Roberta Blackman-Woods
Main Page: Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour - City of Durham)Neighbourhood Planning Bill (Seventh sitting)
Roberta Blackman-Woods ExcerptsThursday 27th October 2016
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 View all Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 27 October 2016 - (27 Oct 2016)
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 31, in clause 12, page 10, line 10, leave out “6” and insert “3”
This amendment would reduce the length of time that an acquiring authority can take temporary possession of land.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. Amendment 31 would reduce the length of time that an acquiring authority can take temporary possession of land for. It is very similar to amendment 30, in that it aims to provide a degree more certainty for owners about what temporary possession means. At present, the Bill states that the amount of time that an owner—defined as having either a freehold or leasehold interest in the land—can limit temporary possession to by means of a counter-notice is 12 months where the land is or is part of a dwelling and six years in any other case, or else the acquiring authority must take further action.
The amendment would allow owners to limit the amount of time that land can be temporarily possessed, where it is not a dwelling, to three rather than six years. Our position reflects that of the Compulsory Purchase Association, which said in evidence,
“we feel that, for freehold owners, six years is too long. Three years as a maximum is better. Notwithstanding that, the ability to serve counter-notices is correct and encouraging to development.”
I want to stress that point to the Minister. It is not the counter-notice period as such that we have a problem with, but the length of it. The CPA went on:
“Six years is quite a long period. If a business is dispossessed of its property for six years, that is effectively almost as good as a permanent dispossession”.––[Official Report, Neighbourhood Planning Public Bill Committee, 18 October 2016; c. 66, Q117.]
If a business is away from its premises for six years, it will essentially have to completely restart the business somewhere else. One would assume that it will feel much more like a permanent relocation if it is away in excess of five years.
The IPD UK lease events review 2015, which was sponsored by Strutt and Parker and the British Property Federation, pointed to short-term leases of five years or less being particularly desirable for smaller commercial leases, stating:
“Flexibility remains key for many tenants, despite the lengthening of commercial leases, with 73% of total leases signed so far in 2015 for a term of between one and five years.”
Allowing counter-notices to be served that limit temporary possession to three years, rather than six, relates more directly to the reality of a lease’s lifespan, particularly for a small business. The whole point here is that if a lot of leases are five years in length and businesses are required to move for six years, it is very likely that a substantial number of those businesses will have lost the lease on the original premises and had to take out a lease on wherever they relocate to, for five years or even longer.
We are trying to find out why the length of time is being set at six years. What research did the Government do to come up with that period? Have they any plans to meet the CPA or representatives of small businesses who may be particularly affected by the measures in clause 12? Do they have any plans to review how the clause is operating in practice, and particularly whether it is producing problems for small businesses?
The Minister will probably say that only a small number of businesses would be affected by the relevant type of compulsory purchase, that the balance is right and that the provision should therefore remain. I am sure he is right that the clause will not be used in many instances. Nevertheless it is a critical matter for the businesses that are affected. We would not want the clause to result in businesses moving from a high street or an important position in the community and not being able to come back, so that there would be blight further down the line. I hope that the Minister has got the drift of our argument.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Bone.
The amendment is entirely legitimate as a way of probing why the Government have arrived at the figure in question. It may help if I explain the purpose of clause 12 before I discuss the amendment, because some of the provisions will, I think, help to reassure members of the Committee.
The Government recognise that in certain circumstances taking temporary possession of land may be at least as disruptive as permanent acquisition. Clause 12 therefore provides an important additional safeguard to protect the interests of those whose land is subject to temporary possession. I say “additional” because any proposal for temporary possession of land must be authorised in the same way as compulsory purchase.
Clause 12(2) allows the owner of a freehold, or a leaseholder with the right to occupation, to serve a counter-notice requiring the authority to limit the period of possession to 12 months for a dwelling or six years for other land. That ability to serve a counter-notice on implementation of temporary possession is a further check and balance, in addition to scrutiny during the confirmation process.
Under clause 12(3) leaseholders—who are, I think, the people in whom the hon. Member for City of Durham was particularly interested—will also have the option to serve a counter-notice providing that the acquiring authority may not take temporary possession of their interest in the land at all. In those circumstances the acquiring authority must either do without the land or acquire the leasehold interest permanently.
Where a counter-notice is served under clause 12(2) the acquiring authority will have to decide whether the limited possession period sought by the landowner is workable for the acquiring authority at that time, or whether permanent possession is necessary. Alternatively, the acquiring authority may conclude that it does not need to take temporary possession of the land in question; for example, it might alter its construction plans.
Where the acquiring authority opts for acquisition of the land, subsection (9) provides for the standard material detriment provisions to apply. That means that if only part of a person’s land is acquired, but the retained land would be less useful or valuable as a result of part of the land being acquired, a further counter-notice may be served requiring the authority to purchase all the land.
I hope that the Committee can see that there are a number of safeguards, including time limits that can be placed on periods of temporary possession of a leasehold interest; I think that that is the issue about which the Opposition are particularly concerned. It is possible to say, in that case, “If it is going to be for that length of time we do not want temporary possession at all, and you either need to take permanent possession or do nothing at all.” Also, if possession is taken of part of a site and that will have an impact on the rest of the site, there are provisions to require the whole site to be taken.
The amendment, as the hon. Lady explained, would limit the period of temporary possession of land not occupied by dwellings to three years, rather than the six specified in the Bill. I entirely appreciate why she tabled the amendment; it was, I think, out of a determination, which I share, to ensure that those whose land is subject to temporary possession are properly protected.
The limit of six years is designed to give those affected greater certainty about the total period that non-dwelling land can be subject to temporary possession. Restricting the temporary possession period to three years would limit the usefulness of this new power and may drive acquiring authorities down the route of compulsory purchase in certain circumstances where that would be unnecessary. There are some schemes—one example not too far from us here is the Thames Tideway tunnel—where the temporary possession of land has been required for longer periods than the three years in the amendment.
There needs to be a balance between giving acquiring authorities the power they need to deliver their schemes and ensuring that the interests of those whose land is taken on a temporary basis are protected. The Government believe that six years strikes the right balance. In many cases the temporary possession will be for far less than six years. In the case of the Thames Tideway tunnel, the maximum length of temporary possession is eight years, so the acquiring authority would have to decide to permanently acquire the land.
As the Bill continues its progress through Parliament, I am happy to consider any evidence that Opposition Members or interested parties are able to provide that suggests the six-year figure does not achieve the correct balance. I can also reassure the hon. Member for City of Durham that even if the legislation is passed in its current form, the Government will keep the time limit under review as the new power begins to take effect, because the regulation-making power in clause 19 would allow us to make changes to the time limit without having to come back to the House with further primary legislation.
I hope I have given significant reassurance. On that basis, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her amendment.
The Chair
The Minister has kindly set out what clause 12 is all about, so there will be no separate stand part debate. If anyone wants to speak on stand part, now is the time to do it.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I thank the Minister for his largely helpful response. It is useful to point out that a counter-notice can try to remove possession being taken at all. It is quite a drastic measure to ask local businesses to enter into a lengthy and difficult process. However, it is worth stressing that that option is open to them, as is trying to suggest that possession should be for only a part of the site. Again, that could be helpful.
I listened carefully to what the Minister said about reducing the total period of temporary possession to three years. I am very pleased that the Minister said he would keep that under review. He did not address the fact that a lot of leases for businesses are five years, and that requiring them to move for six years is effectively a permanent removal to a new location for them. However, I heard what the Minister said about keeping the matter under review and seeking evidence from people who have a specific interest in this area. It was a very helpful response. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13
Refusal to give up possession
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Blackman-Woods
How will the Secretary of State know that he has to give a direction, in a particular case, about what temporary possession can be used for?
Gavin Barwell
I imagine—although I will happily write to the hon. Lady if inspiration arises subsequently suggesting that I have got this wrong—that it would be a situation in which a dispute had arisen about the use that the land was put to and where there was a question of whether that would have an effect on the long-term interests of someone on the land. The casework would end up on the Secretary of State’s desk and give him the power to make a ruling to that effect. If there are other points that I have not mentioned, I will write to the hon. Lady and members of the Committee to clarify.
Clause 20 simply provides meanings for some of the words used in the earlier temporary possession clauses. Finally, clause 21 provides that the temporary possession power can be exercised in relation to Crown land, subject to the acquiring authority obtaining the consent of the appropriate authority.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I thank the Minister for his helpful run-through of the CPO clauses in the Bill. I have a couple of specific questions about clause 22, but I want to say at the outset that those are probing questions because we agree with the overall thrust of the clause. I think that the Minister has taken some tentative steps down the road of socialism in protecting the public interest in the way that might happen under the clause. We absolutely agree with the broad intention of the clause. It is right that it applies to new towns and mayoral developments, and to an extent to transport, to try to facilitate, in particular, the larger scale development that is very much needed. Nevertheless, there are a few questions about how compensation will be decided under proposed section 6D(2) to (4), which is what my questions specifically relate to. At the moment it does not look as though any claims under the proposed section can be referred to the Upper Tribunal. If that is not the correct interpretation, perhaps the Minister will clarify that.
We know that the no-scheme principle is central to a fair assessment of compensation and that the scope of the disregarded scheme must be appropriate so that proper compensation is paid. The Government have included proposed section 6D(5) under clause 22 to safeguard the public purse in circumstances where it is appropriate to disregard a wider scheme. Where the appropriateness of doing so is challenged, the Upper Tribunal is empowered to determine the matter. Can the Minister explain what safeguards exist where a scheme is extended instead under proposed section 6D(2) to (4), where the recourse to the Upper Tribunal does not exist and all qualifying schemes, regardless of merit or circumstances, will be extended as a matter of law? I am sure that he has sensible reasons for including them but, to ensure that there is confidence out there in the development sector, we might need to hear a little more about why that is the case—if indeed it is the case.
Does the Minister agree that, as desirable as it is to recover the benefits of public investment, such recovery should be made from all those who benefit and should not discriminate against those who are already bearing the impact of losing their homes or businesses to make way for the scheme? The extension of the scope of the scheme in proposed section 6D(2) to (4) without any appeal or consideration of the facts of a case means that there could be injustice to homeowners and small businesses as well as investors and developers that own land affected by such schemes. It goes beyond ensuring fair compensation, which is assured by proposed section 6D(5).
My point is that the Government must avoid poorly targeted policies to recover the benefit of public investment and must introduce separately a properly considered mechanism that might build on existing schemes such as the tax incremental funding and community infrastructure levy schemes, which properly focus the recovery of value from past and future public investment.
Those are my questions for the Minister. As I have said, we agree very much with the basic provisions of clause 22, but there is perhaps a need to put something else into the public record about why they are being introduced in the way they are. Perhaps he should look at the limitations for appeal under proposed section 6D(2) to (4). Does he think anything more needs to be done, or will the scheme as outlined put in place appropriate safeguards for those who might be concerned about the extension of the wider scheme, in particular, and the extension to transport? Overall, we can see the rationale for the Government wanting to do that.
I move on to new clause 13. We have had a helpful discussion about CPO. We had a rather lengthier discussion about CPO during the passage of what is now the Housing and Planning Act 2016. I also looked at CPO powers under the previous Government’s Infrastructure Act 2015. Having recognised that CPO powers and the legislation underpinning them are very complex, we are in danger of the Government going on with the process of simply amending CPO powers and tinkering with the system, making it more complex, I suspect, rather than less. However, there seems to be a view across all parties that we need to review this in its entirety and bring forward a much more consolidated and rationalised piece of legislation that will be much easier for local authorities and developers to get their heads around.
Unfortunately, I do not have with me the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015. The last time I asked the Government to introduce a piece of consolidated legislation on permitted development, I did not think I was going to get 167 pages in return, plus an additional 12 pages a couple of months ago, separate from that order, so I have some anxieties in proposing this new clause.
CPO legislation goes back a very long way—I think to 1845, with parts of that legislation still used—and it might be about time to think of consolidating it. We are not the only ones to think so. Colin Cottage from the CPA—which is the Compulsory Purchase Association, not the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, although that might have an interest in CPO—told the Committee:
“The existing system is not helpful for reaching quick solutions. In fact, in many ways it encourages people to be fighting with each other from the outset. Ultimately, that increases the uncertainty, conflict and cost. That is really the issue that we have to look to address in order to give ourselves a more streamlined system.”––[Official Report, Neighbourhood Planning Public Bill Committee, 18 October 2016; c. 64, Q114.]
Richard Asher from the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors said:
“I believe, and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has always believed, that codification of the whole of the CPO rules, which go back to 1845 and are highly complex, would be a sensible way forward. I think the simplification of the rules for CPO would be a major step forward…I think the complexity often deters people—particularly local authorities, in my experience—from using CPO powers. It also results in a number of CPOs being refused or rejected by the courts because of the complexity of the rules that surround them.”––[Official Report, Neighbourhood Planning Public Bill Committee, 18 October 2016; c. 63, Q114.]
If ever there were an argument for simplifying, rationalising, streamlining and consolidating a bit of legislation, surely it is that the courts, simply because they are finding the legislation too difficult and complex, are throwing out what might be bona fide requests for a CPO.
Gavin Barwell
I will begin by answering some of the hon. Lady’s detailed questions and then come on to the principles behind the amendment. I think she had three questions; I was not quite clear on the first, so I will deal with the other two and then see if I understood the first question correctly.
The hon. Lady’s third question was about ensuring that everybody benefits from an uplift in land values as a result of Government public investment in the scheme and that there is a way of capturing back some of that uplift. To a degree, she answered her own question: under current policy, CIL is the main mechanism by which we seek to capture some of the uplift when development is given, so that a contribution can be made to necessary improvements within a community area, a new infrastructure or whatever is required. She will be aware that I have on my desk a review by Liz Peace and her team of CIL and issues relating to section 106 contributions. We are considering that review and will respond to it in our White Paper later this year. The hon. Lady’s point that it is legitimate for the state to capture some of that uplift is absolutely valid; we need to think about the best mechanism for doing that.
I believe that the hon. Lady’s second question was on arguments about the definition of the scheme, what it constituted and whether the upper tribunal had a role. Have I understood her correctly?
Dr Blackman-Woods
It was whether the widening of the scheme under proposed section 6D(2) to (4) of the Land Compensation Act 1961 could be referred to the upper tribunal under proposed section 6D(5).
Gavin Barwell
The answer is a simple yes. Proposed new section 6D(5) states:
“If there is a dispute as to what is to be taken to be the scheme…then, for the purposes of this section, the underlying scheme is to be identified by the Upper Tribunal”,
so the answer is a simple yes.
I think the hon. Lady’s first question was about the wider role of the upper tribunal in dealing with compensation disputes. She was concerned that there were some other areas that could not go to the upper tribunal. We believe the answer is that they can, but I may not have captured her question correctly. Would she reiterate in which particular cases she was worried that people could not go to the upper tribunal?
Dr Blackman-Woods
It was the schemes referred to in proposed new section 6D(2) to (4), and whether compensation arrangements could be determined under proposed new section 6D(5).
Gavin Barwell
The answer is a definite yes.
If Mr Bone is feeling particularly generous, he might let me answer hon. Members’ earlier questions, but he may prefer me to write to them rather than going back to a previous debate.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I shall address my introductory remarks to the Minister’s general points about the importance of local plan-making. I say at the outset that Opposition members of the Committee have noticed and welcomed the difference in tone and the slight change in policy direction that have come with the new Minister. I agree about the importance of having communities at the heart of local plan-making. When planning is done really well and people are involved in planning their neighbourhoods, we are much more likely to get the sort of development that supports our placemaking objectives, and that is supported by local people. Critically, in my experience, the involvement of local communities drives up the quality of what is delivered locally. We totally agree with the Minister that, where possible, local communities should be at the heart of planning and local authorities should work with their neighbourhoods to draw up a local plan.
Nevertheless, like the Minister, we recognise that if a local plan is not in place, local communities and neighbourhoods are at risk of receiving really inappropriate development. To determine applications, a council is likely to rely on saved local policies, if it has them, from a previous plan which might be out of date. What often happens in my experience—this is particularly true recently, with local authorities concerned about the number of applications they reject in case they subsequently get overturned on appeal—is that decisions go through that might not be in the best interests of the local authority or the local community, simply because a local plan is not in place.
I am pleased that the Minister consulted the local plan expert group in thinking about how to bring forward the provisions in new clause 4. The people on that group are very knowledgeable about the planning system. Nevertheless, he did not need to do that. He just needed to pick up his copy of the Lyons report—I know he has one—and turn to page 62. On that page he will find our arguments as to why in certain circumstances it might be necessary for the Secretary of State to intervene in local plan-making when, for whatever reason, local plans are not coming forward from the local authority.
The Minister knows that one of the major reasons for plans’ not coming forward or being thrown out by the inspector is that councils are not suitably addressing the duty to co-operate. When we were taking evidence for the Lyons review, a number of councillors said, “The real problem is that we cannot meet housing need in our area because we do not have enough land available. We cannot put a proper five-year land supply in place because we simply do not have the land available.”
From memory, two examples that stood out were Stevenage and the city of Oxford. They have substantial housing need and a strong demand for housing, but they do not have enough land within their specific local authority boundary to meet that need. Under the Government’s legislation, the duty to co-operate would come into play. Those authorities would sit down and make a decision.
The city of Oxford needed South Oxfordshire to bring forward some land, and Stevenage required its neighbouring authorities to bring forward some land. Alas, the duty to co-operate did not work as the Government had envisaged. The land did not come forward in those neighbouring authorities’ plans, and that placed both the city of Oxford and Stevenage in the rather difficult situation of having acute housing need but no means by which to meet that need. There are many other such examples around the country.
We listened to a lot of evidence in the Lyons review. In an ideal world, one would not want to give powers to the Secretary of State to direct authorities to come together and produce a plan, but if they are not doing so, they are putting their communities at risk of not meeting housing need, which is acute in some areas. We therefore decided reluctantly—very much like the Minister—that powers should be given to the Secretary of State in limited circumstances to direct local authorities.
The new clause refers to,
“two or more local planning authorities”.
That is one way forward. Another that we thought of would be to look at the area covered by strategic housing market assessments and perhaps make that subject to direction by the Secretary of State, but a few local authorities coming together in the appropriate area is just as good a way forward.
As the Committee will have gathered from what I am saying, the Opposition do not have any particular problems with new clause 4, but I have some specific questions. First, will the Minister clarify who decides exactly what is in the document? Perhaps I misheard him, but I think he said it would be up to local authorities themselves, under the provisions in proposed new section 28A, to decide exactly how they would put the plan together. My reading, though, is that that proposed new section gives powers to the Secretary of State to determine exactly what is in the documents and what they might look like.
Proposed new section 28A(4) says that the Secretary of State can give a direction about:
“(a) the area to be covered by the joint development plan document to which the direction relates;
(b) the matters to be covered by that document;
(c) the timetable for preparation of that document.”
I have absolutely no problem with that—it seems to us to be an entirely sensible way forward when local plan-making arrangements have broken down for whatever reason—but it does seem to suggest that it will not be the local councils that will be deciding what the documents cover. In those circumstances, it will be the Secretary of State.
Gavin Barwell
The hon. Lady has read the provisions entirely correctly. We want to make sure that, for example, everywhere in the country there is clarity about site allocations and where people can build. That is why we need that power. The point I was making in my speech was that authorities can choose whether they wish to do their own local plan or to work together, as those in Greater Manchester have done, to produce a spatial development strategy. We shall not specify all the detail, but there are some core things that need to be covered throughout the country.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I thank the Minister for that helpful clarification.
My second point is about proposed new section 28C. Will the Minister direct us to where we can find the set of circumstances that will trigger the Secretary of State’s asking local authorities to come together to produce a joint plan? I have given him the example of when the duty to co-operate is not working. I would have thought that should be pretty apparent, because the likelihood would be that a local plan would be thrown out by the planning inspector. I am not sure whether there are other circumstances that the Minister can tell us about. It could be that things are just taking too long, or that something is not being done properly.
I suspect that we will have regulations to support the legislation, which will make it all clear to us at some future date. They will have the specificity on the action or non-action that the Minister has in mind that would trigger the Secretary of State’s involvement and such a direction being given to local authorities. It would help our deliberations if the Minister could be a bit clearer about the circumstances in which the Secretary of State will make this direction.
Finally—we will get on to this later, I hope—the Planning Officers Society has helpfully put into the public domain some detail on how the duty to co-operate is failing to meet housing need in this country. The association has very helpfully proposed policies to ensure that everywhere has a local plan in place that are pretty similar to what the Minister has suggested this morning. I did not want to finish my remarks on new clause 4 without acknowledging the work done by the society over several years to highlight, to the Minister and others, the fact that the current system is just not working for everyone, and the fact that something must be done to ensure that each area can have a local plan in place.