given that the Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to revise individual charging schedules at their sole discretion, with no need to justify that intervention by means of any objective evidence-based criteria, we are concerned that, as drafted, it could have significant implications. For example, it could allow a future Secretary of State to require a charging authority to amend its locally developed charging schedule as a result of lobbying by a developer, without having to provide any evidence that the levy as implemented in the area in question is impairing viability and frustrating development.

We believe that this amendment is necessary to ensure that the Secretary of State cannot direct a charging authority to alter its charging schedule merely due to the passage of time or any other circumstances they see fit, given that the only justified rationale for an intervention from Ministers in relation to a charging schedule—namely, its impact on viability—is already covered by subsection (1). I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Twenty First sitting)

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 8th September 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clause 116(5) simply states that before making any EOR regulations that contain provision about what the specified environmental outcomes are to be, the Secretary of State must have regard to the current environmental improvement plan within the meaning of part 1 of the Environment Act 2021. At present, that environmental improvement plan is the 25-year environment plan, which was published in 2018 and is due to be reviewed next year. We welcome the fact that the Bill makes it clear that when making EOR regulations, the Secretary of State will have to have regard to that 25-year environment plan, although I encourage the Minister and his departmental colleagues and officials to do what they can to ensure that its review is completed before this Bill receives Royal Assent, so that the measures in the plan are fully aligned with the now operable Environment Act 2021, and so that the nature of the safeguard provided for in subsection (5) of this clause is clear and unambiguous.

However, while the explanatory notes to the Bill make it clear that the Secretary of State can draw on other relevant material when developing outcomes, there is nothing in the Bill to ensure that the Secretary of State must have regard to other important obligations and requirements set out in environmental and climate legislation beyond the environmental improvement plan.

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

I am grateful for the work that my hon. Friend is doing on the environment, and to try to ensure that the climate is front and centre in the Bill. Commitments were made at COP26 and COP15. We need the application of those commitments to come through in planning; there is nowhere else that they can come through. Is it not important that the determinations reached at those summits be brought into the planning process?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

Clause 118 gives the Government a constrained power to set what plans and consents require an environmental outcomes report. The Government want to be clear about which consents and plans require assessment, and we will use subsequent regulations—bounded by the commitment to non-regression—to provide clarity on when an EOR is required. By clearly setting out the different categories for consent and the types of plan that require assessment, we will be able to address the key issue with the current system, where debate about whether assessment is required acts as a block to moving forward with meaningful assessment.

We want to avoid unnecessary screening work, so it is more likely that more plans and projects will automatically be subject to a proportionate report and only in borderline cases must a criteria approach be followed. Developers will know where they stand up front, and local planning authorities can save the time and resources that are usually taken on screening of opinions.

Let me reassure the Committee that the clause will be used to reduce uncertainty, not assessment. The Government remain committed to ensuring that all plans and projects assessed in the current system will continue to be assessed, while removing troublesome uncertainty. The Government will also consult on which projects and plans should be subject to EORs. Parliament will have the opportunity to debate and approve the regulations that set that out. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Moving on to clause 119, the Government have made it clear that the protection and enhancement of the natural environment is a policy priority, and the measures designed to achieve that should be consistent and long term. The existing system does little to follow through on the commitments made during the assessment process—for example, whether the mitigation measures actually work or are implemented in the first place. Environmental statements are often created at great length, only for the follow-up monitoring and reporting of the impacts on the ground to be inconsistent at best.

Our proposed reforms to environmental assessment therefore provide a renewed and stronger emphasis on monitoring, to ensure that stated outcomes are delivered and that remedial action is taken where required throughout all stages of the development process. That means that achieving environmental outcomes does not stop once a consent is granted or a plan adopted. Importantly, clause 119 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring action to be taken when monitoring or assessment processes have highlighted that a given outcome is not being delivered.

Those actions align with the mitigation hierarchy and the principles of avoidance, mitigation and compensation being built into that process to ensure accountability and to address fully any unanticipated or cumulative adverse effects on the environment.

[Rachael Maskell]

I have been listening carefully to the Minister. My concern about what he has been saying is that the process does not have sufficient teeth in the event that the EOR is not delivered. Can he clarify whether planning permission would be granted if the EOR requirement is not adhered to? Should that not be a condition for planning?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

In some rare cases, particularly those relating to national defence or responding to a civil emergency, it may be necessary for the Secretary of State to direct a project to progress without an environmental outcomes report when the production of one would usually be required. The provisions in clause 122 enable that. The clause does not aim to bypass environmental protections, which are important for all the reasons I have set out; it simply accounts for those rare instances in which there is an urgent need to progress with development. Clause 122 replicates a similar provision in the existing regulations, and would only be used in the most extreme circumstances.

In addition to the civil and defence needs, the clause also provides powers via regulations for the Secretary of State to be able to direct that no environmental outcomes report is required in other circumstances. Such directions will, of course, be presented in regulations subject to the affirmative procedure, and will be consulted on and constrained accordingly.

[Rachael Maskell]

I appreciate the Minister highlighting that there could be extenuating circumstances in which the measures could be suspended, but he has not set out what mitigations will be put in to address that, either in close proximity to that or elsewhere. Could he say a bit more about that?

[Paul Scully]

Good question! As well as the non-regression clause that I talked about earlier, we have a built-in power under these clauses that allows aspects of the regulation to apply even if a project can initially progress without an EOR. That is a good way to manage those high-risk needs with environmental protection and get that balance right. It allows a project to progress without a report, but still requires certain aspects of the regulations to be adhered to, such as monitoring and remediating effects once the plan or project is in operation. I again highlight the fact that that would only relate to the plans and projects in greatest need, relating to matters of national importance.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Nineteeth sitting)

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 6th September 2022 Public Bill Committees

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

Could the Minister give some examples of what those extensive directions could include, because that is not made clear in the Bill?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Tim Farron]

The No. 1 housing-related concern that I hear from my constituents is the absence of affordable places that they can find to live in, whether they be private rented, private bought or, in particular, social rented.

Perhaps some way down the list, but still high up it, is people’s real concern and anger when they see developments come to pass without infrastructure. We can talk about all sorts of different things. The hon. Member for York Central talked about doctors’ surgeries and school places, and there are sewers, drains, roads and all the other important infrastructure that underpins a successful development and means it does not put extra strain on existing infrastructure and therefore cause problems for and resentment on the part of neighbours and other developments, which in turns fuels opposition to future development.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich is correct to raise the importance of affordable housing delivery for local communities. Amendments 150 to 152 would prevent the infrastructure levy from being used to fund affordable housing, and I understand why he has tabled them. The provision of affordable housing is critical, and section 106 planning obligations currently deliver around half of all affordable housing in England. The Government do not want the new infrastructure levy to reduce the number of affordable homes that are secured when new development comes forward. In fact, the opposite is true: we are committed to the delivery of at least as much, if not more, on-site affordable housing through the infrastructure levy as is delivered through the current system of developer contributions.

Section 106 is an imperfect mechanism for securing affordable housing and can result in prolonged and costly negotiations that often generate outcomes that favour developers. Developers can often use their greater resources to negotiate policy-compliant levels of affordable housing downward on viability grounds. Local planning authorities tell us that the ability to secure developer contributions through negotiations is dependent on the individuals involved in the process. The amount that local authorities secure from developers will vary depending on which officers lead the negotiations, and their experience, strategy and confidence. This unpredictable element in the negotiation of section 106 obligations means that some authorities can secure more affordable housing than others, and that value that could be secured by local government instead goes to developers and landowners.

[Rachael Maskell]

The Minister is making the case that section 106 should be amended so that more power is given to local authorities. Why is he not taking that step to ensure that developers do not have the upper hand in negotiations?

[Mr Jones]

We are advocating delivering the same amount or more affordable homes through the infrastructure levy than are currently provided through section 106. That is based on the ability to capture more value from new development than is already the case, and the fact that there will be a more consistent approach that will not allow the current situation, wherein certain authorities that have the experience and ability at officer level to negotiate better section 106 agreements than others benefit significantly from being able to do so, compared with some authorities that do not appear to be in that position.

[Rachael Maskell]

I do not understand why the Minister does not just change the framework around the negotiations so that all authorities have the powers they need to get the outcomes they require, rather than introducing a system that will weaken the ability to determine what is actually good for a site and the infrastructure that communities need—let alone the affordable housing they desperately need.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Farron]

When it comes to these issues, one of the things that makes people look heavenward and tut is the phrase “affordable housing”. Many people see it as a reference to homes that are anything but affordable. In my community, the average household income is less than £30,000 a year, and the average house price is more than a quarter of a million pounds. Given that a wise bank manager is not meant to give a mortgage for anything more than three and a half times someone’s income, the average house is two and a half times the upper limit of what ought to be offered to the average earner of average household earnings in my constituency. We see the problem.

Often, we see developments where homes are built for £180,000, £200,000 or £220,000, and are defined as affordable. They are not. We need a new term—a new name that demonstrates that something is genuinely affordable within the region for people on average and below average earnings, so that we can have a community that meets the needs of everybody, and not, as my area is increasingly becoming, somewhere that is only available for a new entrant if they have an awful lot of money and where, increasingly, those who are in private rented accommodation are not secure. They have been expelled in their thousands in the last year and a half alone, through section 21 evictions; the Government were meant to deal with that, and have failed to do so.

This series of amendments pushes the Government on an area of concern that we need to discuss far more: the lack of a proper, meaningful housing strategy. In reality, everything the Government propose to try to create genuinely affordable housing is via the infrastructure levy, and there is very little out there apart from that. We are far from convinced that the infrastructure levy will create any more genuinely affordable homes than those that exist already, and it may even create fewer, for the reasons we have set out.

We can juxtapose that with the complete failure to do anything proactive. Why are local authority council housing departments not allowed to borrow against the value of their stock? Why are we unable to do the things that would allow the Government to be, in many ways, the developer of last resort? Why are we not doing what we need to do to directly develop and build the homes that we patently need to be genuinely affordable? Here we are, talking about things that might make a difference at the edges, and even then allowing talk of affordable housing that is not affordable.

While nomenclature matters, the fact that we are debating this issue during consideration of these amendments is a reminder of how paltry the Government’s ambition is when it comes to genuinely meeting housing needs in this country. There is an opportunity to do something big—something Macmillanesque—and make a serious attempt to create homes for a new generation, instead of tinkering around the edge of the market with devices that may or may not work, and, if they do, will make little difference.

It is depressing having this debate on the margins, when the Government should be genuinely levelling up by investing and by allowing local authorities and housing associations to have the income and the powers to build the homes we genuinely need. Do not give developers the excuse to build homes that they say are affordable, but that are not really affordable.

[Rachael Maskell]

I, too, want to speak in favour of the four amendments before us. I will not go to Macmillan, but back to Nye Bevan. When he saw how broken the housing system was and how urgent the need was, he brought about a transformation in housing development for a generation, when the homes fit for heroes were built. It was good-quality social housing and housing that people could afford to live in.

In my community in York, we are looking at an affordability ratio of around 8.3, and it is getting harder by the day. Since we started debating the Bill in Committee, I have seen the development of another 133 short-term holiday lets—Airbnbs—in my community, and I am sure the rate of growth over the summer means that number has grown. We know that the nature of housing is complex and has changed, but we need to look at how we develop truly, genuinely affordable homes, which my constituents have to move out of the area to find.

A low-wage economy, such as in the hospitality sector, means that people cannot, and do not, come to work in the area. As a result, we have seen hospitality venues limit their opening times and become unable to benefit from the incoming community, which wants to see a wider offer, and from the tourism industry. That is having a cyclical, negative impact on the economy as well as the community. Those issues should be at the forefront when looking at housing reforms, and this Bill simply does not cut it.

From the moment in the main Chamber when we heard the Minister enhance the value of affordable homes, including those outside London, we all took a sharp breath, particularly those of us from areas that have a low-wage economy. The system is broken and the Bill simply does not tackle the challenges before us. These amendments are vital because they define what we mean by “affordability”, strengthen the Bill and ensure that we bring in the protections that are necessary.

A Minister in a new Government could completely change the definition of “affordability”, meaning we could be lumbered with a definition that does not apply to our situation. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) has said that the affordability ratio in her constituency is 16. How can housing be affordable with that sort of affordability ratio? It is baffling.

We need to have some sort of relationship to the reality of particular economies, and that is not reflected at all in the legislation. There will be very few places where we have the ratio of three and a half times a person’s salary, which I remember from when I bought my first home. Those kinds of ratios were much more affordable and genuine. That means that many people cannot get on the housing ladder, and are dependent on the private rented sector, which at the moment is flipping over to short-term holiday lets. There is a squeeze in the market on both sides. It simply is not working, and I cannot see that coming into play without this level of protection.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Rachael Maskell]

How are local authorities making calculations about the loss of affordable housing? Clearly, if we just look at new developments, we could say, “There is this growth in affordable housing”, but if authorities are losing stock, the proportion of affordable housing in a community is decreasing. How will that be addressed? If the local plan is just about future developments, should there not be some adjustment for the loss in existing stock? I am talking about not just social stock, but ownership stock.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

Proposed new section 204F of the Planning Act 2008 makes provision requiring an exemption from paying the levy where the party liable to pay is a charity and where the building or structure will be used for a charitable purpose. “Charitable purpose” here has the meaning in section 2 of the Charities Act 2011. It is something that is “for the public benefit” and is for a specific purpose, such as the prevention or relief of poverty, the advancement of education, health, the arts or sport, or the provision of relief to those in need. That kind of development is entitled to exemption from the levy in its entirety.

Under the current system of section 106 planning obligations, an obligation can constitute a reason to grant planning permission only if it is directly related to the development. For that reason, affordable housing contributions tend to be sought on residential developments. Amendment 158 would substantially extend the range of development required to deliver contributions towards affordable housing, including non-residential charitable development. In general, we oppose the amendment because it is not appropriate for charities providing services for the public benefit to also be required to provide affordable housing. It would be unfortunate if all kinds of charitable development, from drug treatment facilities to village halls, became economically unviable because we required them to fund an element of affordable housing as well.

[Rachael Maskell]

It is becoming clear in the debate that there are charities and charities. Some charities are run by major businesses and make a profit. Say a private school was disposing of a playing field that would then be used for the development of unaffordable housing to provide significant funding. Should that private school be exempt because it has charitable status under the Charities Act? Would that be right, because surely it is acting like any other business?

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Member makes a very good point. A charity that builds something that is not for a charitable purpose would not be subject to an exemption from the levy under proposed new section 204F. For example, feeding into what she said, if a charity were delivering market housing, that would be unlikely to meet the definition of a charitable purpose. If there are specific scenarios where contributions should be sought, the Bill enables us to consider them as part of the development of the levy’s regulations. More broadly, we will consult on the types of exemptions that should apply to the levy prior to laying the regulations before the Commons for approval. For those reasons, amendment 158 is not necessary.

[Rachael Maskell]

I want to test another scenario. Say the same educational establishment develops a nursery on that site, but the nursery has a commercial interest. Under the debate that we had about the provision of services, that could be seen as one of the services that could come under the infrastructure levy. A nursery could be a profit-making opportunity for said institution, while also providing support for children under the Government’s funding for nurseries. Would that be included or excluded from the scheme that the Minister is outlining?

[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?

[Mr Jones]

As I said under amendment 158, proposed new section 204F of the Planning Act 2008 allows for certain charities carrying out development for charitable purposes to be exempt from the levy. Proposed new section 204D(5)(h) also provides powers to exempt or reduce levy liabilities through regulations. This would allow us to set national exemptions or reductions where it is appropriate for other types of development by other types of organisations. When considering the approach to exemptions and reductions, we will need to consider a wide range of development types, including those put forward by the amendment. There is an important balance to strike. Although we will explore national exemptions and reductions to the levy, we want local authorities to be able to make their own decisions about how they might want levy exemptions to apply.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful to the Minister for making that point. Obviously, if local authorities are going to make such determinations, they will have to look for the maximum opportunity. As the legislation is unamended, they will also seek to subsidise the affordability of housing as well. It is very unlikely that a local authority will then look for wider exemptions from the infrastructure levy, so I cannot see how that would work in practice to deliver the objective to which the Minister refers.

[Mr Jones]

I was just bringing it to the hon. Member’s attention that there is a balance to strike in these matters. Clearly national exemptions are an important part of this, but we want to give a certain amount of local flexibility. Our forthcoming consultation on the infrastructure levy will explore this question further. It will allow us to look at the case for exemptions in the round, and decide what types of developments should not be subject to the charge, or should be subject to a reduced charge. Following consultation we will set out in regulations where a charge to the levy will not apply. Those regulations will be subject to debate in Committee and approval in the House. On that basis, I do not consider the amendment necessary and kindly ask her to withdraw it.

[Rachael Maskell]

I have been reassured by the Minister that this will form part of the wider consultation process in the next stage. We will look at that with interest. Clearly, we will want to follow this through in later stages, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 58, in schedule 11, page 287, line 33, at end insert—

“(1A) A charging schedule may—

(a) require a developer to pay their full IL liability for a development before being permitted to commence work on that development,

(b) require infrastructure funded by IL associated with a development to be built before work on that development may commence.”

This amendment would enable Infrastructure Levy charging authorities to require a developer to pay their full IL liability, or for infrastructure funded by IL associated with a development to be built, before development may commence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Farron]

Amendment 58 is really interesting, and probes the Government on an issue that I am also concerned about. The hon. Member for Buckingham set out the case well and I also very much hear the challenges and counterpoints from the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich.

We can all point to developments in our communities where we have seen new housing created without adequate infrastructure being provided. Often, we are talking about utilities such as sewage and draining, and the additional pressure put on those services that they cannot meet. There is clearly huge merit in what is being suggested, because it locks the developer in. I referred earlier to the Church Bank Gardens development in Burton-in-Kendal, where the homes are built and the infrastructure is still not there. The footpaths are not put right. Much of the infrastructure has not been done at all. The road has not been put right. There is often a lack of trust—a sense that the developer will seek to get the benefit of a development without providing the services that were surely part and parcel of the conditions of developing it. The hon. Member for Buckingham is right to press the point, and I hope the Government will take it seriously.

It is important to bear in mind what we are talking about when we think about infrastructure. Several people, me included, have cited GP surgeries, for example, as part of the infrastructure that we would want to have underpinned. I want to be very careful that we do not allow integrated care boards, as they are now, and the Government as a whole to skimp on the provision of GP surgeries, particularly in existing communities, and assume that somehow developers will pick up the tab for them. As we struggle to keep our surgeries in Ambleside and Hawkshead, the issue is not developers not paying the infrastructure levy. The issue is shocking Government cuts in the funding of GP surgeries and complete inflexibility from the new integrated care boards, so let us be careful, when we talk about supporting infrastructure, which we must, and about getting it in place before new developments, that we do not lift or shift responsibility away from our NHS managers and from the Department of Health and Social Care and other Departments.

[Rachael Maskell]

I rise to make a brief point. It is more about the scope of what we have discussed—the infrastructure levy being able to contribute to affordable housing and social housing within a development. One of my fears is that everything is left to the end; it is left to the end to calculate everything, and we end up with what has happened at St Peters Quarter, in York, with the high-value housing—beautiful, spacious housing—in one area and then the section 106 housing in the corner, where there is no proper infrastructure to support it because there is no money left. We therefore get real segregated communities.

I go back to the report that John Hills wrote in 2007. I was at a meeting with him, discussing the report, and he was talking about the importance of place making and mixed communities. We could be in danger of ending up with more divided communities if everything is paid at the end. Therefore scheduling payment is really important. Developers know that that money will have to be paid, and we should ensure that it can be paid in a timely way so that we do not end up with the scenario that we have articulated so much with either the section 106 provision coming never or the infrastructure levy money not delivering on the expectation at the start of the planning process. That could of course occur, but, even worse, we could end up with really divided and segregated communities when we know that the strength and resilience of communities comes where we see that housing jumbled up.

A good example would be Derwenthorpe, in York, where it is not possible to tell what is a social house, what is a privately owned home or where there is equity sharing or anything else, because the houses are all the same and people live in a very mixed and diverse community. That has built strong resilience in the community.

We need to think about more than just housing; we need to think of place making, which I know is Homes England’s real objective. Of course, by holding everything back to the very last minute, we are in danger of not having that. Properly scheduling payment of the infrastructure levy will ensure that we get the proper places that people want to live in and that we build resilience across all communities, as opposed to dividing communities and then developing areas that will create social challenges in the future.

[Mr Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham for his contribution to the debate on the levy today. Even though it is an inviting proposition, I do not think it would be wise for me to start to try to pre-empt the policy of the new Government, but what I will do is focus on amendments 58 and 161, which are before us.

Charging the levy on the basis of gross development value, which will be the sales value of the development that is sold, will enable the levy to capture more of the increases in development value that occur over time. That will result in better opportunity to capture more value from development to put towards infrastructure and services. Later payments will also reduce demands initially on developer cash flow, and the returns necessary to make a development worth while, because payments will not be required up front.

Payments may be made later, but we recognise the importance of the infrastructure levy supporting the timely provision of local infrastructure alongside new development, so that homes are supported by the right services. That is why it will be possible for local authorities to borrow against future levy liabilities, so they can forward-fund infrastructure.

We are also introducing infrastructure delivery strategies that will drive local authorities to plan more effectively for the best use of levy revenues. On the majority of sites, levy contributions towards infrastructure will be secured in cash, creating a simpler, streamlined system. Developers will, however, still need to deliver the infrastructure on site that is integral to the use of the site, including access roads and flood risk mitigations.

In addition, as we have debated, on larger, more complex sites, we intend to retain the use of section 106 planning obligations to secure in-kind delivery of infrastructure. Such contributions will be offset against the levy liability and the timing of their delivery can be negotiated.

Nevertheless, we recognise that there are circumstances in which early payment and payment by instalments may well be appropriate. That is why the Bill provides powers to allow for that under proposed new section 204R(2) of the Planning Act 2008, which is in schedule 11.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Eighteenth sitting)

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 6th September 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Jones]

Clause 103 provides local planning authorities in England with a new power to issue enforcement warning notices. The notice invites a retrospective planning application for a development that does not have permission, but that may be acceptable in planning terms, or may be made acceptable by the imposition of planning conditions. It does this by stating the matters that appear to be a breach of planning control and stating that further enforcement may be taken if a planning application is not received within a specified period. This formalises a process that the majority of local planning authorities already carry out informally. Formalising the process brings certainty, such as by setting out the specified period for an application to be submitted, and it constitutes taking enforcement action, ensuring that the time limits for commencing enforcement action cannot inadvertently expire.

However, the use of enforcement warning notices by local planning authorities will be discretionary. It will not create significant additional resourcing burdens for local planning authorities. We recognise many local authorities have capacity and capability challenges. We will publish guidance to assist local planning authorities in using enforcement warning notices. Although we are not changing fees through the Bill, we intend to consult on proposals to increase planning fees to ensure that local planning authorities are properly resourced to improve their services.

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

The Minister is talking about local planning authorities being properly resourced. In York, we no longer have a chief planner. There are serious deficits in funding in our local authority. As hon. Friends have said, planning is often the first thing to be cut. How will the Minister ensure that they are properly resourced to take on these additional responsibilities?

[Mr Jones]

I thank the hon. Member for York Central for that important point. I have acknowledged that there are capacity and capability challenges. I have also acknowledged that the Government want to go further by allowing local authorities to bring in more income. We have discussed and put the principle out there of doubling fees for retrospective planning applications, which often put often unnecessary additional pressure on local authorities, if people would have put forward their planning applications in the first instance in the proper and usual way.

On new clause 36, effective enforcement action is important to maintain public confidence and trust in the planning system. The package of enforcement measures in the Bill will strengthen the enforcement powers available to local planning authorities. Generally, the provisions make the existing framework easy to use by enforcement officers and, as such, they will not create significant additional burdens or resource pressures for local planning authorities. The use of new tools, such as enforcement warning notices, is discretionary. We are also working with partners to deliver a capacity and capability strategy to support the implementation of our planning reforms so that local planning authorities have the right skills and capabilities to make creative decisions and drive forward ambitious proposals, and we are committed to new burdens principles.

For those reasons, we cannot accept amendment 116 and new clause 36. I hope the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich is sufficiently reassured to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Marcus Jones]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. On clause 105, let me give him an example of an undue delay. Such a delay could constitute not allowing a planning inspector to access land for a site visit. That is one circumstance in which the process would be frustrated.

On clause 106, I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that, while I understand his concerns, many members of the public, particularly those who have been affected by unauthorised developments, would be keen for us to be tougher on such developments. Therefore, I think this is more about ensuring that we put in place a regime that deters people from embarking on unauthorised development. I therefore believe that increasing the fines that will be payable is the right thing to do.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 104, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 105 and 106 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 107

Power to provide relief from enforcement of planning conditions

[Rachael Maskell]

I beg to move amendment 137, in clause 107, page 125, line 35, at end insert—

“(1A) But regulations under this section may not provide for relief from a planning condition relating to the development of a type or volume of affordable housing in a development.”

This amendment would exclude planning conditions relating to the delivery of agreed on-site affordable housing in developments from the power to provide relief from the enforcement of planning conditions.

Where affordable and social housing is identified in plans, the obligation to provide that tenure in the planning process must never be overridden. We have a national crisis with regard to the availability of affordable homes for our constituents. I certainly see that in York, where it is skewing the economy and having a severe impact on the way my community works. We have been overrun by so many second homes and holiday lets that it is even impinging on our ability to deliver statutory services in my community.

Far too often, developers start to build out their plans, starting with the high-value housing, only then to return with the plea that the site is no longer viable to provide social or affordable housing. That housing is therefore not built, and the funding is banked but never spent, because the argument is played out time and again on future sites. High-end, high-value housing is therefore taking precedence over the development of affordable housing. We simply cannot allow that to happen at any point in the development process. My brief amendment would recognise that in statute to ensure that there can never be an excuse for not delivering vital affordable housing on the basis of viability.

[Tim Farron]

This is an important amendment, which by my reading would ensure that communities do not get stitched up as a result of viability assessments. I can think of examples in all three planning jurisdictions in my constituency where a developer has been given planning permission and part of the deal has been the delivery of a portion of affordable housing—often social rented housing. I am thinking in particular of the site at Jack Hill in Allithwaite, near Grange-over-Sands. To put it bluntly, the developer goes on site, turns over the turf, discovers some rocks and says, “Ooh, that’s more than we expected. It’s going to be expensive. We can’t afford to deliver your 20 affordable houses after all.”

The only reason the community, perhaps grudgingly, consented through its representatives to planning permission being given in the first place was the assumption that, of those 50 or 60 houses, perhaps 20 would provide homes for local families and local workers. I remember South Lakeland District Council going to the Secretary of State’s predecessor but two to raise this matter with them, saying, “Come on, this cannot be legitimate. It can’t be right.” The developer agrees, at planning committee, to build these affordable houses and then turns up, discovers something that is not a surprise if someone knows even the rudimentaries of the geology of the lakes and south Cumbria, and decides they are not able to build those houses. I am afraid that the Secretary of State said to our council, “No, we will not stand with you. The developer can do what they want.” As a result, we have got no affordable housing out of that particular project, and many others besides.

We have a massive housing crisis in Cumbria, and a workforce crisis as a consequence. It is heartbreaking and economically debilitating. We have the powers, if they can be enforced, to do something about it. The amendment put before us by the hon. Member for York Central would give us at least some opportunity to force those who have been given planning permission to keep their promises, so that affordable homes are at least in part delivered to the communities that need them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I thank the hon. Member for York Central for her amendment. It seeks to ensure that relief from enforcement action under clause 107 cannot be granted with respect to planning conditions relating to affordable housing delivery. The aim of clause 107 is to enable the Secretary of State, by regulations, to limit enforcement action against non-compliance with prescribed planning conditions or limitations for a specified period of relief. Members of the Committee will recall that the covid pandemic demonstrated that the planning system needs to be sufficiently flexible to support businesses to respond to and recover from periods of disruption quickly and confidently.

During recent years we have taken steps, through written ministerial statements, to encourage local planning authorities to take a considered approach to enforcement action against non-compliance with certain planning conditions that have placed unintentional burdens on businesses. That includes conditions that govern the operative uses of development, such as construction working hours, delivery times and opening hours. Clause 107 will place on a statutory footing similar provisions to those that we introduced through policy, and it is intended that the measure will be used in relation to those types of operative use conditions as periods of disruption arise in the future.

The hon. Member’s amendment concerns those conditions that relate to affordable housing specifically. Affordable housing provision is principally secured through a section 106 agreement rather than planning conditions, so the practical benefit of the proposed exemption would be limited and this is not the sort of operative condition that the clause is aimed at. Furthermore, we are proposing to change the way affordable housing for a development is determined, as part of our plans for the new infrastructure levy, which the Committee will debate shortly. Through regulations for the levy, we intend to introduce a new “right to require”, to remove the role of negotiating in determining levels of onsite affordable housing, and we propose to consult on the approach shortly. Therefore, I consider the amendment not to be necessary and I ask the hon. Member for York Central to withdraw it.

[Rachael Maskell]

I thank the Minister for his response. I will certainly be following the debate on schedule 11 very closely, to ensure that it does fulfil all the commitments that the Minister has alluded to in his speech, but I will withdraw the amendment at this point. 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 that I have explained how clause 107 works during our discussion of amendment 137, I do not propose to make any further comments on it. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 107 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 108

Consultation before applying for planning permission

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

--- Later in debate ---

Looking back at the roll-out of CIL—the only comparable process—I would hazard a guess that even with a fair wind we are talking about the levy not being in place across most of England until the early 2030s. Given the risk, uncertainty and disruption that the implementation of the new levy will entail, one is left wondering, quite honestly, why the Government are bothering to legislate for it at all, rather than seeking instead to reform and improve the existing system.

[Rachael Maskell]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech about our concerns about the infrastructure levy, but one thing he has not touched on yet is the resourcing required to put it in place. We have just had a debate about the resourcing of local authorities, in which it was recognised that planning departments are under considerable strain. That is likely to get worse in the light of the challenges that local authorities face. How will the resourcing be put in place to deliver even the basics by 2030?