Housing and Planning Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Thursday 3rd December 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I am partly reassured by what the Minister has said, although I am still a little anxious about the total scope of developments that could be given permission in principle. If the Committee will bear with me, I would like to take the Minister’s comments away and think about them. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 240, in clause 102, page 45, line 22, at end insert—

‘(4) A development order under subsection (1) shall be made in respect of land in Greater London by the Mayor of London and in respect of land in England outside of Greater London by the Secretary of State.

(5) Section 59B shall apply to the making of a development order under subsection (1) by the Mayor of London.”

See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 245.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 241, in clause 102, page 45, line 30, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

“(b provide for the granting in respect of land in Greater London by the Mayor of London or the local planning authority, and in respect of land in England outside Greater London by the local planning authority on application to the authority in accordance with the provisions of the order, of permission in principle for development of a prescribed description.”

This amendment would provide for an application for permission in principle to be made to the Mayor of London in respect of land in Greater London and to a local planning authority elsewhere in England.

Amendment 242, in clause 102, page 46, line 5, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert

“the Mayor of London in respect of land in Greater London and the Secretary of State in respect of land in England outside of Greater London”.

This amendment is consequential to amendment 241.

Amendment 243, in clause 102, page 46, line 8, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert

“Mayor of London in respect of land in Greater London and the Secretary of State in respect of land in England outside of Greater London”.

This amendment is consequential to amendment 241.

Amendment 244, in clause 102, page 46, line 28, after “authorities” insert

“and the Mayor of London”.

This amendment is consequential to amendment 241.

Amendment 245, in clause 102, page 46, line 30, at end insert—

‘(2A) After section 59A of that Act insert—

“59B Development orders made by the Mayor of London

(1) Subsection (2) shall apply to a development order made by the Mayor of London under section 58A(1).

(2) The Mayor of London may make a development order if—

(a) the Mayor of London has consulted the persons specified by subsection (3);

(b) the Mayor of London has had regard to any comments made in response by the consultees;

(c) in the event that those comments include comments made by the Secretary of State, the London Assembly or a consultee under subsection (3)(e) or (f) that are comments that the Mayor of London does not accept, the Mayor of London has published a statement giving the reasons for the non-acceptance;

(d) the Mayor of London has laid before the London Assembly, in accordance with standing orders of the Greater London Authority, a document that is a draft of the development order that the Mayor of London is proposing to make, and

(e) the consideration period for the document has expired without the London Assembly having rejected the proposal.

(3) The persons who have to be consulted before a development order may be made by the Mayor of London are—

(a) the Secretary of State;

(b) the London Assembly;

(c) each constituency member of the London Assembly;

(d) each Member of Parliament whose parliamentary constituency is in Greater London;

(e) each London borough council;

(f) the Common Council of the City of London, and

(g) any other person whom the Mayor considers it appropriate to consult.

(4) In this section—

the “consideration period” for a document is the 21 days beginning with the day the document is laid before the London Assembly in accordance with standing orders of the Greater London Authority, and

the London Assembly rejects a proposal if it resolves to do so on a motion—

(a) considered at a meeting of the Assembly throughout which members of the public are entitled to be present, and

(b) agreed to by at least two thirds of the Assembly members voting.

(5) If the Mayor of London makes a development order he must—

(a) ??publish a notice setting out the effect of the development order in the London Gazette and otherwise give the development order adequate publicity including on the Greater London Authority’s website, and

(b) notify and send a copy of the development order to—

(i) the Secretary of State, and

(ii) every London local planning authority.”

This amendment would give the power to make development orders in respect of land in Greater London to the Mayor of London, as the Secretary of State will have in respect of land elsewhere in England.

[Stephen Hammond]

Even at this hour of the day, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. The GLA and the Localism Act 2011 give the responsibility for planning and housing in London to the Mayor. He has a strategic role for the whole of London in setting the framework for local planning policies and the London plan. The London plan constitutes part of every borough’s local development plan and is effectively the expression for London in the national planning policy framework. The Mayor has a range of decision-making powers of strategic importance, and he can take over an application to act as the local planning authority as well. Although he has rarely used that power, it is there. He has a unique role in working with London boroughs and the GLA to focus on the need for housing in London and the number of new houses needed in London.

While there are, as I have said, a number of welcome things in the Bill, my six amendments are designed to test the Minister’s will, as this issue is important given the Mayor’s strategic role. The amendments in toto would give the Mayor the power to make development orders and give permission in principle for land in Greater London, in the same way as the Secretary of State has those planning powers for elsewhere in England. Effectively, the amendments would tidy things up and acknowledge the Mayor’s strategic role. Given the central role of the Mayor in the implementation of the powers, it is only right that he has those powers for London. I hope that the Minister can reassure me that that is possible.

[Brandon Lewis]

I would like to explain the clause in the context of the amendments, after which I hope my hon. Friend will feel confident enough to withdraw them.

Clause 102 will make it possible for local authorities and neighbourhood groups to grant a new form of planning consent called permission in principle for sites that they identify and qualify in documents. As I have said, we plan to set out the details of that in secondary legislation. The clause enables the Secretary of State to make a development order that itself grants permission in principle, but only to sites allocated in the qualifying documents by a local planning authority or a neighbourhood group. To be clear, the Secretary of State will have no direct role in choosing which sites to grant permission in principle to. Simply put, the clause makes it possible for plans and registers to grant a new level of planning consent.

Permission in principle is a new element in the planning system that gives local authorities an extra tool to deliver the housing that the country needs. It will therefore be crucial for the Secretary of State to maintain oversight of how that functions across England. In particular, the Secretary of State will need to have oversight of what form of development can be granted permission in principle and what qualifying documents can grant permission in principle.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I am well aware of that report. Just last week the Chancellor announced that land for 160,000 homes has been identified by Government Departments. We need to look at whether those Departments, both in London and nationally, and public bodies and local authorities should have some sort of duty for what they do with surplus land. I will take away the comments made by my hon. Friends and, if they will bear with me, I might come back to the matter later in Committee.

[Stephen Hammond]

I always have confidence in my hon. Friend the Minister. I am very hopeful that the London Land Commission will bring forward a lot of land. I hope that when he reviews matters in a year’s time he will look at powers to force co-operation on some of the public bodies that are dragging their heels. That is not for now, but I know that he will want to look into it.

[Peter Dowd]

It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman named names in terms of the authorities that are dragging their feet, because there is a danger that all public sector organisations are tarred with the same brush. We really need to be forensic about this.

[Stephen Hammond]

I can be very forensic if the hon. Gentleman likes. The NHS took eight years to bring a site in Wimbledon to development. I am sure I will not need the help of my London colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South, to provide other examples. I am very hopeful that the London Land Commission will work, and I am pleased that the Minister is its joint chairman.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I can add another example. There is a site in my constituency called Cane Hill, which was owned by the NHS for many years but has stood derelict for about 20 years. It was transferred to the GLA a few years ago, and progress has been rapid—650 houses are now being built. That could have happened 20 years ago.

[Stephen Hammond]

Excellent. That is another great example. I am sure that the joint chairman of the London Land Commission is listening to those examples with relish and that, when he conducts his review in a year’s time, he will want to ensure that there is a duty to co-operate.

I listened to the Minister carefully, and I follow his logic about the need for oversight on some of my amendments. He was extremely kind in granting me some time when I was preparing the amendments, but I hope he will grant me more time before Report. I accept his point that the Secretary of State needs oversight and that neither the Secretary of State nor the Mayor will be directly making an application, but surely the powers in London are similar and, because of the way in which the Localism Act 2011 and the GLA Acts work, amendment 240 would merely be giving the Mayor similar powers to the Secretary of State. I hope the Minister might be persuaded to have another look at that prior to Report. I take his points on a number of my amendments, but there is one point that I hope he will reconsider. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I beg to move amendment 232, in clause 102, page 46, line 14, leave out “not”.

This amendment would ensure that permission in principle expires when the plan that created it expires.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I think I have even more grave concerns about the clause and how it will affect the planning system than I did before the Minister spoke. Actually, I would like to seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment so that I can consult with people more widely in the planning sector about what this could mean in practice, particularly for local planning authorities, and what costs they will incur. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

[Stephen Hammond]

I want to raise two issues with the Minister, which I think are appropriate to raise under this clause but would not have been appropriate when discussing the amendments to which I was speaking a few moments ago. One of the issues follows on directly from what my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton said. The thrust of the Bill is to ensure that housing suppliers build more housing. He spoke about how the Bill could help small and medium-sized developers.

Many of us, during our times as Members of Parliament, will have had people come to us who are frustrated with the application process and the lengthy time of it, notwithstanding the inability to pay for a pre-application process. I ask the Minister to think about whether there is a way of writing into the Bill a fast-track or accelerated process for small and medium-sized enterprises with small pieces of land, for which they could pay a fee. That would perhaps enable smaller pockets of land to be developed and help smaller industries. I ask the Minister to think about that.

The clause seems to open up some real possibilities. As a London MP, I know that there are pieces of land that do not fall wholly within one borough. In fact, this time next week my local planning committee will decide on an application that is right on the boundary between two boroughs. Is there a way of allowing those sorts of applications not to go to a particular borough? For instance, I know of a London borough that is very slow in bringing forward applications, while the borough next door has a reputation for being extraordinarily efficient. Some plots of land for housing development are on the boundary between boroughs.

The hon. Member for City of Durham, when speaking on her new clauses, talked about sustainable communities and local transport links. In some instances, the boundary line between boroughs is purely arbitrary, and that must be true of other parts of the country, too. Will my hon. Friend the Minister consider allowing applicants to apply to what they regard as the more efficient authority?

[Brandon Lewis]

In speaking on clause stand part, I hope I can give some more clarity to the hon. Member for City of Durham and address her queries and amendments.

Planning permission in principle will give applicants greater certainty that the suitability of land for development is agreed so they have the confidence to invest in the technical detail without fear that the fundamental principle of development will be reopened. The technical detail stage will provide the opportunity to assess the detailed design of the scheme to ensure that any impacts are appropriately mitigated and that the contributions to essential infrastructure, for example, are secured. If the technical details are not acceptable, the local authority can refuse the application. A community infrastructure levy will still be payable when an authority has a charging schedule in place.

Up-front clarity on the principle of development will free local authorities and communities to concentrate their efforts on the technical details to ensure high standards and quality development. I stress that the areas that are open to planning permission in principle are aimed at small developers and will be driven by the local community.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon raised two queries that link to this issue. He asked about making the process quicker and more transparent and efficient for people. He spoke about fast-tracking planning options and having a product that local authorities can offer to small and medium-sized developers for a faster process. That is a very interesting model. He also spoke about having a more competitive planning process and allowing local authorities to bid against each other to take on planning applications, which fits with the ethos behind the Bill. We want a more transparent, faster, efficient, locally led system that gives confidence and speed to the community and developers. If he will bear with me, I will take those points away and come back to him later in the Bill process.

The clause contains an enabling power that will allow us to set out procedural details, such as the process that local authorities must follow when granting permission in principle, in secondary legislation. We will consult on procedural matters very shortly.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 102 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 6

Permission in principle for development of land: minor and consequential amendments