Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Twenty Fifth sitting)

Debate between Tim Farron and Greg Smith

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th October 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Greg Smith]

There is clearly a game afoot, whereby many developers up and down the land acquire planning permission, but do not build out what they have received planning permission for. I stand to be corrected, but I believe that around a million homes that have planning permission are not being built out. New clause 18 would shut down some of the loopholes that are exploited; for example, if a trench is dug, or a single pipe is laid, or something very superficial to the development is started, that can satisfy the planning authorities that the development has started, even though not a single brick may follow, or certainly not in the timeframe the community expects.

Particularly pertinent is the ability under new clause 20 for a planning authority to revoke or modify planning permission where the development has not been built, or started. The community is expecting 10, 50, 1,000 houses or whatever, but the developer is simply playing a game, in order to increase the land value for resale later, or because they want to sit on the permission and distort property values in the a particular area, or for some other reason.

In our planning system, there should be an presumption that once a developer has been granted planning permission, they need to build the development. There will always be reasons why a development might not start immediately—force majeure or whatever—and we need to be conscious of that, but if a developer has been given planning permission, they should build or face a penalty. New clause 21 goes that little bit further: it would make council tax payable on sites that have been granted planning permission. That would give the developer a financial incentive, shall we say, to get on with the development, because if they are attracting council tax on each new home given planning permission, that will quickly rack up, certainly in many parts of the country, to many thousands of pounds per housing unit per year.

The new clauses are designed to get the planning system to work as it is meant to do. It is about ensuring that planning permission means something. When it is granted, communities that have consented to it should see the product—the homes and the commercial developments—that they want.

[Tim Farron]

These interesting new clauses highlight two issues about which I am particularly concerned—issues to which the hon. Gentleman alluded. They are very helpful new clauses, and I am grateful to him for tabling them. He is right that, over the past decade, roughly a million properties granted planning permission have not been built. That tells us something. When the Government consider growth and the need for new developments, they think they just need to loosen planning regulations. Well, the answer to that is that 1 million new homes have obtained planning permission but have not been built. Let us focus on making sure that those developments get delivered, rather than on reducing the regulations, because that tends to lead to the wrong sort of homes in the wrong sort of places.

Another issue affects tens of thousands—but not a million—houses. It is when developments begin but are not completed. That may be for a range of reasons, such as genuine business failure. It may also be due to a disreputable developer; we have seen plenty of those. I think of one in my constituency, a serial bankrupt, and it seems obvious to me that in their case, we are talking about a deliberate business tactic. Developments are either completely or partially abandoned. That is a waste of time and money, and it creates eyesores for communities, when the development could have provided nice, decent homes for people to live in.

Would the Government consider going further than the new clauses suggest and applying existing legislation, namely empty dwelling management orders? They allow local authorities to commandeer empty properties after a period. It should be noted, however, that the period is seven years, which is far too long, but we should be able to commandeer developments that were begun but not completed for public use and public good. I can think of one house in the Kendal Parks area of Kendal that has been uncompleted for 20 years. It is an eyesore, and damaging to the local community. It could be a decent home for someone. I can also think of a whole development in Burton-in-Kendal that has been poorly managed and has fallen out of the hands of one set of owners into those of another. The ability of local authorities to commandeer properties for the public good would be of huge benefit, not just to my community but to every Committee member’s community.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Debate between Tim Farron and Greg Smith

Committee stage
Tuesday 12th July 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Tim Farron]

This is an important amendment, as is the one in the name of the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet. I will not go into a great amount of detail on this matter as we talked in earlier debates about the motivation for devolution. Who is it for? I am hoping to be persuaded otherwise, but my suspicion is that the legislation is mostly about trying to make local government a more efficient agency. What we really ought to be talking about is developing and delivering greater levels of power and control to local communities. Who is the Bill for? Who are development plans for? Is this even devolution, or is it just a form of delegation—tidying up the process to help Whitehall?

Plans have to mean something. One of the reasons I suspect some authorities do not have the plans that they should have, or that their plans are not as up to date as they ought to be, is that there is a lack of confidence in them. As we said earlier, there is a belief among communities that: “We may set out our priorities, but they will be overridden because they are in conflict with national policy, or the Government simply will not stand with us as a local community if we seek to enforce zero-carbon homes, to maximise the number of affordable homes being built or to ensure that infrastructure is provided for developments before they are made.”

There will be some who say, “If you give local communities the ultimate power over development plans, things won’t happen at all.” I think that is baloney. The evidence is that that is not true. If we give communities the ability to specify and enforce their priorities—for example, for the huge majority of homes being built to be affordable and zero-carbon, and to have the infrastructure provided for them in advance—we will find that those communities are much more likely to be willing to play ball in the first place. It is the opposite of nimbyism. I can name sites in Coniston, Hawkshead and Grasmere where people have fought to get hold of sites to provide affordable homes, because they were given agency. They were in the national park, where there was more power as a consequence.

That is why this question is important. Do we want to see the Bill as being about empowering local government, and therefore national Government having to step back and genuinely trust communities? Or are the Government going to simply see the Bill as an opportunity to exert more control, just in a slightly more efficient way? If the Government refuse amendments at least of this sort, then we will know that the Bill is not about devolution, but delegation, and that it is not for the communities or for levelling up, but for the convenience of Whitehall.

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

I will not take up much of the Committee’s time on this issue, because we have already explored many of the key points that go to the nub of why these two amendments—57, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet, which I have been happy to sign and support; and 86, in the name of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich—are so essential.

I spoke on Second Reading to say that the Bill was fundamentally good, but that it needed some considerable polishing. This section of the Bill is one of those elements that, in my opinion, just has to change. None of the points I am going to make will come as any surprise to the Minister, given that, up to four days ago, he was my Whip—he has heard it all before. I do not doubt the cartwheels of delight across Nuneaton when the Minister, having been relieved of whipping me, found himself on the Bill Committee, where there are indeed a number of amendments that I have supported or tabled myself.

This group of amendments goes to the heart of whether we are serious about localism and the principles of subsidiary, or whether the default position is still “Whitehall knows best.” There are countless examples of developments across my constituency—this is before I even get on to High Speed 2—where the local council has said no, parish councils and town councils have said no, and the case against them has stacked up with the local plan, be it in the former Wycombe district or the former Aylesbury Vale district. They have even contravened the NPPF.

However, by the time those developments have got to the inspector, the rubber stamp has come down in the opposite direction. As the shadow Minister said, it is already a problem, and I fear that the clause will seek only to bake and lock into the legislation the ability—no matter the cause or the reason and no matter how strongly a community, neighbourhood, parish, town, borough or metropolitan authority feels—of Whitehall to come down and impose a different will on those neighbourhoods and communities.

I give the example of the village of Ickford in my constituency, which is to the very west of Buckinghamshire on the border with Oxfordshire. Every single person in that village knew that that land currently under development floods—not once in a blue moon, but four or five times every autumn and winter. The people who back on to that land know that it floods, because it floods their back gardens, too. The people who drive through that village know that it floods, because the roads flood when that field floods. Locally, that development from Deanfield Homes was turned down because, among other reasons, the land floods. By the time the inspector got his hands on it, it was approved with a peculiar statement that the development had a chance of flooding once every 100 years. Within days of that judgment being passed—guess what? The land had indeed flooded. I know, because I stood in it, and the water lapped up to the top of my Wellington boots.

I give that as an example of why local control and decision making must have primacy in planning, because local people, local councils, local parishes and towns—or whatever tier of local government—actually know what happens in their own back yard. They understand it. They see and feel and breathe and touch the problems that any proposed developments could come across. Therefore, as we look to the summer recess and to coming back in September to finish the Bill’s passage through Committee before it gets to Report, I really urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the real implications of baking into the Bill the position that national planning policy can overrule local people’s decision making.

If we are serious about making the Bill truly about localism, we need to seriously amend clause 83. As the great Ronald Reagan once said:

“There is no limit to the amount of good you can do if you don’t care who gets the credit.”

I really do not mind which amendment is chosen, because fundamentally they do the same thing, but I urge the Minister please to reflect on this serious, fundamental point that underpins the Bill and to see if we can find a better way of ensuring that it is local decisions that are made, and not with national overriding.

Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Tim Farron and Greg Smith

Report stage
Monday 14th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Tim Farron]

Yes. Often rivers can meet an acceptable standard but in reality not be healthy places, particularly as regards biodiversity and wildlife. The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point and makes the case as to why the increased scrutiny that the new clause would bring about is that much more important.

The ambition of the Environment Act, which was given Royal Assent last year, is open-ended. There are no meaningful targets or timescales to prevent water companies from dumping raw sewage into our rivers, harming fish and other animals. In 2020, water companies made £2.2 billion in profits. At the same time, as I said, they were dumping sewage in our waterways on 400,000 separate occasions. What kind of accountability is that? What kind of justice is that? What kind of impact is that having on our wildlife? The new clause would expose that.

Between 2018 and 2021, there were only 11 prosecutions of water companies for dumping sewage in our lakes and rivers. United Utilities, which serves Cumbria and the rest of the north-west, was responsible for seven out of the 10 longest sewage leaks in 2020, but, outrageously, was not fined even once. Despite the damage done to the ecology and animal life in rivers such as the Leven, Crake, Brathay, Kent, Lune, Sprint, Mint and Gowan, discharges are permitted either because Government will not stop them or because hardly any of the offenders are ever meaningfully prosecuted. The meres, tarns, waters and lakes of our lake district are all fed by rivers into which raw sewage can be legally dumped. I am particularly concerned about the ecology of Windermere and the failure to take sufficient action to protect the animal and plant life that is so dependent on England’s largest and most popular lake. The new clause would hold Government and water companies to account so that our wildlife and our biodiversity is protected.

New clause 6 addresses the impact of trade deals on the welfare of sentient animals. This country has concluded trade deals with Australia and New Zealand, and any scrutiny of those deals is now effectively meaningless because the Government have already signed them. Yet the impact on sentient animals will be enormous. Free trade is vital to liberty, prosperity and peace, but trade that is not fair is not free at all. These trade deals are not fair on animals and not fair on the British farmers who care for our animals. In Australia, for example, huge-scale ranch farming means the loss of many times more animals than in the UK because of the absence of the close husbandry that we find on British family farms. Some 40% of beef in Australia involves the use of hormones that are not allowed in the United Kingdom. Cattle can be transported in Australia for up to 48 hours in the heat without food or water. These are clearly lower animal welfare standards. By signing these deals without real scrutiny, the Government have endorsed that cruelty and enabled it to prosper at our farmers’ expense. Lower standards are cheaper, so these deals give a competitive advantage to imported animal products that have reached market with poorer animal welfare, thus undermining British farmers who practise higher animal welfare standards. That is why the new clause is important—because it seeks to hold Ministers to account and to limit how much they can get away with sacrificing the welfare of sentient animals at home and abroad in order to achieve a politically useful deal.

Despite this, this Bill has much to commend it. However, the new clauses would allow the Government to look the British people in the eye and say that they were prepared to take on powerful vested interests in order to protect animals and our wider environment. In seeking to press new clause 5 to a vote, I urge Members in all parts of the House not to take the side of the most powerful against those creatures that are the most defenceless.

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

I rise to speak in favour of amendment 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), and new clause 4, amendments 3 to 22, and new schedule 1, which are in my name.

From the outset, and for the avoidance of all doubt, I am not, through any of these amendments, arguing against animals being sentient or being able to feel pain. After all, the sentience of animals has long been recognised in UK law, as evidenced by animal welfare legislation passed over the course of nearly 200 years. The purpose of amendment 2 and the other amendments in my name is to help the Government to avoid the main dangers and unforeseen consequences posed by the undefined aspects of the creation of the new Animal Sentience Committee. Crucially, under the unamended version of the Bill, it remains unclear who will be on this committee and what direct powers it will have. The unamended Bill’s draft terms of reference seem to suggest that the committee could have a role in scrutinising the substance of policies and not just the processes that led to those decisions being made. The Secretary of State will have the final sign-off on the committee’s composition, but what mechanisms will be in place to ensure that it is made up of dispassionate and genuine scientific animal experts and not ideologically driven animal rights activists with political agendas?

The amendments would protect against the Bill clumsily becoming a Trojan horse for what I would consider an extreme agenda that the Government could live to regret in years to come. Indeed, passionate supporters of the committee’s creation have already talked publicly of its not excluding animal rights extremist groups such as PETA. My amendments, especially amendments 3, 10, 11, 12, 18 and 21, new clause 4 and new schedule 1, suggest some statutory structure for the committee, how appointments to it are to be made, and how it might operate. The amendments would clarify that the committee is concerned with the process by which current policy is being formulated and not with policy decisions taken or suggesting policy changes, whether proposing new policy or changes to existing policy.

The amendments would also help to address the question of the Bill’s retrospective effect. The current drafting, confirmed by the draft terms of reference, would allow the committee to report on past policy decisions. Without my amendments, there will be no limit to how far back the committee can look, which would, in practice, allow it to draw attention to policies that have already been decided and implemented, or are being implemented. I fear that in doing so, it could start to drive a policy agenda of its own. Far from ensuring that in the process of policy making all due regard is had to animal welfare, it could raise policy issues that are not under current consideration or have already been decided, or decisions made before Ministers were expected to take account of animal sentience.

The current draft terms provide little clarity, and there is little if anything binding on Ministers, whether current or future. To rely on terms of reference to provide detail in these areas is not desirable for a statutory body, as they are non-binding and can be changed at will without any parliamentary oversight.